Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 9 December 2014
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Notice of Motion
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Notice of Motion
Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at City Hall, Little Malop Street in Geelong.
Local Government Performance Reporting Framework Indicators Progress Update
Consideration of Tender Submissions for Tender T1400034 – Provision of Plant Hire Services
In accordance with 11C(2) of the City of Greater Geelong Act 1993, Council must elect a Deputy Mayor upon the office becoming vacant.
Accordingly, nominations are called for the position of Deputy Mayor for a twelve month period.
Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr Fisher seconded –
That Council elect a Deputy Mayor for the period of twelve months.
Carried.
Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -
That Cr Harwood be nominated as Deputy Mayor for the period of twelve months.
Cr Farrell moved, Cr Fisher seconded -
That Cr Heagney be nominated as Deputy Mayor for the period of twelve months.
Cr Farrell moved, Cr Richards seconded –
That Standing Orders be suspended to discuss the candidates.
Carried.
Standing Orders were suspended at 7:20pm
Standing Orders were resumed at 7:49pm
A vote by show of hands declared Cr Heagney elected as Deputy Mayor for a period of 12 months.
Divison Requested:
For: Crs Heagney, Ellis, Fisher, Macdonald, Richards, Farrell, Irvine
Against: Crs Ansett, S Kontelj, Nelson, E Kontelj, Lyons, Harwood
Portfolio: |
Governance - Cr Lyons (Mayor) |
Source: |
Community Services - Health & Local Laws |
General Manager: |
Jenny McMahon |
Index Reference |
Legal/Legislation/Local Laws |
To present the draft Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 and its appendices (previously provided with briefing papers) for final adoption and to seek Council’s resolution for completion of the formal procedure to make the new Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014.
In reviewing its General Local Law 2005, Council undertook a preliminary feedback process involving internal and external stakeholders. Information received from this process was used to prepare a draft Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 for Council consideration.
At its 9th September 2014 Meeting, Council considered the draft Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 and resolved that Council ‘commence the statutory process for the making of a local law and endorses the draft Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 as a proposed local law for public exhibition and submissions under Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989’.
A Public Notice was published in the Geelong Advertiser on the 20 September 2014, advising the community of Council’s intention to adopt a Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law and inviting submissions by 4.00pm on the 23rd October 2014 in accordance with Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989. Submitters were able to lodge submission in writing or on line and view the proposed Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 at various Council building locations.
4 written submissions were received and are listed in Appendix 4.
Internal review identified the need to consolidate supporting procedures, work instructions, systems and databases. This will lead to a fair, transparent and consistent approach to compliance, featuring a focus on education, awareness, mediation, resolution and enforcement. The Health and Local Laws department will play a lead role in this regard and support other departments with compliance matters.
Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr Harwood seconded -
That Council:
notes the Local Law Community Impact Statement (Appendix 2), the Local Law Procedure Manual (Appendix 3) and copies of all s.223 submissions (Appendix 4);
having considered submissions in accordance with Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, revokes the existing General Local Law 2005 and makes the new Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 attached to this Report as Appendix 1;
affixes the common seal to the new Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014;
gives Public Notice of the making of Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 in the Geelong Advertiser, in the Victoria Government Gazette, and on Council’s website;
forwards a copy of Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 to the Minister for Local Government, in accordance with Section 119(4) of the Local Government Act 1989;
thank the submitters for their comprehensive and informative submissions, and writes to the submitters advising of Council's decision to make the new Local Law and the reasons for it, which are to be found in the purposes of the new Local Law.
Carried
Through the preliminary feedback and a formal submissions process, the Greater Geelong City Council General Local Law 2005 has been redrafted, taking into consideration the feedback and submissions and implementing many best practice requirements in a new (draft) Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 (Appendix1).
In accordance with the Local Government Act 1989, a Council Local Law cannot be extended beyond 10 years. The City of Greater Geelong’s General Local Law 2005 expires in February 2015. The State Government’s ‘Guidelines for Local Laws Manual 2010’ provide new best practice procedures for making a Local Law including the key best practice values of being:
Accessible, Accountable, Compliant, Consistent, Current, Efficient, Enforceable, Necessary and Transparent.
A formal consultation process was undertaken during September and October 2014 inviting people to make submissions relating to the proposed Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law during the exhibition period. Four (4) persons responded with only one (1) of those requesting to present his submission in person to Council. This request was subsequently retracted after the submitter realised that his request has been addressed in the new local law and as a result, a Council Submission Review Panel was not required to be established.
The development of the proposed Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 has been informed by an extensive community feedback process during May and June 2014 involving public forums, a web questionnaire, interviews with community members, groups and government agencies and a formal S.223 Submissions Review process during September and October 2014.
Four submissions were received which are listed in Appendix 4 along with the officer responses to such queries. Such queries include;
Questioning the use of certain words such as ‘alarm’ and ‘inconvenienced’ with respect to persons potentially affected by wheeled non-motorised recreational vehicles;
The inclusion of a compulsory purchase order for abandoned properties;
The time restrictions and limitations associated with the mooring of boats on jetties for short term and long term scenarios; in particular the lack of enabling legislation about camping on boats during events organised by established boating clubs and associations; and
Banning persons from feeding wild birds.
Response to these queries are listed in Attachment 4 and it should be noted that either the proposed local law satisfactorily addresses the issue through intent and purpose or the matter is subject to other legislative controls, such as the cases of feeding wild birds and abandoned properties.
The new draft Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014 proposes 10 new provisions related to non-smoking areas, alcohol consumption allowed in parks and foreshores in daylight (and permit for footpath traders), controls for fireworks, controls on shipping containers, controls on unauthorised occupation of Council land, unreasonable interference with quiet enjoyment (replacing nuisance), events permits, individual animal plans for aggressive dogs, parking on reserves and a law enabling extended prohibition from entry to Council facilities.
Other changes include revisions to the numbers and types of animals allowed, building and waste management laws, mowing of vacant city allotments, strengthening of dilapidated buildings law and the use of Local Law permits for nature strips and use of reserves.
The Local Law Community Impact Statement (Appendix 2) is a mandatory requirement for every new Local Law that details the process undertaken in reviewing the law, including community consultation and analyses new Local Laws by purpose and intent, alternative approaches, comparative municipalities, cost benefit analysis, national competition policy, human rights charter and a risk analysis.
A new Local Law Procedure Manual (Appendix 3) is incorporated by reference (i.e. is part of the Local Law) and includes guidelines for officer discretions. Unlike the Local Law itself (which requires a full review procedure to amend), this document will be relatively easy for Council to change by simple resolution and gazettal on a needs basis.
The Local Law Review will impact some aspects of Council’s Environment Policy as it affects the management of Council assets and community amenity in many areas. Local Laws are used to control waste collection, protect Council assets (including water ways, roadside vegetation and Council reserves) and other aspects of private and public land use, such as camping, dog litter, motorbikes and so on. The review will have minimal impact on Council’s internal energy and resource use.
The cost of the review is included in the 2013/14 and 2014/15 Health and Local Laws Departmental budget. The review is expected to have a total cost of approximately $40,000, which includes the acquisition of specialist technical advice, a range of legal review processes and mandatory public advertising.
Current approved budget.
The Local Law Review when completed will not impact Council’s permit fees and charges income. While the Local Law authorises permit fees, actual fee amounts are set in Council’s budgetary process.
The review will impact the very limited penalty income derived from breaches of the Local Law. Penalties have been reviewed and increased, reflecting changes in community expectations and levels of risk to public safety and public assets. However it should be noted that the maximum penalty under any Local Law is fixed by statute at $2000 (20 penalty units) and unlike penalties in other legislation, this amount is not subject annual indexation.
Infringement Notice penalties are also reviewed, which, in accordance with best practice should be no more than 20-25% of the maximum penalty. These changes are not anticipated to be financially significant within the total Departmental budget.
The Local Law Review will not impact future expenditure in any significant way. Some minor internal Council documentation changes are anticipated in several departments, but these should be ‘in the normal course of business’ expenses. Training of Local Law officers and other staff in the new Local Law will be a minor, once up expense allowed for in staff training budgets.
The new Local Law will comply with the Local Government Act 1989 and a range of State and Commonwealth legislation. The draft law has been checked by Council’s solicitors.
As a result of the review, a number of documents used in several departments may need to change. This is to enhance legal authorisation and to minimise risk and liability.
The need to consolidate supporting procedures and work instructions as well as systems and databases has been identified through this process. Consolidation will lead to a fair, transparent and consistent approach to compliance, featuring a focus on education, awareness, mediation, resolution and enforcement
Changes to alcohol consumption laws are consistent with current Council policy and with the work being done to review that policy. Change may occur for new footpath trader alcohol permits for extended liquor licences on footpaths.
This review aligns with City Plan 2013-2017 under:
Community Wellbeing Objective: ‘Healthy Together Geelong: to enhance health, well being and quality of life of Greater Geelong communities’ including the provision of ‘safe, hazard and nuisance free environments’;
Growing Our Economy Objective: ‘Securing Geelong’s economic future’;
Sustainable Built and Natural Environment Objective: ‘Partnering with our community to protect and enhance our natural ecosystems’.
There are no direct or indirect interests by officers engaged in this report.
The new mandatory Local Law Community Impact Statement includes a risk analysis of each new Local Law.
The review of the Local Law focuses on reducing risks to community safety and amenity, and to Council assets. It also endeavours to reduce ratepayer liability in relation to Council’s activities, procedures and legal authority.
A Local Law has considerable impact on the community. It not only protects amenity, but also regulates certain business, building and individual activities on both Council and private land. The social impact of the draft Local Laws is discussed in the new mandatory Local Law Community Impact Statement.
A number of the changes in the draft Local Law are a result of changes in community attitude. Allowing the consumption of alcohol in Council reserves and foreshores during daylight is an example. This received strong community support. At the same time Vic Police are empowered to reverse this approval if the situation warrants due to poor and unruly conduct/behaviour.
Unauthorised Occupation of Council Land is designed to assist Council protect ratepayer assets from unfair and unreasonable annexation by community members while potentially permitting community gardens once appropriate policy is developed and adopted in the future.
The smoke-free areas Local Law, sets up a fair procedure so that Council may create enforceable non smoking areas to enhance community amenity and health, and has been endorsed by legal advice.
Individual Animal Plans for proven aggressive dogs is a measure that fills a gap in existing laws and better protects the community, especially children from dogs known to have an aggressive tendency.
All the proposed Local Law changes are designed to improve or protect the safety and amenity values of the Geelong community.
Part of the new mandatory Local Law Community Impact Statement is an analysis of the new Local Law under the Human Rights Charter and the National Competition Policy.
Consultation Plan
Community consultation was a significant part of this review. A detailed report on community consultation forms part of the mandatory Local Law Community Impact Statement.
The community consultation plan had two stages of public forums. The first stage consisted of 3 public forums in Geelong, Drysdale and Norlane on 19thand 23rdof May. The second stage was 3 public forums which occurred on Oct 6thand 9thin Drysdale, Norlane and Geelong West. Both stages included advertising in the local press and on Council’s website.
There were also been numerous one-on-one community stakeholder meetings and interviews, as well as consultation with government agencies, such as Parks Victoria and Victoria Police.
An on-line web questionnaire on Council’s website was available between 8 May 2014 and 6 June 2014.
Lastly, the draft local law was endorsed for exhibition and Submissions on 9 September Council Meeting, was gazetted on 18 September and placed in the Geelong Advertiser. Public Submissions closed on 23 October 2014 (35 days).
Issued raised by the Community
During the first community forums in May, 20 people raised a number of concerns. These concerns were in three categories:
Problems around use of reserves and public spaces: glass on foreshores, trip hazards on footpaths, bicycle speed on shared paths, dogs at large on shared paths, locked public toilets in reserves, placement of alfresco dining tables and chairs, smoking in public places especially in alfresco dining, and very strong representation in favour of nature strip community gardens.
Problems surrounding dilapidated buildings, including unsightliness drug use, crime, arson and behavioural problems. The CFA and an ambulance officer reinforced this perception.
Other non-local law issues such as: the lack of off-leash parks, cat curfew, insufficient disabled and city parking, summer pop-up retailers, street plantings, recyclables waste education, shipping containers, road markings, reserve maintenance.
Analysis of the web-based questionnaire showed there were 74 respondents. While some individual issues were raised, such as banning fake grass on nature-strips and the merits of miniature pigs as pets, statistically the list below shows the most mentioned issues.
(The percentage shown is the number of respondents who commented on the issue divided by the total number of respondents. Results below 5% are not listed.) Respondents supported:
Nature Strip Gardens (70%),
Non-Smoking Laws (34%), including prohibition in Afresco Dining Areas (20%)
Maintaining or Increasing Pet Numbers (15%),
Controlling or Improving Dilapidated Buildings (12%),
Increasing Dog Litter Enforcement (11%),
Allowing Greater Alcohol In Public (11%),
Increasing Protection of Council Trees and other Assets (9%),
Retaining Controls on Fencing and Litter from Building Sites (9%),
Improving Procedures to Control Barking Dogs (8%), (not a local law matter)
Requesting A Regular Hard Rubbish Collection (5.4%), (not a local law matter)
Requesting a Ban on All Cats (5%), (not a local law matter)
Supportive of Alfresco Dining (5%).
Some of the many single issues raised included: poultry housing too close to neighbours; against nature strip gardens (4%); overgrown footpaths and tripping hazards; increase heritage protection; camping on private land; wants braziers on open decks; tip fees are too high; dogs at large; ban dangerous and aggressive dogs; ban private fireworks; motorbikes on private land; and personal trainers in parks.
The one-on-one direct individual community interviews included conservation groups, the ratepayers association, a real estate agent, a trader group, local farmer, local landscape architect, organic gardeners, tourism association, and government agencies such as Parks Victoria and Victoria Police.
The second round of public forums, although well-advertised, attracted only 3 attendees. Issues discussed included personal trainers occupying parks; aggressive dogs; non-smoking areas; nature strip gardens; and increasing municipal tree cover.
Not directly concerning the draft Local Law, there has also been strong feedback from many stakeholders recommending Council invest more in enforcement, especially in relation to dogs at large, managing dilapidated buildings, protecting persons and children in parks and on shared pathways from dogs and speeding cyclists, dog litter in streets, dogs at large, improving barking dog procedures, opening existing toilets in public parks, and on issues of such as illegal fireworks and non-smoking areas (if introduced).
Portfolio: |
Arts and Culture - Cr Richards |
Source |
Community Services - Arts and Culture |
General Manager: |
Jenny McMahon |
Index Reference |
Subject: Arts and Culture /Reports – Arts and Culture / Reports |
The purpose of this report is to recommend a preferred option for the redevelopment of the Geelong Gallery and make the preferred option available for community comment.
The Gallery forms a pivotal component of Geelong’s Cultural Precinct and has been identified as having the greatest potential as an arts/cultural tourism attractor for Geelong and the region. The Cultural Precinct and Geelong Gallery are also a key focus for activating the heart of Geelong in the Central Geelong Action Plan.
The Geelong Gallery’s possesses one of the finest regional collections in Australia with a number of acknowledged national treasures contained within its 2,200m2 building.
The Gallery’s capacity to contribute to the region’s economic and cultural renewal is undermined by its current physical limitations of space and layout, severely constraining its ability to properly showcase the collection, and to attract high quality large touring exhibitions as well as to develop major in-house exhibitions.
In 2014 Council and the Geelong Gallery were successful in securing funding from the State Government under Regional Development Victoria to undertake a Redevelopment Business Case. This is essential to determine the future options for the Gallery’s development and to provide a platform for possible future funding bids.
As part of this process, the needs, demands and future development/expansion options for the Geelong Gallery have been investigated in order for it to achieve a ‘sector best practise’ standard. Costs, benefits, risks and opportunities have also been analysed for the Gallery to deliver on its potential to be the major arts tourism attractor for the Cultural Precinct, Central Geelong and the G21 region.
A benchmarking study helped guide the demand and spatial requirements. The study identified 5,400m2 is required for the Geelong Gallery to adequately service the visitors and residents of Greater Geelong and the region, a region experiencing and projecting significant population growth.
Ten options were assessed (Attachment One: Summary Table Geelong Gallery Redevelopment Options). The assessment included a range of development options in the current location, as well as alternative locations, with spatial massing designs and costs estimates undertaken for each.
The analysis identifies that Option 4 delivers the best value for investment. In this option the Gallery expands eastwards and upwards into the laneway and meeting/conference rooms of City Hall (note: space lost to Council from City Hall is re-claimed through an additional story/s).
Option 4 requires a one off total capital investment of $39.8M with an increase in recurrent operating costs. It would provide the Gallery with sufficient space to both develop and secure major (‘blockbuster’) ticketed exhibitions, increase the quantity of collection items on display, develop its shop offering and a restaurant and provide crucial preparation and storage areas.
As part of any such development, the Gallery would need to undergo a fundamental repositioning, substantially broadening and deepening its audience profile. This is anticipated to lead to a tripling of annual visits from around 60,000 to up to 200,000 bringing significant financial and job benefits to Geelong’s economy.
Cr Richards moved, Cr Ansett seconded -
That Council:
note Option 4, that is the Gallery expanding eastwards and upwards into the laneway and meeting/conference rooms of City Hall, is the preferred option for the redevelopment of the Geelong Gallery;
make Option 4 available for community comment as the preferred option for the Gallery’s redevelopment.
Carried
The Geelong Cultural Precinct Masterplan (December 2007) recognised the Precinct had significant potential as a major contributor to Central Geelong, with associated cultural, social and economic benefits to the G21 region.
All the major cultural institutions within the Precinct have had business cases completed to determine best options for their future, with the exception of the Geelong Gallery. This has led to funding of the new, integrated Geelong Library & Heritage Centre, currently under construction, and the major upgrade for GPAC, with Stage 2 now a certainty for development.
In 2014 Council and the Geelong Gallery were successful in securing funding from the State Government under Regional Development Victoria to undertake a Redevelopment Business Case, essential to determine the future options for the Gallery’s development.
The process of doing this type of Business Case is rigorous. The Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance standard format investigating costs, benefits, risks and opportunities has been used. The process positions Council and the Geelong Gallery Board well for determining the best option/s for the Gallery’s future as well as providing a platform for possible future funding bids.
Opportunities for the Geelong Gallery’s future direction were considered through a process of demographic, existing and potential market opportunities, gap and SWOT analysis. A set of eight objectives for the project were established.
A benchmarking study with other galleries identified 5,400m2 was required for the Geelong Gallery to adequately service the residents of Greater Geelong and the region, as well as enabling it to develop into a significant cultural tourism draw-card.
As a result of this process, ten options (including do nothing) were identified for consideration. All options were evaluated against the eight objectives and the additional consideration of achievability – important in the context of likely funding constraints for both capital and operation. The ten options are presented in Attachment 1.
Out of the ten options, Option 4 has been identified as the preferred option. In this option the Gallery expands eastwards and upwards into the laneway and meeting/conference rooms of City Hall (note: space lost to Council from City Hall is re-claimed through an additional story/s). The existing Gallery site of 2,200 m2, plus a new 3,200m2 addition made up of multi floor expansion into the laneway – including 700m2 of the contemporary conference area of City Hall – would provide the Gallery with a total of 5,400m2. The option includes an allowance to replace the 700m2 of City Hall to ensure Council business is not disadvantaged. In this option potential also exists for future Gallery expansion if/when required.
The remaining options have both positives and negatives but following analysis and weighed against the project objectives, Option 4 delivers the best value for investment.
Option 4 requires a one off total capital investment of $39.8M with an increase in recurrent operating costs in the order of $775,000. To realise the capital development, investment will be required from Federal, State and Local Government as well as the Gallery.
As part of any such development, the Gallery would need to undergo a fundamental repositioning, substantially broadening and deepening its audience profile. The re-development would provide the Gallery with sufficient space to both develop and secure major (‘blockbuster’) ticketed exhibitions, increase the quantity of collection items on display, develop its shop offering and a restaurant and provide crucial preparation and storage areas. This is anticipated to lead to a tripling of annual visits, from around 60,000 to up to 200,000, having a significant impact on Geelong’s economy. The Gallery Board and staff are already extending their programming initiatives to respond to the growing population, to reach a wider audience, including education, and to further attract the tourism market. As part of a redevelopment, the Gallery would need to secure and develop major (‘block buster’) exhibitions and evolve other programming initiatives. The Geelong Gallery is confident it can make a significant contribution to an increased programming budget, specifically major exhibitions through fundraising, corporate and business sponsorships and the sourcing of grants.
Option 4 brings direct economic benefits and job creation. The construction phase would provide an additional 67 regional jobs (direct and indirect). An additional 51 ongoing jobs (annually) would be created once a redeveloped Gallery is operational. Once completed the project would cause regional output to increase (conservatively) by $13.3M annually (direct and indirect). Over the first ten years it would contribute $133M to the Geelong economy.
As the next phase of the process, it is recommended community comment is sought on the vision of Option 4. It will be important to ensure the spatial representation is not interpreted as any form of design, but purely an indication of how much space is needed. Following the Community Comment period a final report will be presented to Council.
