Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 15 March 2016

Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Notices of Motion

Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at the Geelong Arena, 110 Victoria Street, North Geelong.

1. Amendment C262 – Public Acquisition Overlay to 28 Malop Street, Geelong – Consideration of Submissions

2. Community Grants Program 2015/2016 – Summary of Allocations – 1 July 2015 to 31 December 2015

3. Bushfire Protection Exemption – Request for Ministerial Review

4. Additional Bin Service

5. City Plan 2013-2017 Progress Report to 31 December 2015

6. Financial Management Report – December 2015

7. Christmas in Geelong Program 2015

8. Caretaker Policy Council Elections and General Signage (Including Electoral Advertising Signs) Policy

9. Councillor Portfolios 2016

10. Committee Representation 2016

11. Boundary Realignment – Fyansford and Herne Hill

12. Pioneer Road, Grovedale – Proposed Footpath Construction SRC344 – Intention to Declare

13. Roslyn Road, Highton – Proposed Footpath Construction – SRC346 – Intention to Declare

Cr Heagney declared an Indirect Interest in Agenda Item 1 – Amendment C262 – Public Acquisition Overlay to 28 Malop Street, Geelong – Consideration of Submissions in that she received a campaign donation from a person who lives/owns property abutting the laneway and left the meeting room at 7:50pm, prior to discussion of the item.

Cr Lyons declared an Indirect Interest in Agenda Item 1 – Amendment C262 – Public Acquisition Overlay to 28 Malop Street, Geelong – Consideration of Submissions in that he owns property near the overlay and left the meeting room at 7:50pm, prior to discussion of the item.

Cr Harwood (Deputy Mayor) assumed the Chair at 7:50pm.

1. Amendment C262 – Public Acquisition Overlay to 28 Malop Street, Geelong – Consideration of Submissions

Purpose

This report considers submissions received to Amendment C262.

Summary

• The Council considered this report at its meeting on 16 February 2016 and the motion

  “That Council:

  Having considered all submissions to Amendment C262 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme resolves to:

  1. Requests the Minister for Planning to appoint an Independent Panel under Part 8 of the Planning and Environment Act, 1987;

  2. Refers all submissions to the Panel; and

  3. Submits to the Panel its response to the submissions generally as outlined in this report.”

  was Lost

• The decision of the Council does not comply with Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 which requires, after considering a submission which requests a change to the amendment, the Council must —

1. change the amendment in the manner requested; or

2. refer the submission to a panel appointed under Part 8; or

3. abandon the amendment or part of the amendment.

• If, after considering the submissions the Council does not wish to proceed with the amendment, it must resolve to abandon the amendment.

• Planning Scheme Amendment C262 seeks to apply the Public Acquisition Overlay 2 (Proposed Public Open Space) to the land at 28 Malop Street Geelong.

• The property is developed with a commercial building and tenanted by Guf Games Geelong. The building is attached to similar commercial buildings on both sides, all fronting Malop Street with rear access to Dennys Place.

• Acquisition is required to enable the delivery of a laneway connection in Central Geelong, and has current budget funding by agreement between Council and Regional Development Victoria.

• The proposed laneway has policy support in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and the Central Geelong Action Plan 2013, and is referenced in Vision 2 – the State Government policy platform for Central Geelong.

• Council resolved on 15 September 2015 to prepare and exhibit the Amendment and a request was then initiated by the City’s Central Geelong Action Plan Department.

• Public exhibition of the Amendment commenced on 9 October 2015 and closed on 16 November 2015. Exhibition generated considerable interest in the local media.

• A total of 27 opposing submissions were received, including an on-line petition containing 2,820 signatures. Overwhelmingly submitters questioned why the land at 34 Malop Street (13 metres away) was not proposed to be acquired instead of 28 Malop Street. No. 34 historically provided an access point through to McLarty Place/Little Malop Street but is no longer available to the public.

• A significant majority of submissions also voiced their support for the tenant of 28 Malop Street; being Guf Games Geelong; and the business’s important social and economic role in the Geelong community.

• No submission was received from the landowner despite meeting with Council officers during the exhibition period.

• Two supporting submissions were received; one from Tract on behalf of the Central Geelong Taskforce, the other from the landowner of 26 Malop Street.

• In considering the submissions, Council officers sought further information from the applicant about its position on providing access through 34 Malop Street. The applicant replied on 15 December 2015: "Council is in discussion with the owners of 34 Malop Street. It is anticipated that Council will further consider the matter of this site and make public its intentions early in the new year’.

• The application of the Public Acquisition Overlay is perhaps the most serious planning power Council has at its disposal. Because of this there needs to be a high level of strategic justification to support the compulsory acquisition. In this case there is strong justification.

• Many submissions point to 34 Malop Street as an alternative with a lesser social cost. This alternative cannot be dismissed even though its consideration is outside the scope of Amendment C262. Submissions suggesting 34 Malop Street is a simple and cheap alternative fail to appreciate that the land is five times the area of 28 Malop Street and privately owned.

• What is clear is that a public breakthrough using either or both 28 and 34 Malop Street is integral to the implementation of the Central Geelong Action Plan. There is potential for a laneway connection to be achieved at 34 Malop Street through redevelopment of the site.

• It is therefore recommended that Amendment C262 and submissions be referred to an Independent Planning Panel. It is also noted that Council officers are currently in discussion with the owners of 34 Malop Street that includes creating a laneway connection from Malop Street to McLarty Place.

Cr Ellis moved, Cr Fisher seconded -

That Council having considered all submission to Amendment C262 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, resolves to abandon the Amendment.

Carried.

Crs Heagney and Lyons re-entered the meeting room at 7:59pm.

Cr Lyons resumed the Chair at 7:59pm.

2. Community Grants Program 2015/2016 – Summary of Allocations – 1 July 2015 to 31 December 2015

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to present details of allocations of the Community Grants program for the period 1 July 2015 to 31 December 2015.

This forms part of the ongoing accountability framework for managing the Community Grants Program in accordance with the City of Greater Geelong Grants, Contributions, Donations and Sponsorship Policy.

Summary

• The Community Grants Program has an annual budget allocation of $240,000 that is available to expend on groups who apply and are eligible under this grant program.

• As part of the accountability framework for managing the Community Grants, details of allocations are reported to Council twice per financial year.

• This report provides a statement of the allocations made during the period of 1 July 2015 to 31 December 2015. (Appendix 1-1).

• The total amount funded under this program for this period was $132,863.50 distributed among 68 community organisations.

• This leaves a balance of $107,136.50 in the 2015/2016 Community Grants Program budget allocation as at 31 December 2015.

Cr Fisher moved, Cr E Kontelj seconded -

That Council:

1. Notes the statement of allocations under the 2015/2016 Community Grants Program provided to community groups and organisations as detailed in Appendix 1-1 for the period 1 July to 31 December 2015.

2. Commends and congratulates the community groups and organisations who have received funding under the Community Grants Program for their efforts and contribution to the Geelong community.

Carried.

Background

The Community Grants Program is available to not-for-profit community groups and organisations who can apply for funds to support activities that will benefit the Geelong community.

In order to receive funds, applicants must comply with the established guidelines which govern the grant program.

Discussion

A total $132,863.50 was allocated among 68 community organisations from the Community Grants Program between 1 July and 31 December 2015.

The allocation of grants assists with meeting the objectives of Council by providing an opportunity to enhance the wellbeing of the community by building social capital and enabling community engagement through the provision of funds to assist with local activities.

Appendix 1-1 provides a list of groups, the type of projects and the amounts allocated during this period.

As of 31 December 2015, a balance of $107,136.50 was available to allocate to successful applicants for the remainder of the 2015/2016 financial year subject to the established grant guidelines.

Environmental Implications

Some of the projects supported via this grant program undertake environmental activities.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications. A total $132,863.50 was allocated between 1 July and 31 December 2015, leaving a balance of $107,136.50 for 2015/2016 financial year. All funds have been expended in accordance with the Community Grants Guidelines and within the $240,000 budget allocation.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The provision of grants to local organisations aligns with the aims of City Plan and the G21 Regional Plan.

This report is presented in accordance with the City of Greater Geelong Grants, Contributions, Donations and Sponsorship Policy.