The development of the Business Case included a review of current environmental issues as well as consideration of best practice for future development. Council’s Sustainable Buildings Policy has been referenced along with other relevant documents such as the (currently draft) Environment Management Strategy. There is currently an allowance in construction costs of 3% for ESD works. Option 4 utilises the existing gallery negating the need for a complete rebuild.
There are no financial implications at this stage. Council will need to consider its financial contribution towards this project at a later date following the completion of the community comment period. The project would also need to be considered with due regard to Council’s existing commitments and future budgets.
For the project to become a reality a financial partnership between the Federal and State Governments, the City of Greater Geelong, the Geelong Gallery and potential other funding partners would be required.
The Geelong Art Gallery is located on Crown Land with a lease period of 999 years due to expire on the 16th June 2854. The Building is a Council asset, operated by the Geelong Art Gallery Incorporated, as a body associated for artistic and cultural purposes. The Board is elected each year at the Annual General Meeting. The Board operates under a Charter. Councillor Andy Richards, Portfolio Holder for Arts & Culture is currently Council’s representative on the Geelong Gallery Board.
A Project Steering Group was established to oversee the development of the Business Case. It is composed of three representatives (each) from Council, the Geelong Gallery Board and the State Government. A Working Group composed of staff of the Geelong Gallery and City of Greater Geelong provides advice to the Steering Group.
The development of a Business Plan aligns with multiple City Plan Strategic Directions and Priorities:
Community Wellbeing
Connected, creative and strong communities
Growing Our Economy
Support existing businesses and encourage new and emerging growth sectors
A successful and vibrant City Centre
A leading city for tourism, arts, culture and events
How We Do Business
Lead by advocating and collaborating on issues important to the Greater Geelong community
The Business Case will respond to key principles embodied in multiple Council strategies, including:
Central Geelong Action Plan
Implementation of the Cultural Precinct Masterplan
Council’s current Cultural Strategy Creativity +
Geelong Major Events Strategy
There is no officer direct or indirect interest in this project.
The Business Case incorporates a well developed risk analysis with all forseen risks listed with rankings and mitigating actions to be taken.
As the City’s cultural institution with the potential to become its most significant arts tourism draw-card, and custodian of a nationally significant collection of works of art, consideration of the Geelong Gallery’s development is crucial. No major development has occurred since 1971 although some additional upgrading of the facility took place in 2001.
In order to safeguard the Collection on behalf of the Geelong community, to maximise its tourism potential and to vastly improve the visitor experience, it is essential to establish the best option for the Geelong Gallery’s future development.
The Gallery has a reputation as a leading regional gallery to maintain and enhance. To do so it must be able to continue to develop its exhibition and educational/public programmes and activities, particularly to attract the tourism market and to substantially develop its educational activities. The physical constraints, making the hosting or development of large-scale temporary exhibitions extremely challenging, put at risk the Gallery’s other operations and reputation.
Galleries play a significant role in the cultural, social, educational and economic development of the city and region. The Geelong Gallery plays an important role in the collection, conservation and exhibition of the Region’s material heritage as expressed in works of art. The Gallery’s programmes are similarly a contributor to community wellbeing. The reputation of the Gallery, as one of the finest regional galleries in Australia, is a source of civic pride for some and has the potential to be for many more. The Galleries exhibitions, educational and public programmes as well as curatorial services are highly valued and sought-after resources. The opportunities that the Gallery provides for our emerging and established artists are vital to the Region’s cultural development. All these however are currently compromised by the Gallery’s physical limitations.
Cultural facilities, cultural programming, cultural collaboration, cultural heritage and cultural identity bring a city alive, day and night, for locals and for visitors. Cultural investment renews and regenerates more than just the economy.
The focus on audience for the Gallery is critical. One of the great challenges for some cultural venues is finding the right mix and balance of programming for broader audience appeal – this is where the provision of space and facilities which give flexibility becomes so necessary and why major upgrades of galleries have proved so beneficial as evidenced by state, national and international experiences. Vibrant Galleries with a range of education programmes not only directly enhance young people’s experiences and knowledge, they also contribute to sense of place. International experience demonstrates children, like university students, are more likely to want to stay in their city if they have wonderful experiences in that place.
Responding to immigration, refugees and new arrivals with democracy and equality is an important issue for cultural organisations. Galleries, like other cultural institutions can make an important, even vital contribution to the perception and experience of new arrivals to this City as a welcoming, compassionate and appealing place.
As the project is a partnership between Council and the Geelong Gallery, the recommendation within this report will be communicated by the Arts & Culture Department with the Media Department, and by the Geelong Gallery. Given the time of year, an extended period of six weeks would be made available to community members to make comment on the Preferred Option, Option 4. Council’s usual communications methods such as the Have Your Say website will be utilised as will the Gallery’s social media and other communication mechanisms.
Portfolio: |
Tourism and Major Events - Cr Nelson |
Source |
Planning & Tourism |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference |
Council Reports 2014 |
To update Council on the progress of the Regional Tourism Board – Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc.
For Council to consider entering into a three year Memorandum of Understanding that will formalise the partnership with the Regional Tourism Board and neighbouring Councils (Borough of Queenscliffe and Golden Plains Shire).
Council resolved in September 2013 to support the establishment of a new Regional Tourism Board called Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc. This resolution was also agreed to by the Borough of Queenscliff and Golden Plains Shire.
Based on Councils resolution and with the support of the tourism industry the Board of Geelong Otway Tourism Inc transitioned its resources to the new entity, as have the two relevant Local Tourism Associations (Tourism Geelong Inc and Bellarine Tourism Inc.) prior to their cessation and wind up.
Surf Coast and Colac Otway Shire resolved to align with and become members of Great Ocean Road Regional Tourism Limited (GORRT).
Tourism Victoria (State Government Tourism Authority) informed Council on the 2nd of December 2013 that it will not recognise nor directly fund Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc. and maintains the position that Greater Geelong and The Bellarine should be integrated into GORRT.
The Tourism Industry and Council have continued to lobby State Government for recognition and financial support.
In August 2014 Tourism Victoria commenced a review of Regional Tourism Boards (structure, function) across Victoria with recommendations due December 2014.
In October 2014 Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc was allocated a grant of $170k from the Regional Growth Fund (Regional Development Victoria) to implement a range of Tourism projects to support the transition of the Greater Geelong economy.
An Interim Board for Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc was established in February 2014 and consisted of Municipal and Industry representation. The Interim Board endorsed the transition to the new entity, the development of a three year Strategic Plan and One Year Action Plan (industry funded).
On 30 July 2014 at the first Annual General Meeting of Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine elections were conducted and a new board was established in accordance with an adopted and approved Statement of Rules and Purposes.
Following an open advertised process managed by a Board Sub Committee, Mr John Stevens has been appointed as the Chair of Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine.
In recognition of the changed structure, Council endorsed on the 25th of February 2014 the updated Council Tourism Policy that was based on a partnership model with the tourism industry through the Regional Tourism Board.
The partnership obligations of all parties (COGG, Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine and the neighbouring Councils of the Borough of Queenscliffe and Golden Plans Shire) is detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding.
Cr Nelson moved, Cr Harwood seconded -
That Council -
notes the progress of Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc including the finalisation of structure, governance, financial documentation, and the development of a Three Year Strategic Plan and One Year Action Plan;
based on the progress of the Regional Tourism Board and in accordance with Council’s Tourism Policy, enters into a three year Memorandum of Understanding with Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc and the neighbouring Municipal Councils of the Borough of Queensliffe and Golden Plains Shire to continue the partnership with the Tourism Industry via the Regional Tourism Board.
Carried.
Following a State wide review of Tourism Structures initiated by Tourism Victoria in 2008, the City of Greater Geelong and Tourism Industry considered various reports and recommendations over that six year period to establish a new regional tourism structure for South West Victoria.
For over twenty years Council has supported an industry partnership and created Geelong Otway Tourism Inc widely regarded as one of the best tourism structures in Australia as evident by the many National and State Tourism Awards won for excellence and innovation.
By virtue of the strength and breadth of operations undertaken by Geelong Otway Tourism the review of the tourism structure for the South West was left until last in the State wide review.
The initial review of tourism structures for Geelong and The Bellarine was undertaken by Tourism Victoria in 2010 (Lightfoot Report) and recommended a stand alone Regional Tourism Board for Geelong and the Bellarine.
In response to this recommendation Senior Management of Tourism Victoria met with industry and Councils and urged for the consideration of a single integrated structure (Geelong to the Border) and promised a very significant increase in funding that failed to be realised.
In September 2013, Council considered the final report of the interim Great Ocean Road Regional Tourism Board that recommended Geelong and The Bellarine should be integrated into the proposed structure that was to encompass the area from Queenscliff to the South Australian Border.
Council resolved not to support the integrated structure for South West Victoria and expressed concern about the financial model presented in the report and about the potential loss of profile and identity for Geelong and The Bellarine in the proposed broad structure.
Council resolved to establish an alternate regional tourism structure, whilst recognising the partnership opportunities to work with Great Ocean Road Regional Tourism, that would better promote, market and develop the tourism industry and visitor experience of Greater Geelong and The Bellarine.
Underpinning Council’s thinking was the significant change occurring in the Greater Geelong economy and the need for potential growth sectors like tourism to be nurtured, enhanced and expanded to ensure a more robust and broader based economy.
In February 2014 Council resolved to update the Tourism Policy to reflect the new structure whilst still retaining a partnership with the tourism industry and neighbouring Council (Borough of Queenscliffe and Golden Plains Shire).
Since Council’s resolution of September 2013 to establish a new Regional Tourism Structure to better serve the needs of Greater Geelong and the local tourism industry the financial and governance arrangements have been established to create the new entity Tourism Greater Geelong & The Bellarine Inc.
An interim Board of Municipal and Industry representatives has overseen the transition from Geelong Otway Tourism Inc to the new structure including the winding up of two local associations (Tourism Geelong and Bellarine Tourism) and the development of a Three Year Strategic Plan and One Year Action Plan.
Elections took place at an Annual General Meeting on 30 July 2014 to establish a New Board, accept a changed Statement of Rules and appoint a subcommittee to appoint an independent chair. Following the advertising for an independent chair the subcommittee resolved to appoint Mr John Stevens as the chair for the next three years.
In recognition of the current challenges faced by Regional Tourism Boards across Victoria (Financial viability, challenges to established regions and broadening of scope beyond marketing) Tourism Victoria has initiated a review of Regional Tourism Structures. As part of that review submissions have been made from Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine calling on Tourism Victoria to recognise and provide financial support to the Regional Tourism Board in accordance with the State-wide Regional Tourism Strategy. The case for recognition and funding support has been made directly to the Minister, Shadow Minister, Local Members and Candidates, Tourism Victoria Board, the peak Tourism Industry board Victorian Tourism Industry Council (VTIC) and Regional Development Victoria (RDV).
A meeting and presentation to Regional Development Victoria Senior Management Team resulted in a submission being made by Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine for funding consideration from the Regional Growth Fund. Minister Ryan approved a grant of $170K in October for tourism related projects including Economic Modelling and Performance Data to attract and support private sector investment ($31K) and maximising tourism industry opportunities as Geelong transitions its economy ($140K).
The various specific projects funded via these grants have now been integrated into the One Year Action Plan 14/15 and the budget (industry funded). The projects have been matched with $147,000 of industry funding (membership and advertising buy in).
With the new structure in place including completed budget, planning and governance documentation, the industry is now well positioned to face the future from a position of strength. Critical to this success is the partnership with the City of Greater Geelong as detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding.
The City of Greater Geelong has long recognised the importance of the tourism industry to the economic and social well being of Greater Geelong.
The Council was a foundation partner of Geelong Otway Tourism for close to twenty years and in more recent times initiated and supported the establishment of the new Regional Tourism Structure – Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine.
The new structure provides greater focus on Greater Geelong and The Bellarine as a destination in its own right, particularly for the critical Melbourne market whilst it still recognises the need to enter into partnership marketing and development initiatives with our neighbouring regions of the Great Ocean Road, Melbourne, Mornington Peninsula and Ballarat Goldfields regions.
Tourism is a dynamic growth industry that is labour intensive with a very broad range of entry levels. As a sector, tourism will continue to play an increasingly important role in the Greater Geelong economy. This is particularly true as the Geelong economy transitions from its traditional manufacturing base to a greater reliance on service sector industries like tourism.
Council’s partnership support of the tourism sector through the Regional Tourism Board has understandably been focused on economic return as demonstrated in employment and dollars contributed to the local economy.
Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine commissions independent research to quantify the scope, scale and performance of the sector. Further to this the Commonwealth Government collects, analysis and distributes visitor data through Tourism Research Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics) which is broken down to the regional level (Greater Geelong and The Bellarine) on a quarterly basis.
Tourism Performance
The latest tourism data collected by Tourism Research Australia (Australian Bureau of Statistics – Commonwealth Government) for travel to Geelong and The Bellarine was for the year ending June 2014. The data collected was from two primary surveys – National Visitor Survey (domestic overnight and day trips) and the International Visitor Survey (International overnight visitation).
Results for Greater Geelong and The Bellarine, year ending June 2014.
Domestic Overnight Travel
Visitors – 1 million domestic overnight visitors – up 18% on YE June 2013
Visitor Nights – 2.9 million nights in region – up 14% of YE June 2013
Day trips – 3.1 million day trips – up 2.5% on YE June 2013
Greater Geelong and The Bellarine received 8% market share of visitors to Regional Victoria – up .5% points.
Top 5 Activities
Eat at Restaurants – 60%
Visit Friends and Relatives – 58%
Go to Beach – 38%
General sight seeing – 28%
Shopping for pleasure – 27%
International Overnight Travel
Visitors – 42,400 international overnight visitors – up 2.7% YE June 2013
Visitor Nights – 615,800 nights in the region – up 11.7% on YE June 2013
Geelong and The Bellarine receives 11.3% market share of visitors to regional Victoria.
Top 5 Origin of International Visitors
New Zealand – 18.6%
United Kingdom – 16.1%
China – 11.5%
Germany – 6.1%
USA – 5.6%
Expenditure – All markets
Daytrips - $220 million
Overnight Domestic - $373 million
International - $43 million
Greater Geelong and The Bellarine continues to perform strongly in both attracting visitors to the region, increasing length of stay and maximising visitor expenditure.
The above broad data is also reflected in the performance of Visitor Information Centres and the Business Events Unit of Tourism Greater Geelong & The Bellarine.
Visitor Information Centres (VIC)
The following data is collected at two accredited Information Centres (Little River Service Centre and National Wool Museum) and four non accredited Information Centres (Market Square, Waterfront Booth, Avalon Airport and Barwon Heads Caravan). The Visitor Information Centres are staffed by 110 volunteers that are managed by two permanent staff.
For year ending June 2014, the Visitor Information Centres recorded the following:
145,000 walk in visitors
47% of these visitors were domestic
53% of visitors were international
8519 telephone enquiries
5405 mail outs to potential visitors
92% of visitors surveyed stated that they had been influenced as a result of their visit to one of the Visitor Information Centres. 48% spent more time in the region due to their visit, whilst 44% increased their expenditure.
87% of visitors noted the services of the VIC as excellent and 99% of visitors rated the volunteers customer services as ‘above average’.
Visitor Information Centres are a trusted source of information and advice to visitors demonstrating that the information and advice changes visitor’s behaviour and enhances the visitor experience.
The volunteers and staff of the Visitor Information Centres also provide the welcome to Geelong for Cruise Ship passengers as they disembark from visiting cruise ships.
Business Events Geelong
The Business Events Unit consists of three staff that work with the tourism industry and the community to bid for the right to host conferences, conventions, meetings and expositions in the Greater Geelong Region. This sector of the tourism industry is one of the highest yielding (expenditure and length of stay) and one of the most measurable (bids won or lost, delegates attending, length of stay).
Despite the fact that the Business Events Unit is significantly challenged by the lack of a dedicated Convention and Exhibition Centre in Geelong, the unit is highly regarded and the recipient of many State & National Awards. Awards include being inducted into ‘Meetings and Events Australia’ Hall of Fame for Australia’s Best Regional Destination Marketing Organisation 2011-2014. Further to this the Unit was awarded National Tourism Awards in 2007 and 2008.
The performance data below was collected via an industry monitor with venues and operators collecting data on a monthly basis.
For the year ending June 2014 Greater Geelong & The Bellarine (including participating Great Ocean Road venues) hosted just over 2,000 business events that included 135,000 delegates to the region.
The Business Events Unit secured the following snapshot of events during the financial year, it should be noted that some events have over two years between winning the bid to host the event and the event being actually hosted in the Region.
Linux 2016 Conference, 500-800 delegates for 5 days that will bring 2000 room nights to Geelong with an estimated direct economic benefit of $825,000.00.
The 2015 Australian Marine Science Associated Conference, 400 delegates for 5 days that will bring 1600 room nights in Geelong with an estimated direct economic benefit of $660,000.00.
The 2015 AMP Annual Sales Conference, 160 delegates for 4 days that will bring 480 room nights to Geelong & The Bellarine with an estimate direct economic benefit of $211,200.00.
2014 Country Women’s Association State Conference recently held that brought over 800 delegates to Geelong for 3 days.
2014 International Melges 24 Class World Championships that was held over 5 days on Geelong’s Waterfront.
REMPLAN Economic Modelling – Tourism Performance
REMPLAN is system of economic modelling based on area specific data derived from the 2011 and 2013 census years.’
REMPLAN is used by the City of Greater Geelong (and all G21 Councils) and includes a specific tourism analysis module.
The tourism module details the tourism sectors contribution to local jobs, outputs, wages and salaries. It can also present the value of tourism relative to other industries in the local and region economy.
The table below compares the performance of the tourism sector in Greater Geelong between the census years 2011 to 2013.
REMPLAN TOURISM DATA 2010-11 vs 2012-13
|
2011 |
2013 |
Change |
% change |
|
Tourism Output |
$553m |
$640m |
+$87m |
16% |
|
Tourism Employment |
3355 |
4000 |
+645 jobs |
19% |
|
Domestic day trip spend |
$78 |
$102 |
+$24 |
31% |
|
Domestic O/N spend |
$253 |
$362 |
+$109 |
43% |
|
International trip spend |
$999 |
$1423 |
+$424 |
42% |
It should be noted that for the same period (2011-2013)
Manufacturing output declined by 5.6%, jobs by 14.2%
Wholesale trade output declined by 18%, jobs by 8.8%
Arts and Recreation output declined by 3%, jobs by 10%
Transport output declined by 7%, jobs by 2%
Health output grew by 37% and jobs by 25%
Education output grew by 24% and jobs by 15%
In association with the development of the Victorian Regional Tourism Strategy 2013-2020 Tourism Victoria published a report comparing the contribution of tourism to all regions of Victoria as developed by Deloitte Access Economics.
Based on this report by Deloitte Access Economics employment for Greater Geelong is significantly higher (4,308 compared to 3,355) in the tourism sector. The report also highlights the fact that Greater Geelong and The Bellarine is 40% more reliant on tourism than is Melbourne.
Whilst around 55% of direct jobs based on tourist expenditure are part time, these jobs are often crucial first jobs for young people and the jobs that keep young people in the region. It should also be noted that there are higher income jobs in tourism managerial roles and the owners of the small business that directly rely on tourist spending.
The National Tourism Satellite Accounts (Federal Government Treasury) demonstrates that the Tourism Sector has a higher number of workers in the middle to senior management level than most other service sector industries in Australia.
In tourism towns on the Bellarine and in Central Geelong a significant number of businesses only exist at their current level of staffing based on the goods and services provided (financial, legal, retail) to support businesses that are directly dependant on visitor expenditure.
Tourism Forecasts
Based on data of the Tourism Forecasting Committee (Federal Government Official Tourism Forecaster) the City of Greater Geelong tourism performance is forecast to grow by 15% between 11/12 – 21/22.
Tourism Research Australia (June 2013) forecast for regional Victoria are as follows:
Projected growth between 11/12 – 21/22
Domestic visitor nights to grow at 1%pa
International visitor nights to grow at 3.4%pa
These results for Regional Victoria are significantly lower than that projected for Melbourne (3.9% pa)
It should be noted that as a result of Greater Geelong’s close proximity to Melbourne if is projected that the forecast tourism performance for Greater Geelong will be significantly higher than that of Regional Victoria.
Tourism in Greater Geelong will continue to play an increasingly significant role in the economic and social wellbeing of the municipality. In accordance with Council’s Tourism Policy, the Council will work in partnership with the Tourism Industry through the established Regional Tourism Board – Tourism Greater Geelong & The Bellarine Inc.
The relationship between Council, the tourism industry and neighbouring Councils (Borough of Queenscliffe and Golden Plains Shire) is detailed through the attached Memorandum of Understanding.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Based on the successful model established when Council formed Geelong Otway Tourism Inc the new structure will retain many of the aspects that were successful in delivering a strong, sustained and cost effective tourism partnership. Most notable is MOU between Councils and Tourism Greater Geelong & The Bellarine Inc. The MOU between Council and the Industry was well regarded nationally and often referred to as an example of industry best practice. As such the following elements have been retained in the draft MOU.