Alignment to City Plan

The Community Grants Program aims to fund projects that assist in achieving goals and outcomes consistent with City Plan‘s Community Wellbeing objectives.

The grant guidelines provide details about the three priority areas of the Community Wellbeing objectives. This is to ensure applicants are made aware of the aims of the program and to assist them in developing their proposals.

The provision of grants is offered to assist community organisations to provide opportunities that benefit the wider Geelong community.

Applications are encouraged for projects that demonstrate or promote social inclusiveness, healthy lifestyles, healthy environments that provide broad benefits to the City of Greater Geelong community.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

The provision of grants is carried out in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 Officer Direct or Indirect Interest.

The Community Grants Program has provision in the assessment process to record any conflict of interest relating to each grant application that is assessed.

Risk Assessment

The Community Grants Program is governed in accordance with Council’s monitoring, reporting and accountability framework.

Successful applicants are provided with an acquittal/evaluation form for their completion and return to Council as a record of the outcome of the grant funding they received. Annual audits are also conducted on a sample group of grant recipients.

Social Considerations

The provision of Community Grants provides an opportunity to support and strengthen communities to provide a broad range of activities for the benefit of the Geelong community.

Human Rights Charter

The Grants, Contributions, Donations, and Sponsorship Policy references the Chart of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

The Charter states that human rights are essential in a democratic and inclusive society that respects the rule of law, human dignity, equality and freedom.

The provision of grants provides opportunities to assist in promoting social inclusiveness and projects that deliver broad community benefit.

Consultation and Communication

All groups are notified of the outcome of their grant application.

The list of allocations will be reported on the Geelong Australia Website.

The Community Development Department is responsible for communication of all matters relating to this report.

Appendix 1-1

Statement of Community Grants Allocations

1 July 2015 to 31 December 2015

3. Bushfire Protection Exemption – Request for Ministerial Review

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to detail the issues associated with the current application of clause 52.48 - Bushfire Protection: Exemptions in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme and request that the Minister for Planning investigate the matter. This clause currently applies to all urban and rural areas in the municipality regardless of fire threat. It allows for the removal of significant vegetation if it is located near a house or fence constructed prior to 2009. This is having a detrimental impact on the character and environmental values of Geelong’s urban areas.

Summary

• Clause 52.48 was introduced into Victorian Schemes in November 2011 post the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission.

• Clause 52.48 allows the removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation to reduce fuel load around existing buildings used for accommodation and adjacent to fences on property boundaries without requiring a planning permit. These permit exemptions for vegetation removal applies to buildings and fences existing or approved before 10 September 2009.

• These exemptions override other planning scheme requirements for the protection of vegetation including permit conditions and the requirements of heritage, vegetation protection, significant landscape or other overlays. These exemptions do not apply to ‘urban’ (metropolitan) councils except where an area is covered by the Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO).

• Geelong has significant urban areas which have no designated fire threat under the planning or building regulations but does not benefit from the exemption applied to metropolitan areas.

• Clause 52.48 allows significant vegetation to be removed in urban areas that would otherwise have some planning protection or planning consideration prior to removal.

• Geelong has and will continue to lose significant trees in urban areas under the pretext of bushfire safety when there is no identified bushfire threat under planning or building regulations.

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Ansett seconded -

That Council:

1. writes to the Minister for Planning to request clause 52.48 - Bushfire Protection: Exemptions be applied more strategically in Geelong to differentiate between urban areas with no bushfire threat and rural areas with an identified bushfire threat;

2. provides a copy of this report and the letter to Minister to the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Carried.

Baclground

Clause 52.48 was introduced into Victorian Schemes in November 2011 post the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission. It allows the removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation to reduce fuel load around existing buildings used for accommodation and adjacent to fences on property boundaries without requiring a planning permit. These permit exemptions for vegetation removal apply to buildings and fences existing or approved before 10 September 2009.

This clause currently applies to the entire Geelong municipality and overrides:

• any requirement of a planning permit, including any condition, which has the effect of prohibiting the removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation;

• any requirement of the planning scheme to obtain a planning permit; or any provision in the planning scheme which prohibits the removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation such as a Heritage Overlay, Vegetation or Significant Landscape Overlay.