A joint partnership with industry whereby Council funds the staffing and administration costs, whilst the industry funds the delivery of the Three Year Strategic Plan.
The Board is an Incorporated Association and as such must comply with all legal obligations as administered through the Department of Justice.
The Board will consist of both industry and Council delegates and will have an independent Chair. The Chair will be Mr John Stevens (partner with Dench, McClean and Carlson).
Regular reports will be presented to Council seeking approval and detailing the progress performance plans.
The Tourism Manager for the City of Greater Geelong will be the Executive Director of the Tourism Board.
Council recognises that the Tourism Board will be an advocate for and representative of the tourism industry in tourism related matters in the media and at relevant forums.
Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine will not expand its membership base to include new Municipal members unless agreed to by existing Municipal Members.
The Tourism Board will co-ordinate industry training and tourism policy formulation to ensure a consistent approach and application to tourism across the region.
The attached Memorandum of Understanding (see attachment one) includes 29 statements of understanding that focus on the key areas of resourcing, accountability, communication, visitor information centres, sustainable tourism and general items.
The MOU will last until 30 June 2017 (may be renewed or renegotiated) and provides a stable platform for the industry to establish and implement an industry funded Strategic Plan 2014-2017 to coincide with the time frame of the MOU.
Strategic Plan 2014-2017
The Board endorsed the attached Strategic Plan 2014-2017 (see attachment two) that provides a vision to establish the Greater Geelong and The Bellarine as a globally recognised destination that deliveries world standard visitor experiences.
The Strategic Plan states that the Mission of the Regional Tourism Board is to facilitate sustainable tourism development, related economic growth and employment.
The key focus areas and objectives of the Strategic Plan are listed below and they provide the framework for both the Strategic Plan and the Annual Action Plan.
Key Focus Areas and Objectives
Promotion – Market the region as a tourism destination to increase visitation, length of stay and expenditure.
Objective 1: To foster positive sentiment by growing our digital footprint and increasing consumer engagement.
Objective 2: To provide inspiration, information and a path to purchase to encourage travel to Greater Geelong and The Bellarine.
Development – Sustain a profitable, high-performing tourism industry that exceeds visitor expectations.
Objective 3: To grow the capacity of the industry so they are delivering high quality experiences.
Objective 4: To understand, share knowledge and advocate for the industry of tourism.
Objective 5: To actively pursue profitable tourism infrastructure of appropriate scale and location that compliments the region’s tourism strengths.
Partnerships – Enhance performance by collaborating with member businesses, tourism and community organisations and all levels of Government for mutually beneficial outcomes.
Objective 6: To actively pursue and sustain partnerships with clear benefits for tourism in the region.
Objective 7: To engage with tourism members and provide relevant benefits that will grow membership participation.
Governance – To operate a sustainable, effective, transparent and responsible tourism organisation.
Objective 8 – To maintain accountability and good governance with thorough stakeholder engagement and reporting processes.
Performance Indicators
The Strategic Plan indicates that performance will be measured in two ways. Firstly the performance of the regional tourism structure and secondly industry performance.
Performance Measures – Regional Tourism Board
Financial sustainability modelling to track and compare level of financial support from the industry across the areas of membership, program buy-in and sponsorship
Report on success of delivering planned projects each year.
Independent benchmarking and industry satisfaction research.
Digital traffic including visitors/audience and, more importantly engagement levels.
Specific Business Events measures will include number of events held, event days, delegate numbers and direct economic impact.
Industry tracking
Monitor visitation, visitor nights and market share pertaining to domestic, international and day trip visitors through NVS/IVS data.
Economic impact of tourism including expenditure and employment.
Monitor trends regarding new tourism investment and business.
Industry sentiment research, including businesses not accounted for in the NVS/IVS data.
1 Year Action Plan 2014/15
The Annual Action Plan (see attachment three) structure mirrors the framework of the Strategic Plan however provides further detail including specific actions to be undertaken for each objective. Further to this the Action Plan presents a budget allocated to each action and attributes a staff member to lead the implementation of the action.
The Board approved a budget expenditure (industry funded) of $879,000 to implement the 2014/15 Action Plan.
The budget for 2014/15 represents a slight decrease from previous years (13/14 - $937,846) as a direct result of the restructure that has reduced members numbers and revenue. The position taken by Tourism Victoria to not recognise nor fund Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine has significantly reduced the scope and depth of the Objectives, Actions and budget of the 2014/15 Action Plan.
It is hoped that the current review of Regional Tourism Structures across the State will provide clarity about future funding and recognition from Tourism Victoria. The recent grants of $171K from Regional Development Victoria, is some recognition of the importance of tourism in the changing Greater Geelong economy.
Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc will continue to implement and support the Earth Check accreditation program.
Earth Check is a program aimed at reducing the impact of tourism related activities on the environment and includes training, incentives for those who participate and meet the prescribed benchmarks and standards.
Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc is accredited and benchmarked in its own right and was made Bronze status in 2014.
Under the proposed structural changes, there is no change to Council’s current contribution levels allocated to tourism. The current allocations are outline below.
Council’s current breakdown to tourism is $1,838,923. The following is a breakdown of the 2014/15 budget.
Tourism Administration $1,093,360
Visitor Information Centre $369,770
Business Events Geelong $375,793
No impact to budget.
The Challenge for the Regional Tourism Board was to adjust the industry funded Annual Action Plan to reduce expenditure of $230,000 related to the anticipated funding from Tourism Victoria. The recent funding of $171,000 from Regional Development Victoria is prescriptive in relation to projects and is a one-off approach.
Further to this funding for strategic partnership projects will be explored with Great Ocean Road Marketing and Regional Development Australia.
The total adjusted tourism budget (both Council and Industry) will still be in excess of $2.7Million with revenue close to $879,000 to support the Annual Action Plan via grants, membership, sponsorship and industry buy in.
Geelong Otway Tourism had operated under an extended Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with five municipalities in the Geelong Otway Region (City of Greater Geelong, Borough of Queenscliffe, Golden Plains Shire, Surf Coast Shire and Colac Otway Shire) which expired on 30 June 2013.
Council resolved to extend the MOU with Geelong Otway Tourism until 30 June 2014 at its meeting on 25 June 2013.
Council also resolved at its meeting of September 2013 to continue the partnership with the Borough of Queencliffe, Golden Plains Shire and the tourism industry, in accordance with Council’s Tourism Policy, and enter into a Memorandum of Understanding to establish a new Incorporated Association to progress and grow the Tourism Industry.
Council also noted that the Memorandum of Understanding will be based on the retention of the successful partnership model with Council allocating its resources to staffing, administration, visitor services and business events and industry through membership, sponsorship buy in funding the delivery of the business and marketing plans.
A new Memorandum of Understanding has been developed to support the recently established Incorporated Association, Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine.
New Rules of Association for Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc have been established in accordance with legislation now governing incorporated associations in Victoria namely the Associations Incorporation Reform Act 2012.
Tourism is recognised in the City Plan 2013-2017 as a priority sector in growing the Geelong economy. Council’s support of the tourism industry is base on the understanding of the need for a robust and diverse economic base for the City. Council recognised through City Plan and through Council’s Tourism Policy that tourism can generate increased economic growth and can be further developed, enhanced and expanded through effective leadership and partnership models. The proposed new structure for tourism demonstrates Council’s leadership through collaboration with industry on issues of importance to the economic and social well being of Geelong.
This report has been prepared by the Tourism Manager, City of Greater Geelong, who is also the Executive Director of Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc.
Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine plays a pivotal role in advocating on tourism related issues in a variety of settings and at different levels of Government. The organisation provides leadership to the regions tourism industry in dealing with both demand and supply issues, as well as opportunities to collaborate on a range of campaigns and initiatives. This leadership role will continue under Tourism Greater Geelong and The Bellarine Inc.
Without an organised and united approach, the industry would most likely suffer or remain stagnant. The new structure would allow for long term planning to be adopted in cooperation with neighbouring Regional Tourism Board’s (RTB).
All staff are employed under the City of Greater Geelong Enterprise Agreement (No.7) 2011 as the tourism unit of the City of Greater Geelong. Staffing levels will be maintained under the new structure with a greater focus on Greater Geelong and the Bellarine, as well as the establishment of partnerships with neighbouring RTB’s.
The social impacts of tourism have been the subject of recent research by Sustainable Tourism Cooperative Research Centre. A set of indicators have been developed to measure these impacts, with further work proposed following finalisation of the relationship with State Government (Tourism Victoria).
The recommendations considered in this report are in accordance with the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. Following a review of the twenty basic rights that promote and protect the values of freedom, respect, equality and dignity, the most relevant right relating to the report is the right of freedom of movement. This report and recommendations recognise the right of people to move freely through out Victoria and Australia.
Whilst the proposed recommended structure focuses on Geelong and The Bellarine, the report and recommendations consider and allow for the establishment of strategic beneficial partnerships with other destinations and tourism bodies in recognition of the seamless non boundary nature of the tourism experience.
Following Council’s resolution of September 2013 to establish a Regional Tourism Board for Greater Geelong and The Bellarine immediate advocacy and discussions took place with Tourism Victoria seeking both recognition and funding support for the new structure.
When it became clear that Tourism Victoria would not directly support the Regional Tourism Board as a separate entity to the Great Ocean Road Regional Tourism further meetings and lobbying have taken place with local Members of Parliament, other Government Departments (RDV/RDA) and directly with the Premiers Office. Further lobbying continues to take place directly with Tourism Victoria and the State Government to resolve this current impasse. Tourism Victoria has initiated a review of regional tourism structures.
Regional Development Victoria has recognised the importance of tourism to the Greater Geelong economy and community and has funded grants of over $170k in October 2014 to support tourism in a transition economy.
Great Ocean Road Regional Tourism (Torquay to the South Australian Border) and other neighbouring tourism regions (Melbourne, Ballarat, Mornington Peninsula) have been informed that potential partnership programs will be considered following the finalisation of the Strategic and Action Plans.
The tourism unit, in partnership with Council’s marketing and communications unit will establish a communications plan detailing the benefits and opportunities associated with the new approach and structure to tourism development and marketing.
[Back to Top]Portfolio: |
Finance - Cr Lyons (Mayor), Cr S Kontelj, Cr E Kontelj |
Source: |
Corporate Services - Financial Services |
A/General Manager: |
Michael Kelly |
Index Reference: |
Financial Management \ Financial Reporting 2014-2015 |
The Quarterly Financial Report for the period ending 30 September 2014 is prepared as a requirement of Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989.
Council approved amendments to the adopted Budget on 26 August 2014 and variances are reported based on comparing actuals to amended budget.
The recurrent operating surplus for the three-month period is $6.2M, being $7.6M favourable to amended budget and reflects favourable performance and timing issues.
The non-recurrent surplus for the three month period is $14.7M, being $0.7M favourable to budget with favourable Capital Income $2.2M, offset by unfavourable Gain/Loss on Sale of Property ($1.2M) and Recognition of Infrastructure ($0.3M).
Capital expenditure for the year to date is $22.1M against a year to date projection of $20.9M, which is ($1.2M) overspent to projection.
The cash and investment balance of $70.2M is $5.0M favourable to budget.
Cr E Kontelj moved, Cr S Kontelj seconded -
That the Quarterly Financial Management Report to 30 September 2014 be endorsed by Council.
Cr Nelson left the meeting room at 8:14pm for the evening.
Cr Richards left the meeting room at 8:15pm
Cr Richards re-entered the meeting room at 8:16pm
Carried.
The report is prepared as a requirement of Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989 which requires that at least every three months a statement be presented to Council comparing the budget with the actual revenue and expense for the financial year-to-date.
Operating
The September Management reports are provided in the following table to report year-to-date performance and full-year projection performance versus budget.
Summary |
||||||
|
YTD |
YTD |
YTD |
FY Proj |
FY |
FY Var |
|
Recurrent Surplus/(Deficit) |
6.23 |
(1.39) |
7.62 |
(6.97) |
(6.87) |
(0.10) |
|
Non-Recurrent Surplus/(Deficit) |
14.66 |
13.98 |
0.68 |
74.62 |
74.15 |
0.47 |
|
Net Surplus/(Deficit) |
20.89 |
12.59 |
8.30 |
67.65 |
67.28 |
0.37 |
|
Capital Expenditure |
22.08 |
20.91 |
(1.17) |
146.51 |
146.26 |
(0.25) |
|
Closing Net Cash Positive/(Neg) |
70.17 |
65.20 |
4.97 |
|
58.86 |
|
The Adopted Budget was amended by Council on 26 August 2014 to include Carryover Capital and discretionary projects, plus other Capital and recurrent amendments.
The impact on the Recurrent Expenditure Budget is ($7.06M), consisting of carryover discretionary projects funded in 2013-2014, plus other budget amendments.
The impact on Non Recurrent income was $0.73M for carryover of capital income from 2013-2014 projects, plus other budget amendments.
The amended capital expenditure budget included an additional $42.85M to complete 2013-2014 Projects, including Corio Landfill Rehabilitation, Geelong Library & Heritage Centre, Grovedale Integrated Children’s Centre, Leopold Community Hub and Barwon Heads Early Learning Centre.
Other budget amendments increased total budget by $1.06M.
1. Recurrent Variance Commentary |
||||||
|
YTD |
YTD |
YTD |
FY Proj |
FY |
FY Var |
|
Recurrent Income |
75.45 |
73.91 |
1.54 |
292.41 |
292.32 |
0.09 |
|
Recurrent Expenditure |
69.22 |
75.30 |
6.08 |
299.38 |
299.19 |
(0.19) |
|
Recurrent Surplus/(Deficit) |
6.23 |
(1.39) |
7.62 |
(6.97) |
(6.87) |
(0.10) |
YTD Variance - $7.62M Favourable |
||||||
The following major variances to budget contributed to this result:
Recurrent Income
|
$M |
General Rates and Charges – Favourable rates generation and supplementary rates YTD, expected to be offset by objections in full year. |
1.08 |
Government Grants Main favourable variances consist of:
|
0.45 |
User Charges Main unfavourable variances consist of:
Offset by:
|
(0.60) |
|
Other Fees & Charges Favourable mainly due to :
|
0.10 |
|
Sundry Income Favourable due to unbudgeted receipt of Community Education project funding $343K to Waste Services (offsetting expenditure to be incurred during the year). |
0.36 |
|
Interest on Investments Higher than budgeted cash balances. |
0.15 |
|
Recurrent Income Sub-total |
$1.54M |
Recurrent Expenditure
|
$M |
|
Employee Related Expenditure – Favourable salary costs $2,415K mainly relating to unfilled vacancies and rate variance. Partially offset by unfavourable supplementary labour costs ($458K) (see external services). |
2.51 |
|
General Works: Materials $45K favourable with the main variance being Road Making Materials $52K (phasing only). Plant / Equip / Vehicle Costs $152K favourable with the main variances being Fuels, Oils & Greases $31K, External Plant & Equipment Hire $62K, Minor Plant, Furniture & Equipment $40K (all phasing only). Other $19K. External Services is $2,160K favourable mainly due to:
|
2.36 |
|
Administration costs $148K favourable mainly due to :
|
0.15 |
|
Professional Services costs $220K favourable mainly due to:
|
0.22 |
|
Utility costs are $592K favourable mainly due to Water usage costs $256K (seasonal factors) and Electricity $320K (phasing only). |
0.59 |
|
Depreciation costs $362K favourable (phasing only). |
0.36 |
|
Gain/(Loss) on Sale of Plant and Equipment ($106K) unfavourable. |
(0.11) |
|
Recurrent Expenditure Sub-total |
$6.08M |
Full Year Recurrent Projection – ($0.10M) unfavourable to Amended Budget |
|
|
The main projection changes are favourable / (unfavourable): |
$M |
|
Grants Commission decrease |
(0.23) |
|
Computer Software Costs – Microsoft costs tfr’d from Capital New Cycling Event |
(0.22) (0.15) |
|
Rental Income Reduction |
(0.08) |
|
Fire Services Levy Funding |
(0.05) |
|
Insurance Premium Savings |
0.34 |
|
Interest Payment Savings – deferment of loan Central Geelong Night Bus – program cancelled |
0.24 0.08 |
|
Other |
(0.03) |
|
|
($0.10) |
2. Non Recurrent Variance Commentary |
||||||
|
YTD |
YTD |
YTD |
FY Proj |
FY |
FY Var |
|
Non-Recurrent Surplus/(Deficit) |
14.66 |
13.98 |
0.68 |
74.62 |
74.15 |
0.47 |
YTD Variance – $0.68M favourable |
||||||
|
$ |
|
Capital Grants & Income $2,213K favourable. |
2.21 |
|
Recognition of Infrastructure ($335K) unfavourable. |
(0.33) |
|
Developer Contributions ($148K) unfavourable. |
(0.15) |
|
Gain/(Loss) on Sale of Property - ($1,207K) unfavourable. |
(1.21) |
|
Loss on Disposal of Infrastructure - $154K favourable |
0.15 |
3. Capital Expenditure Variance Commentary |
||||||
|
|
FY Actual |
FY
Projection |
FY
Var |
FY Proj |
FY
Am. Bgt* |
FY Var |
|
Capital Expenditure |
22.08 |
20.91 |
(1.17) |
146.51 |
146.26 |
(0.25) |
YTD Variance – ($1.17M) unfavourable |
||||||
The capital program is ($1.17M) overspent compared to Projection year to date, with the major project variances as follows:
|
|
$M |
|
Geelong Library & Heritage Centre – project ahead of schedule |
(2.74) |
|
Windsor Park Children & Family Hub – project ahead of schedule. |
(0.27) |
|
Lara Town Centre Expansion – project ahead of schedule. |
(0.22) |
|
Parking Machines Upgrade – behind budget schedule |
0.50 |
|
Drysdale Landfill Cell 6 – behind budget schedule. |
0.46 |
|
Light Fleet Replacement - behind budget schedule. |
0.27 |
|
Other |
0.83 |
|
|
($1.17) |
4. Cash and Investments |
||||||
|
YTD |
YTD |
YTD |
FY Proj |
FY |
FY Var |
|
Closing Net Cash Positive/(Neg) |
70.17 |
65.20 |
4.97 |
|
58.86 |
|
YTD Variance – $4.97 favourable |
||||||
The month end cash and investments balance was $70.17M. This was $4.97M favourable to budget, mainly due to favourable recurrent surplus.
Council has future commitments for $25.3M, which are fully cashed back:
Long Service Leave |
$18.1M |
Statutory Reserves |
$ 1.3M |
Refundable Deposits |
$ 3.5M |
Income in Advance |
$ 1.4M |
Asset Development |
$ 1.0M |
Total |
$25.3M |
The Landfill Provision balance is currently $18.4M.
There are no environmental implications arising from this report.
As detailed in the attached report.
The report is provided in accordance with requirements under the Local Government Act 1989.
This report contributes to responsible and sustainable financial management as aligned in Council’s City Plan objective on How We Do Business.
Council staff preparing this report have no direct or indirect interest.
There are no risk implications arising from this report.
There are no social implications arising from this report.
There are no known positive or negative effects.
The attached report is provided for information and public record and is available from the Council Governance or Financial Reporting units.
Portfolio: |
Governance - Cr Lyons (Mayor) |
Source: |
Corporate Services - Corporate Strategy |
A/General Manager: |
Michael Kelly |
Index Reference: |
Planning and Reporting |
This report provides an update on progress to comply with the Local Government Amendment (Performance Reporting and Accountability) Act which represents a new financial planning and reporting framework for local government, commencing in the 2014-15. The new Regulations came into operation on 18 April 2014.
The Local Government (Finance and Reporting) Regulations 2004 ceased to have effect on 20 April 2014. The new Local Government Amendment (Performance Reporting and Accountability) Act sets out the new financial planning and reporting framework for local government, commencing in the 2014-15 financial year.
In 2014-2015, councils will report on 71 performance indicators (made up of 53 service performance indicators, 12 financial performance indicators and 6 sustainable capacity indicators) and 24 Governance Checklist items. There are 32 performance indicators which will be reported in the Annual Report’s Performance Statement and externally audited.
The City of Greater Geelong recently completed the September 2014 quarter trial reporting. The objective of the trial report submission was to:
Seek feedback from councils on a new reporting template;
Provide feedback to councils on data collection and validity issues to assist councils with the reporting exercise; and
Enable councils to become familiar with the new reporting requirements and prepare their organisation for the introduction of mandatory performance reporting.
A CEO Report will be provided to councils in the coming months in regard to the above trial and will only detail data collection and validity issues. It will not contain council results or comparative results.
Issues were experienced with the template in regard to some results being annualised by the template when they shouldn’t be. This will be rectified as a result.
Regional information sessions will be held in November and December for Local Government Victoria (LGV) to provide an update. The City of Greater Geelong will be represented at the session to be held on Thursday 27 November 2014.
The recent trial has proven that the City of Greater Geelong should have no issues with collecting or providing the data to LGV for the 2014-2015 Financial Year, however it should be noted that the coordination and final collation will be resource intensive and add substantially to a heavy workload as part of year end obligations.
The formulas for each indicator have been defined and assigned to a responsible officer. It is also clearly understood that data needs to be accurate and verified as these will be reported in a public document (Annual Report and VLG Report). It should also be noted that 32 0f the 71 indicators will be audited.
Two pilot reporting programs were held in October 2013 and February 2014 with results from the February 2014 pilot showing that council compared favourably with other councils within its group (Regional Centres) and the Regional Centre average.
The full component will be reported in the City of Greater Geelong Annual Report and subsequently in the Local Government Victoria report on Council Performance which will be completed in November 2015 and published by January 2016. Councils will have an opportunity to view the results prior to the final LGV report being published and provide commentary where required.
Cr S Kontelj moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -
That Council note the progress with reporting on the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework Indicators for the 2014-2015 financial year onwards.
Carried.
In April 2012, a report from the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office (VAGO) recommended that regulations be developed to establish minimum standards for a mandatory performance monitoring and reporting framework. Local Government Victoria (LGV) then commenced the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework project in October 2012 to assess VAGO’s recommendations and to develop a new performance monitoring and reporting framework.
A number of workshops were held from October 2012 to May 2013 to develop indicators and also look at further changes to the Annual Budget, Strategic Resource Plan and the Annual Report. Two pilot reporting trials in regard to the indicators was also held in October 2013 and February 2014.
The resulting performance reporting framework consists of 71 performance indicators of which 32 are required to be audited. There are also 24 governance checklist items.
As a result, changes were made to the Local Government Act 1989 and the new Regulations commenced on 18 April 2014. These changes are mandatory for all councils from the 2014-15 planning and reporting cycles.
The full changes to the Annual Report, Strategic Resource Plan, Budget and Performance Reporting were provided in a previous Council Briefing Report.
Table 1 below provides a summary of the indicator categories and the number of indicators that are and are not subject to audit.
Table 1: Performance indicator categories
|
Indicator category |
Audited (No.) |
Non-audited (No.) |
|
Service Performance |
|
|
|
Governance |
1 |
4 |
|
Statutory Planning |
1 |
3 |
|
Economic Development |
1 |
3 |
|
Roads |
1 |
4 |
|
Libraries |
1 |
3 |
|
Waste Collection |
1 |
4 |
|
Pool Facilities |
1 |
4 |
|
Animal Management |
1 |
3 |
|
Food Safety |
1 |
3 |
|
Home and Community Care |
2 |
5 |
|
Maternal and Child Health |
2 |
3 |
|
Financial Performance |
13 |
- |
|
Sustainable Capacity |
6 |
- |
|
Governance and management (yes/no questions) |
- |
24 |
|
Total |
32 |
63 |
In October 2013 and January 2014, the City of Greater Geelong took part in the initial pilot reporting. These pilot programs were conducted to assist with the further definition of the indicators and to verify if the indicators were able to be reported on with accuracy and would provide relevant information to residents.
A comparative report was provided to councils on the second pilot. The results showed that the City of Greater Geelong compared favourable to other councils within its Regional Centres group. A summary of these results is provided in the Discussion section of this report.
Further to this, a trial reporting exercise was conducted at the end of the September 2014 quarter to seek feedback from councils on a new reporting template and to enable councils to become familiar with the new reporting requirements and prepare their organisation for the introduction of mandatory performance reporting. From this it is expected that feedback to councils on data collection and validity issues will be provided in the coming months to assist councils with future reporting.
A summary of the City of Greater Geelong return is also provided in the Discussion section of this report.
The following table lists all the indicators to be collected for the 2014-15 Annual Report.
Table 2: Performance indicators – full list
|
Service Area |
No. |
Measure |
Dimension |
Unit of Measure |
Audited (Y/N) |
|
SERVICE PERFORMANCE |
|||||
|
Governance |
1 |
Confidential Council meeting resolutions |
Appropriateness |
% |
|
|
Governance |
2 |
Satisfaction with community consultation and engagement |
Appropriateness |
Mean |
|
|
Governance |
3 |
Councillor attendance at meetings |
Quality |
% |
|
|
Governance |
4 |
Cost of Governance |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Governance |
5 |
Satisfaction with council decisions |
Service |
Mean |
Yes |
|
Statutory Planning |
6 |
Time taken to decide planning applications |
Appropriateness |
# days |
|
|
Statutory Planning |
7 |
Planning applications decided within 60 days |
Quality |
% |
|
|
Statutory Planning |
8 |
Cost of statutory planning service |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Statutory Planning |
9 |
Planning decisions upheld at VCAT |
Service |
# |
Yes |
|
Economic Development |
10 |
Participation in business development activities |
Appropriateness |
% |
|
|
Economic Development |
11 |
Delivery of planned business development activities |
Quality |
% |
|
|
Economic Development |
12 |
Cost of economic development service |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Economic Development |
13 |
Change in number of businesses |
Service |
% |
Yes |
|
Roads |
14 |
Sealed local road requests |
Appropriateness |
# |
|
|
Roads |
15 |
Sealed local roads below the intervention level |
Quality |
% |
|
|
Roads |
16 |
Cost of sealed local road reconstruction |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Roads |
17 |
Cost of sealed local road sealing |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Roads |
18 |
Satisfaction with sealed local roads |
Service |
Mean |
Yes |
|
Libraries |
19 |
Library collection usage |
Appropriateness |
# |
|
|
Libraries |
20 |
Standard of library collection |
Quality |
% |
|
|
Libraries |
21 |
Cost of library service |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Libraries |
22 |
Active library members |
Service |
% |
Yes |
|
Waste Collection |
23 |
Kerbside bin collection requests |
Appropriateness |
# |
|
|
Waste Collection |
24 |
Kerbside collection bins missed |
Quality |
# |
|
|
Waste Collection |
25 |
Cost of kerbside garbage bin collection service |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Waste Collection |
26 |
Cost of kerbside recyclables bin collection service |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Waste Collection |
27 |
Kerbside collection waste diverted from landfill |
Service |
% |
Yes |
|
Pool facilities |
28 |
User satisfaction with pool facility |
Appropriateness |
# |
|
|
Pool facilities |
29 |
Health inspections of pool facilities |
Quality |
# |
|
|
Pool facilities |
30 |
Reportable safety incidents at pool facilities |
Quality |
# |
|
|
Pool facilities |
31 |
Cost of indoor pool facilities |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Pool facilities |
32 |
Cost of outdoor pool facilities |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Pool facilities |
33 |
Utilisation of pool facilities |
Service |
# |
Yes |
|
Animal Management |
34 |
Time taken to action animal management requests |
Appropriateness |
# |
|
|
Animal Management |
35 |
Animals reclaimed |
Quality |
% |
|
|
Animal Management |
36 |
Cost of animal management service |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Animal Management |
37 |
Animal prosecutions proven in court |
Service |
# |
Yes |
|
Food Safety |
38 |
Time taken to action food complaints |
Appropriateness |
# |
|
|
Food Safety |
39 |
Food safety assessments |
Quality |
% |
|
|
Food Safety |
40 |
Cost of food safety service |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Food Safety |
41 |
Critical and major non-compliance outcome notifications |
Service |
% |
Yes |
|
Home and Community Care |
42 |
Time taken to commence the HACC service |
Appropriateness |
# |
|
|
Home and Community Care |
43 |
Compliance with Community Care Common Standards |
Quality |
% |
|
|
Home and Community Care |
44 |
Cost of domestic care service |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Home and Community Care |
45 |
Cost of personal care service |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Home and Community Care |
46 |
Cost of respite care service |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Home and Community Care |
47 |
Participation in the service |
Service |
% |
Yes |
|
Home and Community Care |
48 |
Participation in the service by Culturally and Linguistically Diverse people |
Service |
% |
Yes |
|
Maternal and Child Health |
49 |
Time taken to undertake first Maternal and Child Health home visit |
Appropriateness |
# |
|
|
Maternal and Child Health |
50 |
Infant enrolments in Maternal and Child Health Service |
Quality |
% |
|
|
Maternal and Child Health |
51 |
Cost of Maternal and Child Health Service |
Cost |
$ |
|
|
Maternal and Child Health |
52 |
Participation in Maternal Child Health key ages and stages visits |
Service |
% |
Yes |
|
Maternal and Child Health |
53 |
Participation in Maternal Child Health Key ages and stages visits by Aboriginal children |
Service |
% |
Yes |
|
FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE |
|||||
|
Operating Position |
54 |
Underlying surplus or deficit |
Operating Position |
% |
Yes |
|
Liquidity |
55 |
Current assets compared to current liabilities |
Liquidity |
% |
Yes |
|
Liquidity |
56 |
Unrestricted cash compared to current liabilities |
Liquidity |
% |
Yes |
|
Obligations |
57 |
Debt compared to rates |
Obligations |
% |
Yes |
|
Obligations |
58 |
Debt repayments compared to rates |
Obligations |
% |
Yes |
|
Obligations |
59 |
Non-current liabilities compared to own source revenue |
Obligations |
% |
Yes |
|
Obligations |
60 |
Asset renewal compared to depreciation |
Obligations |
% |
Yes |
|
Stability |
61 |
Rates compared to underlying revenue |
Stability |
% |
Yes |
|
Stability |
62 |
Rates compared to property values |
Stability |
% |
Yes |
|
Efficiency |
63 |
Average expenditure per assessment |
Efficiency |
$ |
Yes |
|
Efficiency |
64 |
Average residential rate per assessment |
Efficiency |
$ |
Yes |
|
Efficiency |
65 |
Resignations and terminations compared to average staff |
Efficiency |
% |
Yes |
|
SUSTAINABLE CAPACITY |
|||||
|
Capacity |
66 |
Own source revenue per head of municipal population |
Capacity |
$ |
Yes |
|
Capacity |
67 |
Recurrent grants per head of municipal population |
Capacity |
$ |
Yes |
|
Capacity |
68 |
Underlying expenditure per head of municipal population |
Capacity |
$ |
Yes |
|
Capacity |
69 |
Infrastructure per capita |
Capacity |
$ |
Yes |
|
Capacity |
70 |
Population density per length of road |
Capacity |
# |
Yes |
|
Capacity |
71 |
Relative socio-economic disadvantage |
Capacity |
# |
Yes |
|
GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT CHECKLIST |
|
|
1 |
Community engagement policy |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
2 |
Community engagement guidelines |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
3 |
Strategic Resource Plan |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
4 |
Annual budget |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
5 |
Asset management plans |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
6 |
Rating Strategy |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
7 |
Risk Policy |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
8 |
Fraud Policy |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
9 |
Emergency management plan |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
10 |
Business continuity plan |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
11 |
Disaster Recovery plan |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
12 |
Risk management framework |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
13 |
Audit committee |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
14 |
Internal Audit |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
15 |
Performance Reporting Framework |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
16 |
Council plan reporting |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
17 |
Financial reporting |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
18 |
Risk reporting |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
19 |
Performance Reporting Framework |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
20 |
Annual Report |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
21 |
Code of conduct |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
22 |
Delegations |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
23 |
Meeting procedures |
|
Y/N |
|
|
|
24 |
Council committees |
|
Y/N |
|
Following the second Local Government Performance Reporting Indicators pilot which was held in February 2014, a comparative report was provided to all participating councils. The City of Greater Geelong is in the ‘Regional Centres’ category of councils and the results showed that we compared favourably to other councils within our group and to the council average within that group.
The following table lists the City of Greater Geelong’s results versus the Regional Centres average from the February 2014 pilot. This pilot was for the reporting period 1 July 2013 to 31 December 2013.
Table 3: Pilot 2 Results (reporting period July 2013 to December 2013)
|
No. |
Measure |
Unit of Measure |
CoGG Result |
Regional Centres Average |
Better / consistent with RC Avg |
|
Service Performance |
|||||
|
Governance |
|||||
|
1 |
Confidential Council meeting resolutions |
% |
5.3% |
13.2% |
✓ |
|
2 |
Satisfaction with community consultation and engagement |
Mean |
NC |
NC |
|
|
3 |
Councillor attendance at meetings |
% |
86.1% |
89.5% |
✓ |
|
4 |
Cost of Governance |
$ |
$23,432 |
$42,350 |
✓ |
|
5 |
Satisfaction with council decisions |
Mean |
NC |
NC |
|
|
Statutory Planning |
|||||
|
6 |
Time taken to decide planning applications |
# days |
67 |
59 |
X |
|
7 |
Planning applications decided within 60 days |
% |
74% |
54% |
✓ |
|
8 |
Cost of statutory planning service |
$ |
$2,897 |
$3,905 |
✓ |
|
9 |
Planning decisions upheld at VCAT |
# |
22% |
48% |
✓ |
|
Time taken to decide planning applications has dropped substantially and is now down to 60. |
|||||
|
Economic Development |
|||||
|
10 |
Participation in business development activities |
% |
10% |
32% |
X |
|
11 |
Delivery of planned business development activities |
% |
100% |
91% |
✓ |
|
12 |
Cost of economic development service |
$ |
$40 |
$128 |
✓ |
|
13 |
Change in number of businesses |
% |
NC |
NC |
|
|
Roads |
|||||
|
14 |
Sealed local road requests |
# |
62 |
57 |
✓ |
|
15 |
Sealed local roads below the intervention level |
% |
98% |
99% |
✓ |
|
16 |
Cost of sealed local road reconstruction |
$ |
$177 |
$173 |
✓ |
|
17 |
Cost of sealed local road sealing |
$ |
$10 |
$7 |
✓ |
|
18 |
Satisfaction with sealed local roads |
Mean |
NC |
NC |
|
|
Libraries |
|||||
|
19 |
Library collection usage |
# |
6.6 |
5.1 |
✓ |
|
20 |
Standard of library collection |
% |
75% |
60% |
✓ |
|
21 |
Cost of library service |
$ |
$4.73 |
$6.23 |
✓ |
|
22 |
Active library members |
% |
7% |
20% |
✓ |
|
Waste Collection |
|||||
|
23 |
Kerbside bin collection requests |
# |
231 |
68 |
X |
|
24 |
Kerbside collection bins missed |
# |
6.9 |
2.6 |
X |
|
25 |
Cost of kerbside garbage bin collection service |
$ |
$98 |
$50 |
X |
|
26 |
Cost of kerbside recyclables bin collection service |
$ |
$15 |
$10 |
✓ |
|
27 |
Kerbside collection waste diverted from landfill |
% |
60% |
49% |
✓ |
|
CoGG results reflect the size of our municipality compared to others in the Regional Centre group. |
|||||
|
Pool Facilities |
|||||
|
28 |
User satisfaction with pool facility |
# |
NC |
NC |
|
|
29 |
Health inspections of pool facilities |
# |
1.0 |
1.1 |
✓ |
|
30 |
Reportable safety incidents at pool facilities |
# |
12.0 |
4.0 |
X |
|
31 |
Cost of indoor pool facilities |
$ |
-$0.07 |
$1.15 |
✓ |
|
32 |
Cost of outdoor pool facilities |
$ |
-$9.49 |
$4.01 |
✓ |
|
33 |
Utilisation of pool facilities |
# |
10.2 |
6.7 |
✓ |
|
Reportable safety incidents high compared to average due to the greater number of our facilities and visitors compared to those in other Regional Centre councils. |
|||||
|
Animal Management |
|||||
|
34 |
Time taken to action animal management requests |
# |
NC |
1.0 |
|
|
35 |
Animals reclaimed |
% |
33% |
59% |
X |
|
36 |
Cost of animal management service |
$ |
NC |
$36 |
|
|
37 |
Animal prosecutions proven in court |
# |
112 |
32 |
✓ |
|
Food Safety |
|||||
|
38 |
Time taken to action food complaints |
# |
1.2 |
1.2 |
✓ |
|
39 |
Food safety assessments |
% |
100% |
73% |
✓ |
|
40 |
Cost of food safety service |
$ |
$100 |
$993 |
✓ |
|
41 |
Critical and major non-compliance outcome notifications |
% |
0 |
67% |
✓ |
|
Home and Community Care |
|||||
|
42 |
Time taken to commence the HACC service |
# |
0.1 |
0.1 |
✓ |
|
43 |
Compliance with Community Care Common Standards |
% |
100% |
83% |
✓ |
|
44 |
Cost of domestic care service |
$ |
$43 |
$40 |
✓ |
|
45 |
Cost of personal care service |
$ |
$42 |
$39 |
✓ |
|
46 |
Cost of respite care service |
$ |
$44 |
$40 |
✓ |
|
47 |
Participation in the service |
% |
20% |
18% |
✓ |
|
48 |
Participation in the service by Culturally and Linguistically Diverse people |
% |
23% |
18% |
✓ |
|
Maternal and Child Health |
|||||
|
49 |
Time taken to undertake first Maternal and Child Health home visit |
# |
NC |
NC |
|
|
50 |
Infant enrolments in Maternal and Child Health Service |
% |
90% |
93% |
✓ |
|
51 |
Cost of Maternal and Child Health Service |
$ |
$203 |
$206 |
✓ |
|
52 |
Participation in Maternal Child Health key ages and stages visits |
% |
NC |
NC |
|
|
53 |
Participation in Maternal Child Health Key ages and stages visits by Aboriginal children |
% |
NC |
NC |
|
|
Financial Performance |
|||||
|
54 |
Underlying surplus or deficit |
% |
-1.1% |
0.4% |
X |
|
55 |
Current assets compared to current liabilities |
% |
162% |
191.7% |
✓ |
|
56 |
Unrestricted cash compared to current liabilities |
% |
13% |
85.2% |
X |
|
57 |
Debt compared to rates |
% |
20.2% |
36.1% |
✓ |
|
58 |
Debt repayments compared to rates |
% |
4.2% |
5.8% |
✓ |
|
59 |
Non-current liabilities compared to own source revenue |
% |
21.4% |
32.8% |
✓ |
|
60 |
Asset renewal compared to depreciation |
% |
53.7% |
69.9% |
X |
|
61 |
Rates compared to underlying revenue |
% |
61.5% |
56.5% |
✓ |
|
62 |
Rates compared to property values |
% |
0.4% |
0.6% |
✓ |
|
63 |
Average expenditure per assessment |
$ |
$2,399 |
$3,139 |
✓ |
|
64 |
Average residential rate per assessment |
$ |
$912 |
$1,276 |
✓ |
|
65 |
Resignations and terminations compared to average staff |
% |
3.5% |
8.5% |
✓ |
|
Sustainable Capacity |
|||||
|
66 |
Own source revenue per head of municipal population |
$ |
$1,001 |
$1,175 |
✓ |
|
67 |
Recurrent grants per head of municipal population |
$ |
$203 |
$311 |
X |
|
68 |
Underlying expenditure per head of municipal population |
$ |
$1,217 |
$1,540 |
✓ |
|
69 |
Infrastructure per capita |
$ |
$5,904 |
$9,997 |
X |
|
70 |
Population density per length of road |
# |
106 |
64 |
X |
|
71 |
Relative socio-economic disadvantage |
# |
5 |
3 |
✓ |
Note: NC = Not collected
Following the pilot held in February 2014 and subsequent adjustments to definitions and formulas, the final indicator set was approved and became part of the new Regulations from 18 April 2014 to be reported on for the 2014-2015 financial year.
A further trial was held at the end of the September 2014 quarter to enable councils to become familiar with the new reporting requirements and prepare their organisation for the introduction of mandatory performance reporting. The results of this trial will not be compared to other councils but LGV will provide comment back to Chief Executive Officers where they see issues with particular indicator data collected. Not all Service Performance indicator data was collected for this trial as a number of indicators have been identified as annual returns only. Financial Performance and Sustainable Capacity indicators were not collected.
The following table provides the data collected by the City of Greater Geelong and submitted to LGV.