• any provision in the planning scheme that requires the removal, destruction or lopping of vegetation to be carried out in a particular manner.

Since the introduction of 52.48 in 2011, Geelong has experienced a number of issues with vegetation being removed, destroyed or lopped in urban areas under this provision despite the fact that these areas are not included in the Bushfire Management Overlay and are not designated as “bushfire prone areas” by the Victorian Building Authority.

This means that in all urban areas of Geelong, vegetation can be removed, destroyed or lopped within:

• 10 metres of an existing house constructed before September 2009;

• 4 metres either side of an existing fence on a boundary between properties approved before September 2009 within different ownership and

• 30 metres of an existing building used for accommodation approved before September 2009.

This exemption does not apply to metropolitan areas within Melbourne unless they are covered by the Wildfire Management Overlay (WMO). There does not appear to be any strategic basis for the distinction between metropolitan urban areas and regional urban areas with no identified fire threat.

Discussion

There are a number of implications for vegetation loss in urban areas due to the blanket application of clause 52.48 regardless of identified bushfire threat.

Heritage

There are around 156 trees listed as significant in the schedule to the Heritage Overlay and most of these are in the urban areas of Geelong. Trees include but are not limited to pines, palms, Morton Bay Figs, Magnolias, Liquid Ambers and Peppercorns. Many of these trees are located with 10 metres of a house or 4 metres of a boundary fence given the size of a suburban lot and given that many plantings, including hedges, are planted along fence lines. These trees have no protection in the planning scheme even though they are specifically identified under the Heritage Overlay.

Landscape and Vegetation Values

The issues above apply equally to urban areas with Vegetation Protection Overlays and Significant Landscape Overlays including areas within Barwon Heads and Ocean Grove.

Development and Neighbourhood Character

The loss of urban vegetation under clause 52.48 is also affecting development applications. Clause 55.03-8 of Recode specifically encourages the retention of mature vegetation on the site, however, even if it is considered a development should provide for the retention of significant trees on character grounds, some applicants are getting around this by removing them under the Bushfire Protection provision. This is despite the fact the area has no identified bushfire threat.

Strategic Planning

As part of the strategic planning work for our urban areas including; town centres, suburbs and townships on the Bellarine Peninsula, the need to retain significant trees for character and environmental reasons comes through strongly as part of the public consultation process.

When controls are implemented to reflect these community aspirations there is an expectation that the controls will deliver some form of significant tree protection. The fact that significant trees can be removed under the pretext of bushfire protection, in areas with no identified bushfire threat, undermines confidence in the planning process.

The Bellarine Peninsula Localised Planning Statement (Victorian Government, 2015) contains the following strategy:

‘Ensure that new development allows for the protection of significant vegetation and/or planting around buildings and has minimal impact on roadside vegetation’

This strategy is being undermined by the arbitrary application of the Bushfire Protection provision across all urban settlements regardless of bushfire threat on the Bellarine.

Urban Forestry Strategy

Council recently adopted an Urban Forestry Strategy and is looking to develop a Significant Tree Register. This work will be seriously undermined in urban areas if the Bushfire Protection exemptions continue to apply across the entire municipality regardless of fire threat.

The current application Clause 52.48 to the entire Greater Geelong municipality is unjustified and unwarranted. Urban areas with no identified bushfire threat should not be subject to the Bushfire Protection exemptions. Significant vegetation which would otherwise have planning protection is being removed under this pretext which is having a detrimental impact on the character and environmental values of our urban areas. Geelong’s urban areas are not unlike the urban areas of the metropolitan municipalities that currently enjoy an exemption from this provision (unless land is included in a Bushfire Management Overlay).

It is recommended Council write to the Minister for Planning to request this matter be investigated with the outcome that clause 52.48 can be more strategically applied within Geelong in the future, to reinstate planning controls that were in place prior to 2011.

Environmental Implications

The request to more strategically apply clause 52.48 in Geelong will see a greater number of urban trees protected.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications as a result of implementing the recommendation of this report. There may be a minor increase in permit applications which can be absorbed without additional resources.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

There are no policy or legal implications as a result of implementing the recommendations of this report.