Table 4: September 2014 Trial Results (reporting period 1July 2014 to September 2014)
|
No. |
Measure |
Unit of Measure |
CoGG Result |
|
Service Performance |
|||
|
Governance |
|||
|
1 |
Confidential Council meeting resolutions |
% |
3% of decisions made at meetings closed to the public |
|
2 |
Satisfaction with community consultation and engagement |
Mean |
Annual indicator |
|
3 |
Councillor attendance at meetings |
% |
88% attendance |
|
4 |
Cost of Governance |
$ |
$11,509 |
|
5 |
Satisfaction with council decisions |
Mean |
Annual indicator |
|
Statutory Planning |
|||
|
6 |
Time taken to decide planning applications |
# days |
Median number of days was 60 |
|
7 |
Planning applications decided within 60 days |
% |
83% decided within 60 days |
|
8 |
Cost of statutory planning service |
$ |
$1,358 |
|
9 |
Planning decisions upheld at VCAT |
# |
55% |
|
Economic Development |
|||
|
10 |
Participation in business development activities |
% |
0.44% |
|
11 |
Delivery of planned business development activities |
% |
91% |
|
12 |
Cost of economic development service |
$ |
$8.60 |
|
13 |
Change in number of businesses |
% |
2% increase in September quarter |
|
Roads |
|||
|
14 |
Sealed local road requests |
# |
17 requests per 100km of sealed roads |
|
15 |
Sealed local roads below the intervention level |
% |
97% of sealed local roads are below the renewal intervention level |
|
16 |
Cost of sealed local road reconstruction |
$ |
Annual indicator |
|
17 |
Cost of sealed local road sealing |
$ |
Annual indicator |
|
18 |
Satisfaction with sealed local roads |
Mean |
Annual indicator |
|
Libraries |
|||
|
19 |
Library collection usage |
# |
1.6 loans per collection item |
|
20 |
Standard of library collection |
% |
77% of items have been purchased within the last five years |
|
21 |
Cost of library service |
$ |
$4 |
|
22 |
Active library members |
% |
14% |
|
Waste Collection |
|||
|
23 |
Kerbside bin collection requests |
# |
57 requests per 1,000 bin collections |
|
24 |
Kerbside collection bins missed |
# |
3 bins missed per 10,000 kerbside collection bin lifts |
|
25 |
Cost of kerbside garbage bin collection service |
$ |
$24.40 |
|
26 |
Cost of kerbside recyclables bin collection service |
$ |
$15.50 |
|
27 |
Kerbside collection waste diverted from landfill |
% |
56% |
|
Pool Facilities |
|||
|
28 |
User satisfaction with pool facility |
# |
Annual indicator |
|
29 |
Health inspections of pool facilities |
# |
1 inspection per facility |
|
30 |
Reportable safety incidents at pool facilities |
# |
3 incidents |
|
31 |
Cost of indoor pool facilities |
$ |
-$0.42 |
|
32 |
Cost of outdoor pool facilities |
$ |
Outdoor facilities currently closed |
|
33 |
Utilisation of pool facilities |
# |
2.13 visits per head of municipal population |
|
Animal Management |
|||
|
34 |
Time taken to action animal management requests |
# |
Collection method of data still being confirmed |
|
35 |
Animals reclaimed |
% |
73% of animals were reclaimed |
|
36 |
Cost of animal management service |
$ |
$6.50 |
|
37 |
Animal prosecutions proven in court |
# |
12 |
|
Food Safety |
|||
|
38 |
Time taken to action food complaints |
# |
2 days |
|
39 |
Food safety assessments |
% |
Annual indicator |
|
40 |
Cost of food safety service |
$ |
$97.70 |
|
41 |
Critical and major non-compliance outcome notifications |
% |
0 |
|
Home and Community Care |
|||
|
42 |
Time taken to commence the HACC service |
# |
Collection method of data still being confirmed |
|
43 |
Compliance with Community Care Common Standards |
% |
100% |
|
44 |
Cost of domestic care service |
$ |
Annual indicator, data provided by MAV |
|
45 |
Cost of personal care service |
$ |
Annual indicator, data provided by MAV |
|
46 |
Cost of respite care service |
$ |
Annual indicator, data provided by MAV |
|
47 |
Participation in the service |
% |
Annual indicator, municipal target population provided by LGV |
|
48 |
Participation in the service by Culturally and Linguistically Diverse people |
% |
Annual indicator, municipal target population provided by LGV |
|
Maternal and Child Health |
|||
|
49 |
Time taken to undertake first Maternal and Child Health home visit |
# |
103% |
|
50 |
Infant enrolments in Maternal and Child Health Service |
% |
85% |
|
51 |
Cost of Maternal and Child Health Service |
$ |
Annual indicator, data provided by MAV |
|
52 |
Participation in Maternal Child Health key ages and stages visits |
% |
32% |
|
53 |
Participation in Maternal Child Health Key ages and stages visits by Aboriginal children |
% |
30% |
Corporate Strategy officers have worked closely with all responsible officers in regard to indicator data collection and this trial has given us confidence that the data can be collected and provided to LGV by the deadline. Staff resources within Corporate Strategy during the time of indicator data collection, collation and analysis may be an issue due to the already heavy workload and tight deadline in completing the Annual Report. This will need to be monitored.
A CEO’s report will be produced by LGV and distributed to all councils which will provide data collection and validity issues for councils to consider. No date has been set for when this report will be received by councils.
Regional information sessions to provide an update on the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework and discuss the trial will be held in November/December 2014. Alf Della Monica (Corporate Strategy Coordinator) will attend session in Melbourne on 27 November 2014.
There are no environmental impacts.
The impact assessment of the proposed Regulations has shown that there is an administrative burden on local councils. The proposed Regulations will require councils to:
Collect, maintain and analyse data;
Publish mandated information within the existing documents; and
Have some reported data audited.
Following consultation with the 43 councils during the pilot program and supplemented through interviews with a representative sample of councils, the quantifiable cost burden is estimated at $3,498 per council.
The table below outlines what makes up this cost burden.
|
Reporting requirement |
Time taken |
Cost per council * |
|
Performance indicators – service performance |
Survey of councils indicated that the time taken to collect data on the service performance indicators was about 23.75 hours on average. |
$1,807 |
|
Performance indicators – financial performance and sustainable capacity |
Survey of councils indicated that the average time to compile this information, which draws on existing data sources, is around 2.25 hours. |
$171 |
|
Governance and management checklist |
This checklist is a simple list of 24 ‘yes/no’ questions. 75% of councils found this requirement easy or very easy to complete. Average reported completion time was 21 minutes. |
$152 |
|
Financial statements and a statement of capital works (required in strategic resource plan, annual budget and annual report) |
This is similar to the existing standards statements. Based on interviews with a number of councils, this is estimated to take each council about 8 hours in total. |
$608 |
|
Statement of human resources |
Based on interviews with a number of councils, this is estimated to take each council about 2 hours to complete. |
$152 |
|
Other annual report requirements |
Based on interviews with a number of councils, this is estimated to take each council about 8 hours to collect this Information from existing sources. |
$608 |
|
Total cost per council |
|
$3,498 |
* Council staff time has been valued as a blended hourly rate of $76.02
It should also be noted that through the recent trial of collecting September 2014 quarter data, it is clear that this will add considerably to an already heavy workload in completing the Annual Report and in meeting tight deadlines. There will be resource issues to consider at this time.
The Local Government (Finance and Reporting) Regulations 2004 ceased to have effect on 20 April 2014. The new Local Government Amendment (Performance Reporting and Accountability) Act was given Royal Assent on 11 February 2014 and sets out the new financial planning and reporting framework for local government, commencing in the 2014-15 financial year. The new Regulations give effect to the framework established through amendments to the Act, which came into operation on 18 April 2014.
Our current City Plan in most parts meets the proposed changes. The proposed performance indicators have a linkage to all strategic directions in City Plan 2013-2017.
There are no direct or indirect interests.
City Plan, the Annual Budget and the Annual Report are public documents and as such are subject to public scrutiny. Performance indicators will be reported in the Performance Statement from 2014-15 and also used in a public report to be produced by Local Government Victoria, where the results may be reported by media outlets and comparisons to other councils made.
The reports are available to the whole community through the City of Greater Geelong website and by hard copy from customer service centres.
Not applicable.
The City of Greater Geelong has participated in all stages of this project with Local Government Victoria, including working group meetings, indicator development, pilot stages 1 and 2.
The 2014-15 Annual Budget included proposed changes, as did the Strategic Resource Plan. The changes to the Annual Report will take affect from the 2014-15 financial year.
The Annual Budget and the Annual Report will be communicated as per the Local Government Act 1989.
Portfolio: |
Environment & Sustainability – Cr Richards |
Source: |
City Services - Environment and Waste |
General Manager: |
Gary Van Driel |
Index Reference: |
Waste Management |
The purpose of this Report is to inform Council of the Victorian Auditor General’s Report released in September 2014 titled ‘Managing Landfills’ and its implications and how Council is responding to issues identified in the report.
The Victorian Auditor General has recently provided an audit report to the Victorian government on the management of former and current landfills.
The Audit assessed whether the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and local councils, as landfill owners, are complying with their responsibilities for the construction, operation and management of municipal landfills.
The Audit examined EPA administration of the regulatory framework and four councils’ operation (Ballarat City Council, East Gippsland Shire Council, Hume City Council, Wyndham City Council) and management of both active and closed landfills and their compliance with the regulatory framework requirements.
Current and former landfills represent considerable risk to the environment and human health if not managed in an appropriate manner. Council is actively taking steps to manage the Drysdale landfill in accordance with its licence and the Landfill Best Practice Environmental Management (BPEM). The former Corio landfill is being rehabilitated against guidelines set by the EPA. Other former landfills have been mapped to the best of our knowledge.
Further work is required to ensure that risks regarding former landfills are adequately assessed and works prioritised to reduce or remove these risks.
The audit found that the audited councils also have not fully understood their roles and responsibilities for managing closed sites, as EPA policy and guidelines do not clearly articulate responsibilities for identifying older sites and assessing the risks they pose.
Councils will need to comprehensively identify closed sites and better assess, prioritise and manage legacy risks at both active and closed sites.
Former landfills represent a potential significant financial liability as the risks in some cases have yet to be quantified and remediation costs are unknown.
Further consultation will be required with the EPA to outline the City of Greater Geelong’s approach to the management of closed landfills and the currently operating Drysdale landfill and to outline our concerns regarding increasing costs to meet requirements, lack of knowledge of regional staff and potential for funding to be provided from the landfill levy to hep fund works in high risk landfills.
Cr Richards moved, Cr Ellis seconded -
That Council:
note the recommendations contained within the Report and Appendix 1;
note that Council’s former Corio landfill and currently operating Drysdale landfill are managed in accordance with legislative and other policy requirements;
note that closed landfills represent a potential significant financial liability as the risks associated with some of these have yet to be quantified and remediation costs are unknown. Further work is required to undertake this assessment; and
continue to consult with the EPA to outline Councils approach to the management of former and current landfills and to outline our concerns regarding increasing costs to meet requirements and the need to increase the technical knowledge of regional staff.
Carried.
The Victorian Auditor General has recently provided an audit report to the Victorian government on the management of former and current landfills. This audit formed part of a series of audits investigating the regulation and management of waste in Victoria. Previously the Auditor General’s office has examined the management of hazardous waste, solid municipal waste and contaminated sites, all of which identified significant issues with waste management in Victoria. The findings of these audits contributed to major reforms in this area, including the release of the 2013 Getting Full Value: the Victorian Waste and Resource Recovery Policy and the reform of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) into a modern risk-based regulator.
The Audit assessed whether the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) and local councils, as landfill owners, are complying with their responsibilities for the construction, operation and management of municipal landfills. It examined EPA’s administration of the regulatory framework and four councils’ operation (Ballarat City Council, East Gippsland Shire Council, Hume City Council, Wyndham City Council) and management of both active and closed landfills and their compliance with the regulatory framework requirements. The audit also assessed 62 responses received from the remaining 75 councils to a questionnaire on landfill management.
Landfills continue to remain an important part of Victoria’s waste management infrastructure as currently all wastes cannot be practically re-used or recycled, and our forecast population growth will mean waste generation will continue to increase. Landfills operate within a highly regulated framework of primary and subordinate legislation, and guidelines. This is to ensure they are sited, designed, managed and rehabilitated upon closure to minimise any environmental, amenity and health risks and any future financial cost to the state and local governments associated with poorly managed and rehabilitated sites.
The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) regulates and oversees the performance of landfills. All landfills must comply with the requirements of the Environment Protection Act 1970 so as not to pollute the environment. Councils, as landfill owners, are required to identify, assess and regularly review risks at their landfills in line with the requirements set by EPA in its:
2004 Waste Management Policy (Siting, Design and Management Of Landfills)
2010 guideline Best Practice Environmental Management - Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills (the Landfill BPEM), which introduced more stringent standards for new landfills and superseded its 2001 guidelines
guidelines for closed landfills and for those exempt from licensing and,
landfill licence requirements and guidelines.
The risk rating will depend on how likely it is that an impact will occur, as well as the predicted severity of the impact. EPA's guidance to its appointed environmental auditors suggests classifying risks according to four categories:
very high risk—immediate action required
high risk—management required from senior staff, check monthly
moderate risk—specify required management, check every three months
low risk—manage with standard operating procedures, check annually.
Risks can be rated moderate to very high even though no impact is observed. The EPA issues Pollution Abatement Notices to prevent or remedy a range of perceived non compliances with the Environment Protection Act by EPA officers. These are statutory notices issued pursuant to the Environment Protection Act 1970.
EPA undertook an extensive review of its regulatory approach following an incident at the Brookland Greens Estate in the City of Casey in 2008 where residents living in proximity to a closed landfill were exposed to unacceptable levels of potentially explosive gases generated by the site. Subsequent internal and external reviews found
EPA's regulation and oversight of landfills to be inadequate and this reflected organisation-wide shortcomings in its regulatory approach. To address this, EPA identified and implemented a range of regulatory reforms to its management and oversight of pollution - landfills being one element.
The audit found that the EPA has developed a better practice risk-based framework and approach for the management and oversight of landfills. However, for this framework and approach to be fully effective and to be effectively understood and implemented by councils as landfill owners, a number of shortfalls in its implementation need to be addressed. EPA's oversight and councils' management of the highest risks associated with gas and contaminated water generation at landfills has significantly improved as a result of EPA's reforms, and councils' efforts to comply with these. This is particularly the case for landfills and parts of landfills that have been constructed since 2010. However, further work is still required by councils to better manage the operational, rehabilitation and after-care practices at landfills and by EPA to oversee compliance with these requirements.
The audit identified that Councils have improved their landfill management since 2010 but have been slow to embrace and have not fully understood all their landfill management responsibilities around operational, rehabilitation and after-care issues. EPA has also been slow to implement key initiatives to drive environmental improvements around landfill legacy risks from sites constructed prior to 2010. Some of this slowness is understandable given the technical complexities and costs associated with addressing legacy risks that have been inherited as a result of less stringent standards, unclear responsibilities and poor management and oversight in the past. EPA's reforms have significantly improved its oversight of active and highest-risk closed landfills due to improvements to its landfill licensing system, supporting guidance, and compliance and enforcement approach. However, the audit found the following inadequacies in its implementation:
EPA has not effectively translated its risk-based approach to overseeing landfill performance into its environmental auditing and compliance reporting systems. As a result, landfill owners are required to report all licence non-compliances, irrespective of the severity or lack of impact, and audit recommendations to address risks are not prioritised.
EPA's standard landfill licence conditions are not targeted to site-specific risks and are therefore not as effective in driving improvement in performance as they should be.
EPA's reforms have also contributed to a lack of certainty around approval processes for landfill owners, which in turn has led to unnecessary costs and time delays.
EPA has communicated its landfill performance requirements through multiple policies and guidance materials that are complex, not well integrated and at times ambiguous. As such, they are not clearly understood by landfill owners. This has compounded councils' slow approach to embracing all their landfill duties and responsibilities.
The audit found that the efforts of the four audited councils (Ballarat City Council, Hume City Council, East Gippsland Shire Council and Wyndham City Council) to comply with the regulatory framework requirements for their municipal landfills have also significantly improved. Together, these improvements have resulted in the effective management of major risks posed by the generation of contaminated water and gas emissions at landfills. However, localised risks to the environment and surrounding community amenity are not being managed as effectively - particularly at older sites.
The four audited councils met EPA required standards for how new landfill sites and new areas within a landfill that accept waste need to be designed and built. They had all increased their landfill resourcing and management activities to do this. They all met the EPA requirements to engage EPA appointed environmental auditors to audit and review the risks that their licensed landfills pose. These actions have been particularly influential in enabling these councils to effectively identify and manage very high landfill risks at their licensed sites.
The most recent audits of gas and contaminated water and leachate risks identified moderate to high risks at four of the five sites. The audits also found these risks had not yet resulted in any significant pollution impacts on the environment or human health. All four councils had some measures in place to manage the risks but the EPA-appointed environmental auditors had identified deficiencies in these measures and recommended further improvements. The councils had all been slow to respond to these recommendations.
Rehabilitation was also found to be inadequate at these councils' licensed landfills, even though it is fundamental to managing leachate and gas risks. Audited councils identified themselves as ‘compliant’ with some licence conditions even though they could not demonstrate this and there was evidence that they did not comply—such as in relation to covering waste each day and progressively rehabilitating the sites over time. This indicates they have not effectively prioritised or managed lower to moderate risks to the local environment and the amenity of the neighbouring community. The audited councils had good knowledge of the risks from older parts of active, licensed landfills that were built before 2010, through the risk assessment and audit system used for the currently operating landfill sites in which they are situated.
The audit found that the councils also have not fully understood their roles and responsibilities for managing closed sites, as EPA's policy and guidelines do not clearly articulate responsibilities for identifying older sites and assessing the risks they pose.
The 2010 Landfill BPEM was the first policy or guidance document that explicitly identified that councils were responsible for managing landfills that were already closed—whether or not the sites had been regulated by an EPA licence or remedial notice. The report found that the four audited councils have not adequately assessed or managed the legacy gas and leachate risks at their closed landfills.
The audit found that Councils will need to comprehensively identify closed sites and better assess, prioritise and manage legacy risks at both active and closed sites. This will require a high level of in-house landfill knowledge and experience that not all councils have. Councils will need to uphold their rehabilitation obligations and EPA also needs to more strongly oversee compliance with policy objectives and best practice in this area. The 62 councils responding to the audit questionnaire, plus the four audited councils, raised concerns about meeting the costs of appropriately assessing and managing the legacy risks at closed landfills and smaller sites exempt from licensing. Few councils indicated they had set aside funds to do this. Councils need to plan to meet anticipated rehabilitation costs.
Councils have predominantly assessed their landfill risks in isolation from other councils. Efficiencies in cost and time could be gained by assessing landfill risks at a regional scale. Councils could work to do this with the new regional waste and resource recovery groups, which were established on 1 August 2014 and replaced the regional waste management groups. This information would also support EPA in building a state-wide understanding of landfill risks. Some councils have considered sharing the costs of employing a landfill expert with other councils, which could be a cost-effective solution. All councils will also need long-term planning to meet both the current need to raise rehabilitation standards at closed sites and the anticipated longer-term need to rehabilitate active sites.
All waste deposited at landfills incur the landfill levy, which is administered by the Victorian Premier and the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. The majority of the levy's revenue is paid into the Sustainability Fund, which has previously been under the management of Sustainability Victoria, but in 2014–15 will transfer to the Department of Environment and Primary Industries. While EPA does not manage the fund, it should work with the Department of Environment and Primary Industries and its
waste portfolio partners to develop options for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change to consider for using the landfill levy to help fund the timely rehabilitation of high-risk landfills.
City of Greater Geelong Council Officers responses to the specific recommendations within the Report are as follows:
Recommendations
That councils:
identify, prioritise and address all of their landfill responsibilities and obligations under the Environment Protection Act 1970 (EPA Act), the 2004 Waste Management Policy (Siting, Design and Management of Landfills) and associated guidelines, including: operating and progressively rehabilitating active sites assessing and managing risks at closed sites planning to meet anticipated rehabilitation and after-care costs.
The identification, prioritisation and actions to meet our responsibilities for the Drysdale landfill is undertaken via the required independent audit process. Further work is required in relation to closed landfills, including identifying boundaries of former sites.
The City of Greater Geelong has allocated funding via its Long Term Financial Plan to meet the expected costs to rehabilitate Corio and Drysdale landfill. It is noted that changes to the BPEM have resulted in escalating costs for all landfill operators. It has also resulted in vastly greater operational and strategic demands.
build their in-house landfill knowledge and skills so that they can work with Environment Protection Authority-appointed environmental auditors and landfill experts to effectively prioritise and address risks.
In 2013 a Business Plan was developed for the Councils Waste Business which has helped Council meet new and increasing obligations. The Business Plan provided a basis for the development of the following;
Waste business objectives
gap analysis which assessed risks to the business and review of capacity against current and future core service delivery, operational projects and strategic project requirements
waste business priorities
waste risk register
Following the development of the Business Plan additional staff resources have been put in place to help deal with the increased workload imposed by the EPA, however with the increased focus on former and current landfill compliance as well as increased operational demands, resources continue to be stretched to capacity. Council is fortunate to have very experience staff within the waste department, often having many decades of experience, as well as successfully attracting highly skilled and experienced new staff. Careful succession planning has been, and will continue to be required in the near future as some staff have recently retired and others have indicated that they are likely to do so in the next few years. In addition it is expected that Council will need to make decisions in the next few years in relation to the disposal of material collected via its kerbside and commercial operations. These decisions will have implications for the long term disposal of waste for the municipality. Council will shortly begin preparation of a new Waste Strategy which will build upon the Business Plan and set the future direction for many of Councils waste programs.
One of the issues identified in recent dealings with the EPA is the lack of technical knowledge of regionally based EPA staff to assess current and former landfills, particularly against a risk based approach. This has been a factor in Council receiving six Pollution Abatement Notices (PAN) and/or Clean Up Notices which have either been served on Council or have been issued in draft form for comment in the past 12 months in relation to the Drysdale and former Corio landfills
The PANs for Drysdale relate to landfill gas (CO2), stormwater and dust. The landfill gas PAN relates to a minor elevation of CO2 in perimeter monitoring bores above nominated threshold levels. The levels recorded present very low/negligible environmental risk as identified by independent audits, however EPA have still required the development of a Landfill Gas Remediation Action Plan to comply with the Notice. This cost approximately $50,000. Following the development of the Action Plan the EPA subsequently advised that no further action will be undertaken.
This PAN highlights the finding within the audit report relating to EPA that;
all non-compliances are given equal importance, irrespective of likelihood and severity of impact
ad hoc feedback by EPA on actions to address noncompliance in annual licence statements and on licence action plans addressing audit recommendations, in terms of their adequacy to address risks and noncompliance
unwarranted time and business compliance costs—as onerous compliance reporting requirements impose unnecessary burdens on landfill owners.
Council officer’s position in relation to this PAN has been consistent and in-line with previous audit reports and independent experts, in that the PAN was not necessary due to the negligible risks. Local EPA staff despite admitting that they did not have landfill expertise still demanded the production of the Action Plan, at significant cost to Council.
consolidate the recommendations from environmental audits and other external and internal reviews across all landfills, and develop and implement risk-based priorities and time lines for addressing them.
The City currently has a landfill operating at Drysdale, one recently closed landfill at Corio and there are numerous closed landfills within the municipality. Council is currently in the process of rehabilitating the Corio landfill as per agreement with the EPA. This capital works phase of the rehabilitation will be completed in 2016. The Corio Landfill is required under Licence to be audited annually. The assessment of risk is undertaken by the development of models that characterise the movements of leachate, groundwater and gas. These models are then calibrated with actual data to measure how accurately they are to what is happening. This forms the basis of further risk analysis and identification of required corrective or mitigation actions. The current draft Corio landfill audit has identified the following recommendations all of which are relatively minor:
minor improvements to sampling and analytical methodology
investigations into leachate impacts following installation of leachate bores
calibration of the models and updating of the risk assessments with the additional monitoring data (standard requirement)
improve understanding and reporting of the gas extraction system and gas generation of the landfill.
Councils Drysdale landfill operates under a Licence and is currently required to be audited every two years. The timeframe for audit is reviewed at each audit to determine appropriateness. EPA enforcement officers regularly visit the site. The current draft Drysdale Landfill audit has identified the following recommendations, all of which are again relatively minor and easy to achieve:
clarification of notification issues with EPA
licence requirements regarding the gas flare
update the Environment Management Plan to further define activities and enhance recording of activities being undertaken
progress the stormwater management plan
develop a conceptual hydrogeological model to map potential impacts
review and update conceptual detail for stage 1 of the landfill in-line with updated hydrogeological model for improved understanding of impacts on the quarry
additional monitoring of culverts and services in addition to actions listed in the Landfill Gas Remediation Action Plan
review and update contingency measures for high wind, high rain and other extreme events
prepare a rehabilitation plan
additional screen in the groundwater monitoring for chemicals in addition to the current analyte list (heavy metals, pesticides, SVOC).
improve their internal controls over landfill management through their internal risk and audit systems and landfill inspection processes.
Corio and Drysdale Landfill are both subject to a Landfill Operations and Risk Assessment (LORA). This document was developed in 2010 and is reviewed and updated each year by the landfill consultants that carry out the annual monitoring program and compliance report. This recommendation builds on the Drysdale Auditors comments regarding updating of the monitoring plan to ensure that actions that are carried out are documented. Meeting these criteria requires linking the action listed in the monitoring program and the actions arising out of the LORA into the Waste Business Plan. CORVU could be used, in the same manner it is used to map the occupational, health and safety plans, on the status of or compliance to these issues.
work with the Environment Protection Authority and the waste and resource recovery groups to identify closed landfills, assess their risks and prioritise actions at a regional scale to address these.
Council monitors a number of closed landfills, particularly in relation to their capping, gas migration and leachate. Closed landfills represent a major risk for Council. Many closed landfills have now been mapped and are placed into Councils corporate mapping system. Further investigation is required regarding the risks associated with some of these closed landfills, including the former South Geelong landfill. Council will also work with the new Barwon South West Waste and Resource Recovery Group in relation to community education, contamination rates and lobbying for resources. Council has established and internal Working Group which meets from time to time to review and update matters relating to closed landfills in the municipality.
Current and former landfills represent considerable risk to the environment and human health if not managed in an appropriate manner. Council is actively taking steps to manage the Drysdale landfill in accordance to its licence and the BPEM. The former Corio landfill is being rehabilitated against guidelines set by the EPA. Other former landfills have been mapped to the best of our knowledge and included in Councils corporate mapping system. Further work is required to ensure that risks regarding former landfills are adequately assessed and works prioritised to reduce or remove these risks.
All waste deposited at landfills incur the landfill levy, which is administered by the Victorian Premier and the Minister for Environment and Climate Change. The amount collected at Drysdale landfill in the 2013/14 financial year was $4,730,133.51. The majority of the levy's revenue is paid into the Sustainability Fund, which has previously been under the management of Sustainability Victoria, but in 2014–15 will transfer to the Department of Environment and Primary Industries. The report found that while EPA does not manage the fund, it should work with the Department of Environment and Primary Industries and its waste portfolio partners to develop options for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change to consider for using the landfill levy to help fund the timely rehabilitation of high-risk landfills.
Future budget proposal.
Council has allocated funding in the current budget and Long term Financial Plan to fund the rehabilitation and operation of the Corio and Drysdale landfills. Former landfills, other than Corio landfill represent a potential significant financial liability as the risks in some cases have yet to be quantified and remediation costs are unknown.
Council will need to continue to meet its obligations under the EPA Act 1970 as well as BPEM Guidelines.
The recommendations in this report align with supporting our community to live sustainably under the Sustainable Built and Natural Environment pillar.
There is no officer direct or indirect interest in this report.
Council adopts a risk based approach to the management of the Drysdale landfill. This has seen the site managed successfully under its licence arrangements and is generally recognised by auditors as one of the best performing and managed landfills in the broader metropolitan region. The primary risk to Council is with former landfills that have not been adequately assessed or remain unknown. Further work is required to assess the location and risks associated with closed landfills.
Waste management is a core community service undertaken by Council. Council facilities and efficient waste operations allow for timely and cost effective disposal of waste as well as ensuring environmental impacts are minimised.
There are no human rights charter issues resulting from the recommendation in this report.
Further consultation will be required with the EPA to outline Councils approach to the management of former and current landfills and to outline concerns regarding increasing costs to meet requirements, lack of technical knowledge of regional staff and potential for funding to be provided from the landfill levy to hep fund works in high risk landfills.
That Councils:
identify, prioritise and address all of their landfill responsibilities and obligations under the Environment Protection Act 1970, the 2004 Waste Management Policy (Siting, Design and Management of Landfills) and associated guidelines, including: operating and progressively rehabilitating active sites assessing and managing risks at closed sites planning to meet anticipated rehabilitation and after-care costs;
build their in-house landfill knowledge and skills so that they can work with Environment Protection Authority, appointed environmental auditors and landfill experts to effectively prioritise and address risks;
consolidate the recommendations from environmental audits and other external and internal reviews across all landfills, and develop and implement risk-based priorities and time lines for addressing them;
improve their internal controls over landfill management through their internal risk and audit systems and landfill inspection processes; and
work with the Environment Protection Authority and the waste and resource recovery groups to identify closed landfills, assess their risks and prioritise actions at a regional scale to address these.
That the Environment Protection Authority:
works with the Department of Environment and Primary Industries and waste portfolio partners to develop options for the Minister for Environment and Climate Change to use the landfill levy for the timely rehabilitation of high-risk landfills;
further develops its current landfill plan into a comprehensive strategy that integrates all its landfill plans and activities, and is underpinned by a detailed resourcing and implementation plan;
reviews its landfill information to determine and prioritise the key noncompliance and emerging risks for targeted action, and identifies these in its annual compliance plan, supported by measures and outcomes to assess the effectiveness of its actions;
reviews the efficacy of current landfill licence conditions and develops additional risk-based conditions where required for inclusion on a site-by-site basis;
implements risk-based compliance and auditing reporting requirements, which include risk-based prioritisation requirements and reporting based on likelihood and severity of impact;
uses a peer review panel of landfill experts to advise it on complex landfill approvals, with clear terms of reference;
improves landfill guidance by:
preparing a landfill guide explaining the structure and hierarchy of the regulatory requirements for all landfill-related processes and how all the relevant landfill guidelines and processes integrate clarifying that it is councils' role to identify all closed landfill sites within their municipalities and register this information with the Environment Protection Authority and describing risk assessment requirements for unregulated closed landfills improving best practice environmental management guidance in consultation with all stakeholders;
works with the Metropolitan Waste and Resource Recovery Group to develop an appropriate planning process/tool to ensure the Environment Protection Authority's involvement in any rezoning or application process across Victoria where development adjacent to active or closed landfills may be involved.
develops a public register of landfill; and
reviews its standard operating procedures for issuing remedies to require documented reasons as to what remedy is applied and why.
Portfolio: |
Sport & Recreation - Cr Irvine |
Source: |
Projects Recreation and Central Geelong - Sport and Recreation |
General Manager: |
Dean Frost |
Index Reference: |
Project: G21 and AFL Barwon Regional Strategy |
To brief Council regarding the G21 and AFL Barwon Regional Strategy and seek support to release the strategy for public comment.
The G21 and Australian Football League (AFL) Barwon Regional Strategy provides the framework to support the future development, governance and growth of football and club based netball throughout the G21 region for the next 10 years. The strategy also considers Netball as it relates to Country Football/Netball administered under AFL Barwon.
The strategy is a collaborative planning project between local government authorities in the G21 region, AFL Barwon, AFL Victoria, Netball Victoria and other key stakeholders.
The strategy vision is
To work together to grow and prosper community football and netball.
Aligned with the vision six strategic priorities were identified:
Priority 1 – Support the capacity building of clubs and their people
Priority 2 – Increase the quality and functionality and maximise the carrying capacity of existing facilities
Priority 3 – Plan and develop new facilities in key growth areas across the region
Priority 4 – Capitalise on opportunities to create a Regional Administration Centre
Priority 5 – Ensure programs and facilities cater for the diversity of participants that are attracted to our game/s
Priority 6 – Continue to enhance the relationship between football / netball, government and community partners in planning and provision of facilities.
Cr Irvine moved, Cr Fisher seconded -
That Council approve the release of the Draft G21 and AFL Barwon Regional Strategy for public comment on 20 December 2014 for a period of 8 weeks in line with G21 partner Councils.
Carried.
The G21 region has a strong history of participation in football and netball, currently boasting four senior leagues, three junior leagues, 50 clubs, 380+ football teams, 340+ netball teams and 18,000+ registered participants. The region also provides participation opportunities for 2,500 Auskick participants and five youth girls football teams. Participation rates continue to grow within football and netball across the G21 region.
The AFL Barwon Commission was developed to guide the ongoing growth and development of football and netball within the region. The commission is one of 13 regional commissions established by AFL Victoria that are ultimately responsible for the promotion, growth and sustainability of community football within Regional Victoria.
To provide a clear plan for the development of football and netball participation, a partnership between the five local government authorities in the G21 region, AFL Barwon, AFL Victoria, Netball Victoria and other key stakeholders was established.
The G21 and AFL Barwon Regional Strategy was initiated in late 2013. The regional approach to guide the future planning and development of football and netball is the first of its kind in the state and is strongly supported by all project partners.
The strategy builds on the AFL Barwon Strategic Plan 2014-2018, AFL Victoria Growing the Heartland Football Facilities Development Strategy 2014-2020, Netball Victoria Strategic Plan 2014-2018 and other strategic documents relevant to AFL football and netball.
AFL Victoria’s Heartland Strategy estimates that the economic impact of football and netball participation is $2.4billion per annum across Victoria, indicating the significant impact that sport has on local communities.
The G21 and AFL Barwon Regional Strategy provides the strategic framework to support the future development, governance and growth of football and club based netball throughout the G21 region for the next 10 years. The strategy represents the alignment of objectives across all stakeholders and ensures that recommendations are driven by the sport and government in partnership. The strategy provides regional directions and recommendations, as well as prioritising actions to be delivered by AFL Barwon, AFL Victoria, Netball Victoria and each municipality.
An Issues and Opportunities Paper was developed to collate all information relevant to the development of the draft G21 and AFL Barwon Regional Strategy. The Issues and Opportunities Paper was built on a comprehensive consultation program, including surveys of football/netball clubs and schools, facility audits, and workshops and targeted discussions with all project partners.
The Issues and Opportunities Paper identified three key themes:
Sport Development - Supporting player participation in all forms of football and netball is central to the success of this regional strategy. Support structures, such as clubs and facilities, will need to adapt to meet changes in and capitalise on sports development initiatives beyond traditional participation and talent pathways.
Club Development – AFL Barwon supports 50 clubs and over 600 teams between netball and football across the region. There is significant diversity in club structure, governance processes and programs. Increased support and improved strategic planning will enable clubs to continue to grow, maximise sports development opportunities and invest in facility upgrades and renewal that are fit for purpose.
Infrastructure Improvement – Investment in the facilities across the region to ensure current facilities meet AFL Victoria and Netball Victoria minimum requirements and adequately accommodate anticipated participation growth and diversity of participants is essential. Providing appropriate facilities is a key action in driving increased participation in football and netball.
The development of the Issues and Opportunities Paper provided the foundation for the development of the draft G21 and AFL Barwon Regional Strategy.
The draft Regional Strategy recommends a vision and strategic framework for the development football and club based netball over the next 10 years.
The proposed vision is:
To work together to grow and prosper community football and netball
The vision highlights the need for all stakeholders to work in partnership to develop football and netball in the G21 region.
The strategic framework is divided into six priorities:
Priority 1– Support the capacity building of clubs and their people
The development of community football and netball clubs, and the volunteers that manage them, is a key priority of the strategy. Volunteers are responsible for the governance of clubs and are expected to maintain professional business standards. While volunteers bring a wide range of skills to their roles within community sporting clubs, it is the responsibility of all stakeholders to ensure that local clubs possess the necessary skills and knowledge for effective management.
Strategic directions include – Support club development and policy development; review competition structures; continued implementation of Club Health Check and investigate the feasibility of paid administration structures.
Priority 2 – Increase the quality and functionality and maximise the carrying capacity of existing facilities
The provision of functional, quality facilities is fundamental to participation and growth in football and netball. Prioritisation of projects that maximise community use of facilities will provide more opportunities to play football and netball within the community. As local government authorities are experiencing a gap between the funding available and the cost for facility renewal and maintenance, the requirement to prioritise infrastructure development projects and seek contributions from funding partners has become increasingly important.
Strategic directions include – Deliver recommended facility upgrades; prioritise regional facility projects; undertake facility assessments and support clubs to address volunteer capacity gaps; actively lobby state government for the continuation of Country Football Netball Funding Program.
Priority 3 – Plan and develop new facilities in key growth areas across the region
The G21 region is experiencing population growth in a number of areas, bringing with it the requirement for new facilities. Planning for new facilities in growth areas at Armstrong Creek, Drysdale / Clifton Springs, Ocean Grove, Lara, Torquay and Bannockburn will ensure that new communities have access to football and netball participation opportunities.
Strategic directions include – Investigate options for a synthetic oval within the region; implement new facilities as identified in growth area planning.
Priority 4 – Capitalise on opportunities to create a Regional Administration Centre
AFL Barwon currently operates from Highton Reserve, with a planned facility extension approved to accommodate growth in staff numbers over the coming five years. In the long term, the aim is for the Regional Administration Centre to become a hub for community football administration and game development activities. The long term development of a Regional Administration Centre at Armstrong Creek will provide options for a multiple oval complex with improved administration facilities.
Strategic directions include – Progress expansion of Highton Reserve; investigate long term options to develop a new Regional Administration Centre.
Priority 5– Ensure programs and facilities cater for the diversity of participants that are attracted to our game/s
The AFL Barwon Strategic Plan commits to encouraging clubs to actively engage with non-traditional participants such as girls, women, and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. The development of programs that meet the needs of these participant groups is vital in attracting the wider community to football and netball.
Strategic directions include – actively support female participation; support policy development and engagement with diverse communities; expand promotion of junior development to include diverse communities; support growth of Auskick and NetSetGo.
Priority 6– Continue to enhance the relationship between football / netball, government and community partners in planning and provision of facilities
The majority of football facilities are provided on land owned and/or managed by local government. Local government’s capacity to invest in new infrastructure is limited, with ongoing reliance on additional funding provision through government and peak sports bodies. A collaborative planned approach between sport and government to implement facility upgrades and renewal is essential to build facility capacity.
The majority of local government authorities are bearing the annual maintenance cost at each of their facilities averaging approximately $58,080 per venue. AFL Victoria are currently addressing player remuneration concerns with outcomes of the strategic initiative expected by 2015. Potential solutions extend to salary caps or introduction of a state-wide player points system.
Strategic directions include – Establishment of a regional reference group; support local forums; undertake “State of Play” reports and implement recommendations from the AFL Victoria panel investigating player remuneration.
The draft Regional Strategy identifies five critical actions that need to be delivered in order to commence the change process and set the foundation for the future for both football and netball in the region to 2025.
Critical Action #1
Local government authorities, AFL Victoria, Netball Victoria and AFL Barwon to partner to actively lobby state government for continuation of the Country Football Netball Funding Program.
Critical Action #2
Local government authorities, AFL Victoria, Netball Victoria and AFL Barwon work collaboratively to plan and prioritise lighting upgrades on a regional basis.
Critical Action #3
Deliver planned facility upgrades to a regional level as a first priority. Use the framework provided in the strategy to determine priority for existing club facility upgrades.
Critical Action #4
AFL Barwon to complete a strategic review of current club structures and work with key stakeholders to assist club sustainability and competition equalisation.
Critical Action #5
Support clubs to create five year strategic plans to improve operational performance and guide business objectives around facility and asset management, financial planning and club participation and growth.
The implementation of the G21 and Barwon Regional Strategy is reliant on a partnership approach between all stakeholders. The commitment to implementing the recommendations of the plan by sport and government is vital in ensuring the long term sustainability of football and netball in the G21 region.
There are no direct environmental implications arising from this report.
There are no immediate financial implications arising from this report. Funding for the implementation of the regional strategy will be sought through a range of funding opportunities and Council’s existing budgetary process.
There are no policy, legal or statutory implications arising from this report.
This report is aligned to the community well-being objective of City Plan. The provision of sport and recreation facilities promotes healthy lifestyle through physical activity.
No Council officers involved in the preparation of this report are known to have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.
There are no notable risks associated with this report.
Football provides many benefits including bringing communities together, reducing social isolation, increasing community pride, developing social capital and improving physical and mental health. This strategy provides clear direction for all stakeholders to ensure football and netball continue to grow across the region.
This report has no impact on compliance with the Human Rights Charter.
The development of this draft Regional Strategy has been a collaborative effort of a number of partner organisations including AFL Victoria, AFL Barwon, Netball Victoria and five G21 local government authorities.
Two project reference groups (sport and government) were developed to provide technical advice and input from a local perspective. Project stakeholders including clubs, schools and regional contacts were consulted in the analysis and scoping stage of developing the issues and opportunities paper.
Consultation activities including workshops with the project reference groups, targeted discussions with local government authorities, surveys of clubs and schools, and facility audits were undertaken in the development of the draft Regional Strategy.
Portfolio: |
Arts & Culture - Cr Andy Richards Youth - Cr Jan Farrell |
Source: |
Community Services - Arts & Culture |
General Manager: |
Jenny McMahon |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Courthouse |
The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval of a Triennial Funding Agreement between the City of Greater Geelong and Courthouse Youth Arts Centre Inc (Appendix 1).
Courthouse ARTS is a not-for-profit youth arts organisation dedicated to developing and supporting young people in the Geelong municipality. It is an important hub for local youth arts and culture services provision.
Courthouse ARTS operates as an incorporated association under Victorian legislation, and is governed by a Board of Management.
The City of Greater Geelong is the core funding provider of Courthouse ARTS.
This is the first Triennial Funding Agreement with Courthouse ARTS. Previous core funding contributions for delivery of services have been disbursed through Council’s annual recurrent budget process.
The purpose of the Funding Agreement is to establish minimum performance level expectations (Objectives) for Courthouse ARTS, the method of reporting those performance levels, and the level of funding provided by Council for delivery of those performance levels.
The Triennial Funding Agreement will increase accountability for management of funding provided by Council, and provide financial certainty for Courthouse ARTS within the triennial term to support planning initiatives and delivery of services.
Key Objectives (Refer Appendix 1 Funding Agreement) have been developed in collaboration with Courthouse ARTS management, including targets relating to young people’s participation and attendance, opportunities for their skill development, youth specific programming and marketing.
Cr Farrell moved, Cr Irvine seconded -
That Council:
adopt a Triennial Funding agreement between the Greater Geelong City Council and Courthouse Youth Arts Centre Inc for the years 2014/15 to 2016/17 (Appendix 1);
note that the Agreement is based on a contribution of $237,920 with an annual increase of CPI throughout the Triennial period;
note that the Chief Executive Officer sign the Triennial Funding Agreement under delegated authority.
Cr S Kontelj left the meeting room at 8:49pm
The Mayor vacated the Chair at 8:49pm
Cr Heagney assumed the Chair at 8:49pm
Cr S Kontelj re-entered the meeting room at 8:54pm
The Mayor resumed the Chair at 8:54pm
Carried.