Alignment to City Plan

This request aligns with the Sustainable and Built Environment actions around protecting the built and natural environment and protecting biodiversity.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council officers or contractors have any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80(C) of the Local Government Act 1989, in the matter to which this request relates.

Risk Assessment

There are no risks associated with implementing the recommendation in this report.

Social Considerations

Feedback from the community as part of the public consultation phase of many strategic planning projects highlights a desire to protect urban trees for character and environmental reasons. This report aims to assist in the protection of these trees.

Human Rights Charter

This report will not impact on basic human rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter.

Consultation and Communication

The relevant internal departments were consulted in the preparation of this report.

Cr Richards declared an Indirect Financial Interest in Agenda Item 4, Additional Bin Service in that he is contracting into the waste and recycling industry and left the meeting room at 8.09pm, prior to discussion of the item.

4. Additional Bin Service

Purpose

The purpose of this report is for Council to adopt a revised Recycling and Waste Collection System Policy CPL225.1 - Recycling and Waste Collection System.

Summary

• Council will spend an estimated $545,000 for the 2015-16 financial year through providing this additional bin service. The service is used by approximately 4.2% of the tenements. It is predicted that 5100 waste bins will be provided in 2015-16 and is estimated to rise to 20,160 bins at an estimated cost of $1.88 million in 10 years time at current growth rates.

• This additional bin service is perceived as a “free service” by residents however it is cross subsidised by each residential property paying the Waste Collection Charge. The current cross subsidy amounts to $5.30 per property and is expected to rise to $15 per property in ten years.

• The number of additional bins is increasing by around 1,100 per annum (17%). The additional garbage bins account for 60% of the additional bin service. Correspondingly there are approximately 2000 new properties added to the kerbside service each year.

• To prevent a continuing increase in this perceived free service a change to a user pays additional bin service is proposed.

• A sample survey of 15 regional, rural and metropolitan Councils indicated that they all provided an additional bin service option for their residents. These options however all incurred additional charges.

• It is proposed that any change to the provision of additional bins be implemented in two distinct phases. Phase one would be implementation of changes for any new bin applications. Phase two would be the addressing of the existing additional bins held within the community. Phase two is likely to be a much more resource demanding and therefore will need to be considered as a separate task to Phase one.

• The implementation of a user pays system will require in field monitoring of presentation of additional bins, auditing of properties presenting multiple bins enforcement and property rates data changes. These processes are all likely to require some additional resources. The funding of these resources however would be possible from the savings that the cessation of the provision of the current free service would provide and the income from new paying additional bin services.

• There are a significant number of properties that present additional bins for collection that have been sourced outside of the CoGG delivery system or are listed as stolen bins. Audits and inspections are needed to locate these properties and then allow residents to either pay for their additional bins or return their additional bins. This process is also likely to need additional primarily short term staffing resources to manage the change process.

• The revised Policy CPL225.1 - Recycling and Waste Collection System as presented proposes to introduce a user pays system to allow properties to access additional waste, recycling and possibly greenwaste bins in residential kerbside collection service. This policy change will replace the current system that currently provides bins at no cost to residents and is perceived as free but is cross subsidised through the Waste Services Charge by all residential properties.

Cr Harwood moved, Cr Murrihy seconded -

That Council:

1. notes the cost to Council of continuing to provide this service without initiating user pays charges and the continuing demand for a perceived “free” service;

2. agrees to the implementation of user pays charges for additional bins for all new applications post 1 July 2016;

3. adopts the revised Policy CPL225.1 - Recycling and Waste Collection System; and

4. notes that a Phase two should be considered by Council at a future time to address the existing additional bins held within the community.

Carried.

Background

The current system of providing additional bins provides residents with the option of an additional garbage bin and or an additional recycling bin at no additional cost to the resident.

The additional bin system was instigated as a free service to residents when the three bin system was introduced in 2002 (waste, recycling and green waste). The rationale for the introduction of additional bins was to compensate larger families who may struggle to fit their recycling and garbage into the provided 120 litre weekly garbage and 240 litre fortnightly recycling service . The additional bin service did not include an additional green waste bin.

Residents can gain access to the service on medical grounds or if they have six or more in the household. Applications based on medical grounds are approved immediately.

The additional bins service now represents 4.2 percent of the total garbage and recycling bins collected. The large family criteria was designed to assist larger households make the transition from the previous unlimited volume system to the volume limited three bin system.

Currently there are 4882 additional garbage and 3519 additional recycling bins in service. The number of additional bins is increasing by approximately 1,100 annually. Garbage bins account for 60% of the additional bin service.

Discussion

1. Previous review of the additional bins service undertaken in March 2011

   The outcomes of this review were:

• The criteria of “six or more in the household” was deemed to be ineffective at restricting the number of applications for additional bins. The criteria is still required to be met by residents with all new applications however it is not possible to determine the accuracy of information provided.

• From a mail survey around 90% of the customers replied that their additional bins were still needed.

2. 2015 Survey of Other Councils

   A sample survey of 15 regional, rural and metropolitan Councils indicated that they all provided an additional garbage bin service including additional fee charges.

   Eight of the fifteen Councils provided a discount for hardship or for medical reasons with applications requiring detailed information and a doctor’s certificate in support of medical claims. Seven of the fifteen councils surveyed provided discounts for large families. No Council provided a totally free additional bin service but three Councils did provide additional recycling bins for free.

   The surveyed Councils generally believed their additional bin issue was effectively managed by the user pays system. The survey also indicated that a number of Councils were reducing the hardship and exemptions criteria and allowing only exemptions for a medical condition generating excessive waste.

   The Councils surveyed indicated their additional bin rate ranged between 1% to 2% of whereas the CoGG rate is 4% of tenements.

3. State of the Current Additional Bin Service

   COGG is currently providing a “free” additional bin service and limiting the provision of these ”free” bins by the application of certain criteria surrounding them. This system has proven to be ineffective over the period that the three bin collection service has been in place.

   The current rate of the increase in the costs associated with increasing provision of additional bins is unsustainable. COGG already has at least double the number of additional bins of any other municipality surveyed. With an annual increase currently running at 17% within ten years this could end up being seven or eight times that experienced by other municipalities.

4. Implementation of a User pays Additional Bin Service

   The implementation of a User Pays additional bin service is a significant change for the municipality as for the last 13 years residents have been used to the concept of this service being provided fee by Council. If undertaken, the removal of the additional bins from the properties that have them (almost 5000 in the case of the additional red lidded bins) will require a major communication and logistical operation. It is proposed that the transition to a user pays service be undertaken in two phases.

   Phase 1 of the introduction of this change would be to introduce the user pays system for all new additional bin applications after a set date (e.g. 1 July 2016). It will leave the decision and process to address the existing bins out in the community (Phase 2) for future consideration. To try and combine these two stages would be very difficult from a workload, staffing and logistical perspective.

   There is also a real risk associated with combining the change to a user pays system with the retrieval of existing bins within the community. The retrieval of existing bins may generate dissatisfaction from those currently in possession of the bins The retrieval of these bins needs to be thoroughly investigated and a plan put together to ensure minimal disruption to households. It is proposed that this is a separate process independent of the broader issue of moving to a user pays additional bin system.

6. Cost Structure for Additional Bins

   The following table for an additional bin service has been developed to provide indicative charges for 2016/17 based on the costs of the 2015-2016 budget. The following model sets out to recoup all operational, maintenance and capital costs.

   The following table is a cost recovery model and the option of a higher cost for garbage can be considered if required to focus on increasing the amount of recycling occurring.

	Garbage	Recycling	Recycling (with cost signal)	Green
Yearly cost for an additional bin	$135	$48	$73	$62

7. Exemptions for Medical or Hardship Reasons

   The provision of exemptions based on economic or social hardship would be difficult and very labour intensive to provide. Hardship is difficult to determine with many factors contributing to and many varying opinions exist on the classification of hardship. Most services across Council do not attempt to take on this challenge.

   Each application for hardship would have to be assessed individually which would be very labour intensive (currently we receive over 1000 applications annually).  This would require at least one fulltime EFT to investigate, liaise with and assess each application.  To undertake this process in a fair and equitable manner would require specialist skills.