The City of Greater Geelong purchased the former Geelong Law Courthouse and Police Station Complex from the Victorian State Government in November 1994 to accommodate an identified need for a youth-specific arts and culture centre.
Courthouse Youth Arts Centre Inc (trading as Courthouse ARTS), was established in 1995 as “The Courthouse Project”, comprising representation from Council, industry and community sectors and young people, and assumed the management responsibility for the venue and the development of its vision.
Courthouse ARTS is an incorporated not-for-profit community arts organisation dedicated to developing and supporting young people aged between 12-25 and the youth arts scene in the Geelong municipality. The aim of the facility is to provide a unique space where young people can experience the arts, explore their creativity and develop new and existing skills.
The Courthouse ARTS Board is responsible for the strategic direction of the organisation.
$6.5 million dollars was allocated by the State Government toward a major refurbishment of The Old Courthouse Building, and work on a number of new and revitalised theatre spaces and back of house facilities, as well as a dedicated art gallery and full disabled access, was completed at the end of 2011. The upgraded building was officially inaugurated in March 2012. The upgrade resulted in significant changes to the functionality, aesthetics and layout of the building, including the addition of a dedicated office and rehearsal space for Back to Back Theatre.
Previous contributions to Courthouse ARTS have been disbursed through Council’s annual recurrent budget process. The proposed shift to a Triennial Funding model aims to establish the minimum performance levels for Courthouse ARTS relating to the funding, strengthen reporting processes on funding use, and provide financial certainty for Courthouse ARTS within the triennial term to support planning initiatives and delivery of services.
Objectives for the Triennial Agreement were developed with Courthouse ARTS management in consideration of the physical changes to the building, its management and tenancy arrangements, a balanced engagement of young people across the target demographic, and improved collaboration and partnerships. They aim to enable the organisation to achieve a range of youth-specific outcomes, such as the delivery of:
Events/activities/programs/workshops for young people aged 12-25;
Entry level, highly accessible arts orientation activities targetting young people with minimal to no experience in the arts;
Free or low cost public programs/activities, including free holiday programs;
New arts and cultural works and initiatives created or presented by 12-25 year olds;
Young people aged 12-25 engaged in roles developing skills in arts facility operations;
Increasing attendances at events/programs/ activities targetting young people aged 12-25 (including students and non students).
Objectives and targets are fully detailed in Appendix 1.
A new Strategic Plan is currently being developed by Courthouse ARTS Board and management with the benefit of greater understanding of the updated facility. Funding Agreement Objectives will be taken into consideration as part of the Strategy development with a review of Objectives at the end of Year One to ensure the two are aligned.
Triennial funding of $237,920 (plus annual CPI increments) will ensure that Courthouse ARTS’ funding remains in line with other major regional, metropolitan and interstate youth arts providers, and assist Courthouse ARTS to establish itself as one of Australia’s leading youth arts organisations.
The enlarged and upgraded building operates substantially differently from the previous building in terms of power usage, and a period of observation has occurred since the re-opening of the building during which outgoings projections have been tested. It is now apparent that capital upgrades to the new facility have resulted in increased power consumption levels. Strategies are currently being explored for improving building operations to reduce power costs.
The City of Greater Geelong is the core funding provider of Courthouse ARTS. Establishment of a Three-year Funding Agreement will enable financial certainty within the triennial term.
At present approximately 47% of income is derived from Council core funding. Around 27% of revenue is from state ($64,300 from Arts Victoria through its Organisation Investment Program), and federal government sources ($62,064 from Australia Council). Courthouse ARTS, through a variety of means including grants, sponsorship, donations, venue and equipment hire fees, box office and memberships, anticipates securing $250,000 during 2014-2015 of additional income. Courthouse ARTS has Deductible Gift Recipient charitable status and is income tax exempt.
The allocation by Council to Courthouse ARTS in 2013/2014 - the final year of contribution without agreement - was $232,117. As part of the 2014-2015 budget process, Council determined that $237,920 (previous year plus CPI) would be allocated. It is recommended that 2014/2015 should constitute Year 1 of the Triennial Agreement, with incremental increases in Years 2 and 3 based on CPI.
Back to Back Theatre and Courthouse Café were originally sub-tenants of Courthouse ARTS, but now have direct leases with the City of Greater Geelong. To compensate Courthouse ARTS for the revenue gap resulting from this amended leasing arrangement, Café and Back to Back rental amounts are annually reimbursed to Courthouse ARTS.
Extensive benchmarking against other youth organisations undertaken by the Arts & Culture Department informed the funding recommendation. All organisations benchmarked operate under broadly differing operational models and funding environments, so benchmarking analysis was challenging, however the funding level recommended for Courthouse ARTS was considered commensurate.
Maintenance of the Old Courthouse Building forms part of the Lease and Funding Agreement with requests referred to and managed by the Corporate Strategy & Property Management Department.
The Old Courthouse Building is a Council asset, operated by Courthouse Youth Arts Centre Incorporated. The organisation is constituted for the following purposes:
Provide creative opportunities for young people in the Greater Geelong region to participate in a wide variety of art forms;
Provide opportunities for young people to celebrate the arts;
Facilitate the performance and observation of the arts, the exchange and development of ideas, the teaching and learning of performance skills;
Develop the capacity of young people to criticize and appreciate a wide variety of art forms; and
Encourage community acceptance of the value of the arts as an integral part of everyday living; and
Provide an alcohol and drug free environment for these activities.
The Board is elected each year at the Annual General Meeting. The Board operates under a Constitution and is responsible to its members. Council holds two positions on the Board – one Councillor (voting member) and one Council officer (non-voting member) representing the Council Service Manager (Arts & Culture Department).
The Triennial Agreement is tied to the Courthouse ARTS Lease – a breach in one constitutes a breach in the other.
Council has separate lease agreements with two other building tenants:
Award-winning Back to Back Theatre, who create new forms of contemporary theatre imagined from the minds and experiences of a unique ensemble of actors with disabilities.
The popular Courthouse Café which forms a commercial component of the building.
The Courthouse ARTS Triennial aligns with City Plan Strategic Directions and Priorities:
Community Wellbeing
Connected, creative and strong communities.
Growing Our Economy
A successful and vibrant City Centre
A leading city for tourism, arts, culture and events.
Courthouse ARTS is an important cultural organisation, which assists the City of Greater Geelong to deliver the actions outlined in Council’s current Culture Strategy Creativity +, as well as the Strategy’s Vision: to develop the City of Greater Geelong as a regional centre of innovation and excellence. Support for the Courthouse is vital to the implementation of one of Council’s priorities: the Cultural Precinct Masterplan.
The Arts & Culture Unit Co-ordinator is a non-voting board member for Courthouse ARTS Inc. As he represents Council on this Committee, this is not considered to be a conflict of interest.
As a key provider of arts activities and services for young people in Geelong Courthouse ARTS is an important organisation to many young people who, through this provision, may be able to access their first experience of arts possibilities otherwise not available to them. Discontinuance of support for Courthouse ARTS would place these young people at risk of losing important cultural development opportunities. It is also essential that the organisation is able to maintain a positive reputation and continue to develop its educational/public programmes and activities to keep in line with competitors.
The Triennial Funding Agreement and annual reporting and evaluation measures against defined Objectives will ensure the Courthouse ARTS’ performance is regularly reviewed and assessed, mitigating business risk. Requirement to submit the Annual Report and financial reporting information is a condition of the Lease Agreement.
As Asset owner, Council is required to comply with all regulatory maintenance obligations for Essential Safety Measures in the facility as set out in the Building Code of Australia (BCA).
Courthouse ARTS provision of facilities, resources, support and activities for young people is a focal point for the municipality’s youth community and is managed and developed in accordance with national standards of youth arts practice.
Youth culture plays a significant role in the cultural, social, educational and economic development of the community. The affects of youth arts on community life are well documented and include improvements to health and physiological wellbeing, academic achievement, cognitive skill and entrepreneurship, cross-cultural understanding and positive citizenship. Youth arts programmes, exhibitions, educational, cultural and creative mentoring support for young artists are therefore highly valued cultural resources.
The organisation aims to provide a safe, nurturing and welcoming environment where young people feel valued and respected, take active responsibility in their own artistic development, and are actively supported to produce the best work possible.
Over the years the Old Courthouse Building has brought international, interstate, and state based artists, musicians and performers to young people in Geelong, and has also taken young people and their work to other regions and cities, showcasing the youth of Geelong.
Courthouse ARTS contributes to the amenity and attraction of Central Geelong and as one of the City’s major cultural resources in the Cultural Precinct contributes significantly to regional youth culture.
Courthouse ARTS respects and provides access for all visitors. It presents young artists from a diversity of cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious diversity respecting the right to express all aspects of the human experience.
The Arts & Culture Department in consultation with Communication and Marketing will be responsible for communicating this report.
Portfolio: |
Arts & Culture – Cr Richards |
Source: |
Community Services – Arts & Culture |
General Manager: |
Jenny McMahon |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Arts & Culture |
To inform Council of the outcome of M~M2014 - Geelong’s 24-hour Extreme Arts Walk.
M~M2014 was an original 24-hour ‘extreme arts’ pilgrimage – a walk of 80km from the top of the You Yangs mountain range to the mouth of the Barwon River.
M~M2014 was staged on 9th and 10th May 2014 in response to ongoing community requests following the pilot 12 hour Mouth to Mountain journey in 2009.
The project integrated elements of art, storytelling, sports, environment and academia, employing artistic and community ritual making to explore and articulate local cultural identity on a local and national front.
M~M’s new event Geelong After Dark (GAD) animated Central Geelong on Friday 9th May by engaging traders, venues, cultural institutions, laneways and street corners with a programme featuring over 300 local artists.
M~M2014 and GAD attracted the involvement of around 16,250 people, and has won two Australian Event Awards – Best Community Event (National) and Best Cultural, Arts or Music Event (State). It was also a national finalist for Best Australian Event. Judges commented glowingly about M~M2014 being a demonstration of Geelong’s ‘true grit’ in the face of challenging times.
A Post Event Evaluation Report produced by Deakin University under the guidance of Professor Ruth Rentschler has recommended M~M to be a biennial event and GAD to be an annual event.
The project requires ongoing strategic investment to embed and make the vision sustainable – the Deakin report recommends that M~M should be resourced as an innovative, potentially landmark event which can profoundly impact Geelong.
M~M2014 and GAD were inaugural events – a framework and model have been established with many useful learnings.
A consortium of major partners provided outstanding support in developing the project: including Diversitat, Karingal, Deakin University, Wadawurrung Aboriginal Corporation,Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and the Borough of Queenscliffe. All have expressed great interest or made commitment to the next iteration.
M~M2014 and GAD generated an estimated event expenditure of $1.7M based on Geelong Major Events Committee evaluation methodology and $9,456 was raised for Karingal through registrations and donations
Cr Richards moved, Cr Ansett seconded -
That Council:
note the success of M~M2014 and Geelong After Dark and thank the project’s major partners, artists and volunteers;
approve M~M as a biennial event, and Geelong After Dark as an annual event;
note the need for an annual allocation to ensure future delivery of these events.
Carried.
On Friday 9th and 10th May 2014 a unique 24-hour ‘extreme arts’ walk across the Geelong and Queenscliffe municipalities was undertaken, linking and promoting iconic natural assets. The journey, entitled Mountain to Mouth (M~M2014), featured elements of arts, sport, environment, community and storytelling. A new city centre night event “Geelong After Dark” (GAD) was integrated, positioned at the heart of the journey.
A relay procession of community members carried water and fire in a symbolic sculptural Canoe over 80kms from the Big Rock waterhole at the top of the You Yangs to the mouth of the Barwon River. The journey passed through 12 stations which featured artworks created by artists working with local communities.
Connecting Memory, an app for Apple and Android, was developed through a grant from Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, as a companion to the M~M journey. People walking the M~M pathway were able to use the app to listen to over 153 locally produced films, audio and written stories, and music works.
Since its initiation as part of the 3-year Connecting Identities project in 2007-09, M~M has been lauded by high level industry bodies such as the Cultural Development Network, Arts Victoria and the Australia Council as a cutting edge community cultural development event of national significance. Images from M~M2009 were featured in an Australia Council exhibition Symbiosis: Living Through Art which showcased M~M as one of 10 outstanding national projects demonstrating the excellence of innovative community arts and cultural development practice. Arts Victoria featured M~M2009 as a case study in their publication The Arts Ripple Effect: Valuing The Arts In Communities (published 2014) about projects of excellence where artists work with communities.
M~M2014 laid the foundation and structure for a groundbreaking major cultural event and a celebration of local identity, original in form and content. It has unusual potential in its capacity to provide the community with a diverse range of exciting social and cultural activities for all ages and demographics, while articulating the authentic identities of places and communities across the Greater Geelong municipality.
In total, around 16,250 people were involved in M~M2014/GAD, including 3,700 participants who walked, created art, performed or worked on the event. Nearly 360 professional and non-professional artists presented over 600 artworks and performances. Nearly 1,000 people walked one or more stages including 29 who completed the full 80kms and 305 ambassadors carrying Canoe and flags. Over 12,500 spectators attended, 6,000 of which were at GAD resulting in nearly 11,700 visits to GAD sites in Central Geelong on the evening of Friday, 9 May.
As far as we know, M~M2014 is unique in the world - no other walk in the world integrates such a physical challenge with the presentation of artworks expressing local cultural identity against the backdrop of environment. Walkers interviewed after the event expressed gratitude for the opportunity to access places in their own municipality they had never seen before while interstate visitors commented on their amazement at the originality and beauty of the event. Post event research noted that the event elicited high ratings of participant satisfaction and positive experience. Both M~M and GAD elicited exceptionally positive feedback about the opportunity to ‘discover’ hidden aspects of the Geelong and Queenscliffe municipalities.
GAD was based on the City of Leeds ‘Light Night’ model, which was researched as part of Arts & Culture Department Manager Kaz Paton’s Churchill Fellowship. It presents an answer to a long-expressed desire for a mainstream cultural event for Central Geelong, and was enthusiastically received by its audiences. GAD offered an exciting new array of inclusive arts activities, animating the city centre, engaging multiple traders, venues, cultural institutions, cafés, shops and street corners, and providing a platform for over 300 local artists to participate. Major partner Diversitat was engaged as Creative Producer for GAD. Feedback was overwhelmingly positive.
M~M2014 was awarded ‘Best Community Event’ at the prestigious Australian Event Awards in Sydney in November 2014. The project was also awarded State Winner (Vic) in the ‘Best Cultural, Arts or Music Event’ category, and was a finalist in the ‘Australian Event of the Year’ category. M~M2014 has also been short-listed in the 2014 Victorian Health Promotion Foundation Awards in the Building Health Through Arts category, which will be announced on 3rd December 2014.
M~M has established a dynamic and flexible canvas for future development. The Deakin report recommends that M~M be resourced as an innovative, potentially landmark event which can profoundly impact Geelong. The report’s main recommendation is that Council and event partners develop the concept to further boost the local economy and to build the social fabric of the community and enhance the region’s reputation as a centre of cultural excellence.
M~M and GAD secured a strong legacy of support from participants, stakeholders and audiences. Major partners Deakin University, Karingal, Diversitat, Corangamite Catchment Management Authority (CCMA), Wadawurrung Aboriginal Corporation and the Borough of Queenscliffe each provided levels of contribution which critically bolstered the capacity of the event to a level well beyond what would otherwise have been achievable. All have expressed great interest or made commitment to the next iteration of the project. Substantial opportunity also exists to increase the range of partners for the event.
M~M2014’s coining of the new art form term "Extreme Art" was noted by the Australian Event Awards judges as being particularly innovative. This concept presents exciting potential for developing cutting edge art forms that bring together new forms of outdoor processional experiences of varying scale and complexity. This positions Geelong for forthcoming collaboration with major national and international artists, organisations and educational institutions, some of which are already being explored. Artworks developed in response to Geelong’s landscape, stories and people offer a creative framework for a future artwork curatorium mix that can be layered in every biennial articulation, with permanent, temporary and ephemeral artworks capturing the evolution of Geelong's cultural identity.
GAD is also expected to strengthen in each annual iteration. Venues and stakeholders involved in GAD 2014 have already confirmed their keen desire to participate and contribute again.
Similarly, the digital story archive housed at the newly developed app Connecting Memory will continue to build and grow, offering a legacy for preserving informal and anecdotal community experiences and memory, and providing users with ongoing access to layers of meaning attached to local places.
There is substantial scope to build on the cultural tourism potential of the event, and resources will continue to be strategically allocated towards attracting increasing numbers of interstate and international visitors to the event in future years.
The Deakin report further recommends that the City develop infrastructure and permanent public art around the footprint of the walk with interpretive content that illustrates Geelong in transition from manufacturing hub to services precinct with education, leisure and entertainment at its core. This suggestion will be considered in the context of the Public Art Priority Plan, and in consultation with the Recreation and Open Space Unit.
M~M2014 presented powerful opportunities to raise awareness of significant environmental and sustainability issues, and to strengthen local community engagement with our sanctuaries, reserves, parks and waterways. The journey footprint included areas of state and national environmental significance, such as Serendip Sanctuary, Friends of William Buckley Reserve and Swan Bay and Limeburners Lagoon, both part of the international RAMSAR wetlands network.
Land-art Walking Circles were created at each of the 12 stations along the route by local artists with community members helping to select site-specific environmental themes and materials. The making of the Circles offered a platform for residents to connect more intimately with their localities, and consider issues and opportunities for improving the care of these places. A deepening sense of responsibility for land, waters and local places is evident in many places, with tangible legacies.
Human impact on key sites was minimised, and no sites were damaged by the event. Early consultation with CCMA and Parks Victoria ensured the safe stewarding of large numbers of people across environmentally fragile areas, such as Hooded Plover breeding grounds at Point Lonsdale. Stories on the Connecting Memory app highlighted environmental beauty and fragility.
Regenerative plantings took place at one station, and free native seeds and plants were given to participants at two others. Registration fees collected by major partner Karingal will contribute to planting of provenance-specific indigenous plants along the M~M pathway to be propagated at a new Community Garden at the fully inclusive Eastern Geelong Community Centre.
From an environmental management perspective, the event was extremely ‘clean’ and sustainable. 11 sites had Waste Management recycling options, and the event used minimal powered resources. Event partners included Greening Australia, Barwon Coast, Friends of the Bellarine Rail Trail and Queenscliff Maritime Education Centre who helped manage sites and raise awareness of our precious waters and land.
Income
An allocation of $119,000 was made available for M~M2014 and GAD as part of Council’s budget.
Both events were delivered within the budget allocation, with additional grants, cash and significant in-kind contributions acquired from local and federal funding bodies, major partners and the generous contributions of artists which frequently exceeded negotiated fees.
To enable continuity of M~M/GAD, there will be a need for annual allocation of funds, which will be considered as part of future budget deliberations.
There are no policy, legal or statutory implications in this project.
M~M2014 aligns with multiple City Plan Strategic Directions and Priorities:
Community Wellbeing
Healthy lifestyles
Healthy environments
Connected, creative and strong communities
Growing Our Economy
Support existing businesses and encourage new and emerging growth sectors
A successful and vibrant City Centre
A leading city for tourism, arts, culture and events
Sustainable Built and Natural Environments
Enhance and project natural areas and ecosystem health
Support our community to live sustainable
Minimise our environmental footprint
How We Do Business
Lead by advocating and collaborating on issues important to the Greater Geelong community
Informed and engaged community
M~M2014 responds to key principles embodied in multiple Council strategies, most significantly including:
Public Art Strategy
Geelong Major Events Strategy
Healthy Together Geelong
Multicultural Action Plan
Youth Strategy
Disability Action Plan
Geelong Otway Tourism Strategic Plan
There is no officer direct or indirect interest in this project.
Specific risk management plans were developed in accordance with the event programme.
Finding the best time to mount M~M was challenging. A number of other walks and runs were programmed within several weeks of the M~M event, including the Mothers Day Classic, and the Great Ocean Road Run. Cross promotion was planned to attract professional walkers and runners to the region to take part in ‘A Month of Walks’, however resources did not permit alignment in 2014. Further exploration of cross-promotion potential will be undertaken in future years.
Debriefs conducted by the Arts & Culture Department (and also provided to Deakin University) identified improvements that could be made to this first-year endeavour. The Deakin report outlined a number of key recommendations to streamline and strengthen the delivery and marketing of the event.
M~M2014 established a framework for an enduring community ritual, unique to Geelong, with a proven model embedded in and across arts and non-arts organisations. The model is strategically geared to foster deep, long-term visitor benefit and community engagement through the arts, assisting a city in transition to develop its cultural profile. At a time when the municipality is facing the compelling issue of changing identity from a focus on manufacturing with the current crisis of major corporations’ imminent closure and associated loss of jobs, the establishment of this event is timely and impacting.
The Deakin report advocated strengthening linkages with local producers of foodstuffs and produce for provision during the event, both on the walk and during Geelong After Dark. There is ample scope to pursue this recommendation, promoting the strengths of our regional produce industry.