   The assessment of the degree of hardship that people are in may be an emotive and potentially controversial process for those believing they are in hardship.  This may result in a portion of applicants that are rejected based on whatever criteria are agreed being disgruntled and therefore prone to voicing their disappointment further.

   The Additional Bin Charge is not able to be passed on to the tenement by the landlord in the normal rent cycle and correspondingly any individual reduction in the Additional Bin charge would be retained by the landlord. Only owner occupied housing would potentially see any benefit from an Additional Bin charge exemptions scheme unless a separate system was developed for properties with tenants.

   A provision for a charge exempt additional bin for a medical condition that produces excessive waste would provide assistance to a section of the community. This would still require significant resources to manage but would avoid the owner versus tenant prejudice.

Environmental Implications

The introduction of an additional bin charge may lead householder to transfer excess waste from one bin to another. To reduce this risk, proactive inspections through regular audits and the bin inspections should be considered for properties. From previous audits and inspections it has been observed that residents generally use the three bin system as intended. The additional bin service provides households with greater disposal volume and this may inadvertently encourage households that can afford additional bins, to dispose of more material and reduce waste minimisation activities. This behaviour should it occur will not have a material impact on operation of the kerbside collection system.

Financial Implications

Costs associated with the additional bin service are forecast to increase from $545,000 to $1.88 million over the next 10 years. The accumulative 10 year cost would be $11 million if current trends continue.

The implementation of Phase 1 of the change to a user pays additional bin service will require development of some new administration processes to facilitate the charging for the service. These processes along with the monitoring and enforcement of this change in policy will require some degree of additional resourcing. Once the free bins stop there undoubtedly will be an increase in instances of residents illegally obtaining additional bins. There needs to be adequate resources to ensure the change is implemented properly. The estimated income from the provision of 1000 user pays additional bins and with current ratio of 60% waste bins is $96,400. This income can offset costs associated with resources required for implementation.

To offset a portion of these costs would include the recovery of “stolen” bins, a reduction in the number of properties requiring additional bins and additional charges to properties with unregistered additional bins.

The following chart highlights the projected cost of the service per year rising over the next 10 years if no change is made.

A charge for additional bins will significantly reduce the ongoing operational costs associated with this service. This will reduce the cost of the Waste Collection Charge immediately and also protect it from the continually growing proportion of the base service that these bins currently represent.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The introduction of an additional bin charge will require a change to the Policy CPL225.1. Guidelines for Provision of Additional Bin Services for Garbage, Recycling and Greenwaste are attached. These Guidelines were previously developed for the introduction of the three bin system to provide assistance to large families through the transition to the new fixed volume bin system.

The policy stated…

“Upon compliance with the conditions outlined in the ‘Guidelines for Assessing Applications for Additional Garbage and Recycling Services’ a resident may be granted an additional garbage and/or recycling service at no additional charge.”

The Policy has been reviewed and the proposed revised policy is attached (Appendix 1).

Alignment to City Plan

The adoption of the revised Policy CPL225.1 aligns to ‘Sustainable and Built Environment’ by supporting a flexible approach to kerbside recycling and waste collection services while reducing the cost pressures to this service.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

The person preparing this report has no direct or indirect Interest in this matter

Risk Assessment

The introduction of a charge on additional bins may result in an adverse reaction from current additional bin holders. The service is used by approximately 4% of residential properties. This could create negative media coverage and a communication plan will be developed to reduce this risk.

However the ability of Council to sustain the service in its current form in view of the escalating cross subsidy costs is a risk. This change to additional bins will assist within the current economic environment of rate capping and corresponding pressure to reduce increases in fees and charges.

The implementation of the recommendations will require additional resources to manage the implementation of the changes. Without these resources the additional bin service will remain open to abuse by non paying properties.

Upon adoption of the recommendations in this report the provision of addition bins will be suspended until the implementation of the user pays system on 1 July 2016. This will ensure that we do not get inundated with requests for additional bins (currently free) once it becomes known that a charge will be applied in the near future.

Social Considerations

The implementation of the recommendations will require householder to pay for the service.

This may disadvantage lower income households who currently use the service. A provision for a charge exempt additional bin for a medical condition that produces excessive waste would provide assistance to a section of the community.