Involvement with the project was inextricably linked to fitness and good health by presenting the opportunity for a walk which is both extreme (fast paced - 80km in 24 hours) and subdivided into stages to ensure that at least one stage was accessible for most people. Event activities ranged from moderately active to vigorous and extremely active including walking, jogging, jumping, running, dancing and riding bikes. This innovative combination of arts and sport positively impacts on barriers to physical activity, and as its multifaceted roots include social, physical, economic and environmental benefits, it expands the perception of the connection between health, nature, culture and art, resulting in new health promotion avenues.
The "extreme art" concept also presents exciting potential for further development of cutting edge art interventions that bring together new forms of outdoor physical and processional experiences. The Arts & Culture Department is well positioned for forthcoming collaborations in this area with major national and international artists, organisations and educational institutions.
The Deakin report acknowledged the long term impact that M~M and GAD can have in supporting Geelong’s transitioning cultural and social identity, and endorsed the value of establishing the songline footprint as a permanent pathway for community members to traverse, connect with, enjoy and understand local places:
“…M~M provided the CoGG with an opportunity to harness its potential for the region and to drive improvement for the arts in regional Victoria…”
“…The success of the event, its award in recognition of its success, and its novelty and innovation linking arts, sport, environment, giving and the community, strongly suggest that it should be held every two years, facilitated by the CoGG Arts and Culture Department.”
– Evaluation Report, Mountain to Mouth, Deakin University
The M~M initiative promotes reflects cultural, linguistic, ethnic and religious diversity as central to all aspects of everyday life across our municipality. Rights evident in the project that accord with the Human Rights Charter include:
FREEDOM - Freedom of expression – Through partnership with Diversitat multicultural communities engaged in M~M/GAD and were supported in expressing their cultural heritage, including new arrivals.
RESPECT - Cultural rights – Due respect was shown to cultural rights of the Geelong communities which include groups from multicultural background who are performing during the event. Key aspects of M~M incorporate diverse cultural performances showcasing the rich cultural fabric of Geelong.
EQUALITY - Entitlement to participate in public life – M~M is an inclusive initiative where the diverse communities are given fair and equitable access to participate. Information about M~M/GAD was also promoted widely via culturally sensitive ways.
The Arts & Culture Department, with the Media Unit, are responsible for communicating this report.
Portfolio: |
Heritage - Cr Ansett |
Source: |
Projects, Recreation & Central Geelong |
General Manager: |
Dean Frost |
Index Reference: |
Subject: Events / Anzac Day |
The purpose of this report is to secure a one-off grant in 2015 for the Geelong RSL Sub-Branch to support the increased commemorative activities staged in 2015 on the occasion of the Centenary of Anzac.
The Centenary of the first World War 1914-1918 will be commemorated across Australia in many different ways with a significant focus on enhanced events commemorating Anzac Day on Saturday 25 April in 2015.
Larger than normal crowds are expected at all commemoration activities in our region on Anzac Day in 2015 however Geelong’s largest and key regional ceremonies take place in the Geelong Peace Memorial and Johnstone Park in Central Geelong and it is expected that this location will see the biggest attendance on the day.
The enhanced key regional event in Geelong on Anzac Day in 2015 will require significantly more infrastructure such as large screens and audio equipment to ensure that all attendees have the opportunity to see and hear the commemorative ceremonies on this significant date in Australia’s history.
The Geelong RSL Sub-Branch is seeking a grant from Council to assist with the increased funds necessary to stage the special 2015 Centenary event.
Cr Ansett moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -
That:
Council notes the Geelong RSL Sub-Branch’s planned 2015 Centenary of Anzac Commemorations and provides them with a one-off grant of $20,000;
a further report to Council outlining all opportunities for funding across the municipality.
Cr Heagney left the meeting room at 9:11pm
Cr Heagney re-entered the meeting room at 9:13pm
Carried.
Between 1914 and 1918, the nation of Australia was at war and the Anzac Centenary is a milestone of special significance to all Australians. During the Centenary period, Australia will remember the original Anzacs who served at Gallipoli and the Western Front, those who served on the home front and also commemorate over a century of service by Australian men and women in defence service roles.
The active involvement and sacrifice made by members of the Geelong community in WW1 was significant and it is expected that in 2015, due to the increased general public awareness of services and ceremonies to be held on Anzac Day 25 April, there will be larger than normal crowds and many new visitors to Geelong’s regional commemoration services at the Geelong Peace Memorial in Johnstone Park.
To allow for the increased number of attendees and general public interest in the Anzac Day ceremonies in 2015, the event organiser who are the Geelong RSL Sub-Branch, has a plan to include large screens and enhanced audio facilities in Johnstone Park to allow everyone attending on the day to see and hear all of the ceremonies and services.
The Geelong Peace Memorial can only house a few hundred attendees and it is expected that many thousands of the Geelong community will attend the events in Johnstone Park in 2015. Therefore large screens will be used in the park to allow everyone to engage with, and experience the incredibly special events that will take place on Anzac Day in 2015.
The Geelong RSL Sub-Branch is seeking Council’s support by providing a one-off grant of $20,000 to assist with the increased costs of delivering this larger event in 2015.
There are no environmental implications associated with this report. All normal event operational procedures will be applied by the event organiser and the City will process the event application in the normal way, providing guidance and assistance as required from the Event Services Unit.
There is currently no allocation for this grant in the 2014/2015 budget. This would be an additional new budget allocation of $20,000 in the current year’s budget in the form of a disbursement to the Geelong RSL Sub-Branch.
There is no policy, legal or statutory implications in this report. The disbursement would be handled in the same way the Event Services Unit manages a range of disbursements and sponsorship annually. A thorough registration, contract and acquittal process is already in place.
Anzac Centenary commemorative activities align with Community Wellbeing – connected, creative and strong communities; Healthy lifestyles; Healthy environments and Growing our Economy: Greater Geelong is a leading city for tourism, arts, culture and events.
There is no officer direct or indirect interest in this report.
There are no extraordinary risk implications as a result of this report.
The Centenary of the first World War 1914 - 1918 will be commemorated across Australia in many different ways with a significant focus on enhanced events commemorating Anzac Day on Saturday 25 April 2015.
Council’s support of the 2015 Centenary of Anzac regional commemorative ceremonies at Johnstone Park is a powerful endorsement and recognition of Geelong’s endeavours to mark this chapter in Australian history at a local level.
Rights that will be supported in the commemoration of the Anzac Centenary include celebrating human rights of Freedom and Dignity for our global and local communities.
The event organisers will be responsible for the communication and marketing of their activities. Council also supports all events in promotion of activities open to our community via social media, traditional media and information portals such as Events Geelong.
Portfolio: |
Sport & Recreation – Cr Irvine |
Source: |
Projects Recreation & Central Geelong |
General Manager: |
Dean Frost |
Index Reference: |
Project: C13847 – Lara Recreation Reserve – Infrastructure Upgrades |
The purpose of this report is to seek direction from Council on project C13847 - Lara Recreation Reserve – Infrastructure Upgrade.
At its meeting of 13 August 2013 Council amended the project description and budget for Project C13847 changing it from Lara Sporting Club Development to Lara Recreation Reserve – Infrastructure Upgrades.
Some expenditure has occurred against the project which has been related to the improvement of some facilities and design costs for a new soccer pavilion.
A project for the construction of a soccer pavilion has been developed and tendered, however a budget shortfall of approximately $180,000 has meant that this project cannot proceed at this point in time.
Cr Irvine moved, Cr Ansett seconded -
That the report be deferred.
Cr Harwood left the meeting room at 9:19pm
Cr Richards left the meeting room at 9:19pm for the evening.
Carried.
As part of the 2012/2013 budget Council allocated $400,000 towards project C13847 Lara Sporting Club Development.
Through a notice of motion on 13 August 2013, unspent funds in C13847 were combined with $35,000 of unspent funds from C14848 - Corio Cricket Club.
The combined project retained the C13847 project number and had a budget provision of $423,040. The project description was amended to ‘Lara Recreation Reserve – Infrastructure Upgrades’.
Since the August 2013 report, $31,884 has been expended or committed on cricket practice net improvements, $14,565 expended on temporary building hire costs and $8,400 expended on design related costs for a new pavilion.
The Lara Recreation Reserve – Infrastructure Upgrades Project includes provision for the development of a soccer pavilion at the Lara Recreation Reserve.
A tender for the development of a prefabricated building has been advertised and tenders received. However as the costs to deliver the project are significantly over the available budget the tender evaluation panel has recommended that a tender not be awarded.
It is therefore appropriate to advise Council of the status of this project and recommend that a request for additional project funding be referred to the next budget process. The project currently requires an additional allocation of $180,000 to allow the project to proceed.
An alternative option for Council could be to consider reallocating any savings identified during the 2014/2015 financial year to this project should they become available.
A significant component of the additional funding required to complete the project relates to the provision of sewerage connections to the proposed building.
Nil
The Lara Recreation Reserve – Infrastructure Upgrades Project currently has approximately $368,000 of unspent funds remaining.
In order to complete the project an additional allocation of $180,000 is required.
There are no policy, legal or statutory implications associated with acceptance of this report.
This project supports strategic directions in our Community Wellbeing, Growing Our Economy, and Sustainable Built & Natural Environment areas.
No council officers involved in this project or report have declared a direct or indirect interest in this matter.
There will be a risk to Councils reputation and grant funding commitments if these projects cannot be completed in time for the 2015 pre-school year.
Sport and recreation plays a key role in the health of our community. While the physical health of the community is the most apparent benefit, sport and recreation promotes increased mental health, social connection and community leadership.
The provision of a pavilion at the multi-purpose sports field at Lara Recreation Reserve will support increased participation primarily in soccer, but also in cricket and baseball.
The construction of the pavilion will ensure that access to participation opportunities is supported by adequate facilities, and a safe and welcoming environment is provided for all participants.
It is not evident or likely that this report would negatively impact any of the rights contained in the Charter of Human Rights.
There are no communication issues or requirements with acceptance of the proposed recommendation.
Portfolio: |
Planning – Cr Heagney |
Source: |
Corporate Services - Property Management |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Road Discontinuances |
This Report proposes the partial discontinuance of Lake Road, Armstrong Creek and that Council to be appointed as Committee of Management for the discontinued portion of the road.
The closure of the portion of Lake Road (shown cross hatched on the plan attached as Annexure 1) implements the Armstrong Creek East Precinct Structure Plan May 2010 (as amended on November 2011) (Precinct Structure Plan). More specifically, the closure of this portion of Lake Road implements the Precinct Structure Plan’s role in the wider Armstrong Creek Growth Area as a greenway as identified in the Structure Plan.
Discontinuing the road and appointment of Council as the Committee of Management will assist in the management of the greenway and formalise future arrangements where Council manages the land.
Prior to the discontinuance, service authorities for sewer, water, power, and telecommunications, as well as emergency services, will be notified.
Notice of the proposed discontinuance is required to be given under s207A of the Local Government Act and all landowners with frontages to the portion of road which is proposed to be discontinued will be notified by mail of the proposed discontinuance. If any 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 road will be discontinued and Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) will be requested to appoint Council as Committee of Management.
Cr Heagney moved, Cr Ansett seconded -
That Council, in respect of the proposed road discontinuance of part of Lake Road, Armstrong Creek and pursuant to section 206 and clause 2 of Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act (“Act”) resolves:
To give public notice as required under ss207A and 223 of the Act allowing anyone to make a submission in relation to the discontinuance of that part of Lake Road cross hatched on the Plan;
The Submissions Hearing Panel be appointed to hear and report to Council on any submissions in relation to the proposed road discontinuance; and
In the event that no submissions are received:
pursuant to the provisions of Clause 2(3) of Schedule 10 of the Act, notice be published in the Victorian Government Gazette;
that any easements, rights or interests required to be created or saved over the road by any authority be done so and not be affected by the road discontinuance;
That correspondence be sent to the Department of Environment & Primary Industries requesting that Council be appointed as the Committee of Management for the discontinued road.
That the General Manager – Corporate Services be delegated the power to sign any documents relating to the part road discontinuance.
Carried.
The Armstrong Creek Urban Growth Plan (ACUGP) (approved in May 2008) guides the future planning for civil, community and social infrastructure across the Armstrong Creek Growth Area. The ACUGP provides the principles for the planning and development of the Armstrong Creek growth area. More specifically the ACUGP identified and provided for a network of greenways to be delivered across the Armstrong Creek growth area providing for recreation and pedestrian activity. The principles within the ACUGP informed the development of Precinct Structure Plans for the Armstrong Creek Growth Area.
The Armstrong Creek East Precinct Structure Plan approved in May 2010 and amended in November 2011 designates the discontinuance of Lake Road from Barwon Heads Road to Horseshoe Bend Road.
The Armstrong Creek East Precinct Structure Plan and background technical reports identify the discontinuance of part of Lake Road, Armstrong Creek to facilitate a network of greenways across the Armstrong Creek growth area with a view to protecting and enhancing significant roadside vegetation.
The greenways will provide a network of recreational walking and cycling trails across the entire growth area through the provision of linear open space corridors along the Barwon River, Armstrong Creek and its tributaries, vegetated rural roads and other new routes that provide direct links to activity centres, schools and major parks.
The area of Lake Road which is proposed to be discontinued is an unmade government road which does not accommodate vehicular traffic. Traffic has not traversed those parts of the unmade government road for some time.
There are no environmental implications arising under this Report.
There are no financial or budgetary implications arising from the proposed part road discontinuance.
Before proceeding with the proposed discontinuance, Council must give public notice of the proposed discontinuance in accordance with ss207A and 223 of the Local Government Act. The Act provides that a person may, within 28 days of the date of the publication, lodge a written submission regarding the proposed road discontinuance..
Where a person has made a written submission to Council requesting that he or she be heard in support of a written submission, the submission(s) will be heard by the Submissions Hearing Panel. The Panel will further report to Council on the outcome of the hearing.
If there are no submissions the road will be discontinued in part.
This Report aligns with the City Plan initiatives of Community Wellbeing, Growing the Economy and Sustainable and Built Environment.
No officers involved in the preparation of this Report have a direct or indirect interest in the matters to which this Report relates.
The risks involved in the deviation and exchange of land are not significant and can be managed in the normal manner.
This Report has no impact on social considerations.
This Report has no impact on human rights.
A very extensive public consultation process was carried out by Council as part of the adoption and implementation of the ACUGP together with the preparation, development and approval of the Armstrong Creek East Precinct Structure Plan.
Portfolio: |
Source: City Services |
General Manager: |
Garu Vam Driel |
Index Reference: |
Project T1400034 |
To provide Council with the prerequisite information to facilitate the approval of the tender evaluation panel’s recommendation in relation to the provision of plant hire services.
Council has sought tenders for the Provision of Plant Hire Services. The services associated with the Plant Hire Panel Contract Arrangement involve the hire of construction plant and equipment on an as required basis. Council will only require the use of construction plant and equipment hire from external contractors in the event that Council plant and equipment is unsuitable or unavailable.
The successful tenderers will be appointed as preferred suppliers to a panel of providers for the provision of this service.
The provision of plant hire services will be effective for a three year period commencing 1 January 2015 and concluding 31 December 2017. Council has an option to extend the period by two twelve month periods.
A total of forty (40) companies have provided tender submissions for the provision of these services.
Following a detailed evaluation of each of the submissions it is considered that the tender submission’s listed in the “Recommendation” section of this report are preferred.
Cr Ellis moved, Cr Macdonald seconded -
That Council:
accept the tender submissions from the below listed forty tenderers for Tender No T1400034 – Provision of Plant Hire Services for the associated schedule of rates (excluding GST); and
|
Tenderer |
|
|
Aim Site Hire Pty Ltd trading as Aim Hire |
Anthony Tromp |
|
Bartletts Waste Management Pty Ltd trading as Bartlett’s Environmental |
Diamond Earthmoving & Cartage P/L |
|
CDN Constructors Pty Ltd (ATF) CDN Constructors Unit Trust |
Geelong Kerbing Pty Ltd trading as G.K. Excavations |
|
Civil Force (Vic) Pty Ltd (ATF) Norris Business Trust |
Jadeho Pty Ltd |
|
Draper’s Civil Contracting Pty Ltd |
Kerr’s Northside Hire Pty Ltd (ATF) the Kerr Family Trust trading as Kerr’s Hire (*) |
|
Harcom Pty Ltd |
Lantrak Pty Ltd |
|
Hoare Brothers Pty Ltd |
Marendaz Excavations Pty Ltd |
|
Kennards Hire Pty Ltd |
P J & L Wiffen Pty Ltd |
|
Norris Plant Hire (Geelong) Pty Ltd |
Richmor Holdings Pty Ltd |
|
NW Sand & Soil Pty Ltd trading as Tidytown Bin Hire |
Stephen Blake as Trustee Blake Property Trust |
|
Office Cleaning Services Pty Ltd trading as Tutt Bryant Hire |
Total Tree Care Pty Ltd |
|
PJM Machinery Pty Ltd |
Turf Care & Hire Pty Ltd |
|
PatAsh & Civil Group Pty Ltd |
W & B Dando Pty Ltd – ATF The Dando Family Trust |
|
Porter Constructions (Vic) Pty Ltd as Trustee for Pitman Investment Trust |
DP & JL Dunoon Pty Ltd trading as Newcomb Sand & Soil Supplies |
|
Porter Excavations Pty Ltd trading as Porter Plant |
Four Seasons Waste Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Four Seasons Waste Unit Trust |
|
Rob Davis Earthworks Pty Ltd (ATF) the Davis Family Trust |
S J Robins (Vic) Pty Ltd |
|
Sherrin Hire Pty Ltd trading as Boom Sherrin (*) |
Bellarine Tree Service Pty Ltd |
|
Thompson Bros Earthmoving Pty Ltd |
Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd trading as Coates Hire (*) |
|
Lawrence Vic Pty Ltd (ATF Lawrence Family Trust) |
Vegetation Management & Greenwaste Recycling P/L trading as Green Care Mulching |
|
A & K Tucker Excavations Pty Ltd (ATF The Tucker Business Trust) |
Russell Brown trading as Russell Brown Bobcats & Tip Services |
sign and seal the contract documents.
Carried.
Tenders for the Provision of Plant Hire Services were invited via public advertisement in the Geelong Advertiser and The Age and on Tenderlink on Saturday 1 March 2014.
At the close of tenders on 26 March 2014 Council received forty tender submissions as detailed above. All tenderers submitted hourly or daily hire rates for various types of plant 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 |
|
Bruce Harper |
Coordinator Fleet |
|
Don Chapman |
Fleet Services Supervisor |
|
Anne Miller |
Water Management Officer |
|
Peter Walker |
Senior Contracts Officer (non-voting member) |
Stage One – Mandatory Criteria
OHS Mandatory requirements applies to this Tender.
Each of the submissions responded to the other mandatory requirements set down in the Tender documents. In a number of instances further supporting OHS documentation was requested from Tenderers to ensure that they conform to the mandatory OHS requirements.
Stage Two –Comparative Criteria
Tender submissions were assessed based on the respondent’s performance or tender response in the following areas:
|
Criteria |
Weighting |
|
Project Delivery (including capability and experience, past performance, proposed plant and equipment levels and proposed staffing levels and competencies) |
90% |
|
Economic Contribution to the Geelong Region |
10% |
|
|
100% |
The Evaluation Panel deemed that all tenders as submitted have the necessary skills, experience and resources to undertake the required services during the course of the contract period. All tenderers were made aware that Council reserves the right to appoint several Plant hire contractors to undertake the services required and warrants no volume of work to any of the selected contractors.
The evaluation panel agreed that by having a panel of forty contractors Council should have sufficient plant available over the period of the contract to satisfactorily meet its operational needs. Three tenderers (*) have requested some changes to our standard Terms and Conditions of Contract. These three companies have been included in the proposed panel at this stage. Council will undertake further negotiations with these companies to agree on contract conditions that will satisfy both parties. It is believed that a resolution can be completed in the coming weeks before contracts would be issued to these selected suppliers.
The Evaluation Panel has reviewed the rates as tendered and considers that Council will be able to obtain value for money to Council from the proposed panel.
Any environmental implications associated with this contract will arise from the execution of this service. 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 amount of funds allocated in the Budget Code 4510 - Recurrent. The budget allocation for this service is approximately $2,250,000.
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 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 not considered to be any Human Rights impacts associated with the acceptance of this tender that cannot be managed through the contract conditions
There are no communication issues that will arise from the acceptance that cannot be managed through the contract conditions.
Portfolio: |
Finance – Cr Lyons (Mayor), Cr S Kontelj & Cr E Kontelj |
Source: |
Corporate Services – Financial Services |
A/General Manager: |
Michael Kelly |
Index Reference: |
Financial Management \ Reporting |
Cr Fisher moved, Cr Heagney seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1989, this contractual matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
Portfolio: |
Governance – Cr Lyons (Mayor) |
Source: |
Corporate Internal Auditor and Ombudsman |
Chief Executive Officer: |
Gillian Miles |
Index Reference: |
Audit CG - Internal |
Cr Fisher moved, Cr Heagney 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 - Notice of Motion