Council offers a number of free waste disposal services that may assist. The Geelong Resource Recovery Centre, Douro Street, North Geelong and Drysdale Resource Recovery Centre, Becks Rd Drysdale provide the following services;

• Free televisions and computer equipment drop off at Drysdale and Geelong Resource Recovery Centre’s

• Free white goods drop off at Drysdale and Geelong Resource Recovery Centre’s.

• Free household recycling drop off at Drysdale and Geelong Resource Recovery Centre’s.

• Free paint, batteries, fluorescent tubes, oil and gas bottles drop off at the Geelong Resource Recovery Centre ONLY.

• Discount promotions throughout the year.

• Free drop off day for household chemicals

Human Rights Charter

This report has no impact on compliance with the Human Rights Charter.

Consultation and Communication

A communication plan will be prepared in partnership with the Communication Unit.

The communication plan will be implemented over the period prior to the implementation of the additional bin charge to those properties currently receiving a “free” service. This would potentially alleviate any adverse publicity.

Key messages would be:

• The costs associated with the service and its financial un-sustainability.

• Alternative method of dealing with excess garbage and recycling will be included in an education program. This would include waste minimising activities such as composting. Flattening boxes in recycling, better use of bin space and removing recycling content from garbage bins.

Cr Richards re-entered the meeting room at 8:22pm.

5. City Plan 2013-2017 Progress Report to 31 December 2015

Purpose

Council at its meeting on 23 June 2015 adopted the 2015-2016 Update of City Plan 2013-2017, which outlines the Strategic Directions and Priorities planned by the Council over the four-year period, and the Annual Business Plan Actions planned for the coming 12 months.

This report is the progress report to Council of the organisation’s achievements against these actions.

Summary

• Page two of this report provides a dashboard summary of progress to date of 2015-2016 City Plan actions.

• Attachment A details the status and provides commentary against the Annual Business Plan actions.

• Out of a total of 233 actions, there are five actions with a status of ‘Major Issue’.

  City Plan 2013-2017 (15/16 Update) Progress Report to 31 December, 2015

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Harwood seconded -

That Council receives and notes the City Plan Progress Report to 31 December 2015.

Carried.

Background

Council at its meeting on 23 June 2015 adopted the 2015-2016 Update of City Plan 2013-2017 which outlines the Strategic Directions and Priorities planned by the Council over the four-year period, and the Annual Business Plan Actions planned for the coming 12 months.

Community Wellbeing

Healthy Together Geelong: to enhance health, wellbeing and quality of life of Greater Geelong Communities.

Growing Our Economy

Securing Geelong’s economic future.

A Sustainable Built and Natural Environment

Partnering with our community to protect and enhance our natural ecosystems and to encourage sustainable design and reduced resource consumption.

How We Do Business

We will focus on developing and maintaining effective working relationships to deliver Council’s strategic directions and cost effective services that meet the changing needs of the community.

Discussion

This report and attachment indicates the status of the actions in City Plan 2013-2017 for the 2015-2016 financial year as at 31 December, 2015.

The attachment provides status and comments for each of the 233 actions within the four strategic directions.

There has been significant progress in the December quarter towards achieving the actions in 2015-2016 including:

Community Wellbeing

Status Summary:

Major issues summary:

• During this quarter a number of recreation and community projects were commenced or completed:

• Drysdale's Springdale Neighbourhood Centre opened their doors to young people on 13 October, 2015. Known as the Drysdale Youth Centre, young people aged 12-25 years of age can relax, socialise and take part in a range of classes.

• A number of playground installation projects were completed – Elinbank Reserve Grovedale, Hopetoun Park Geelong, Grinter Reserve Newcomb, Seaview Park Belmont, Harvey Park North St Leonards, Shell Reserve Corio, Arthur Powell Playground Ocean Grove and Ferndale Playground Highton.

• Lara Multi Purpose pavilion at Lara Recreation Reserve was also completed this quarter.

• The Social Infrastructure Plan (SIP) was endorsed by Council on 20 October, 2015. The SIP provides a blueprint for planning and delivery of social infrastructure investment to 2031.

• The SIP provides a framework for planning and delivery of social infrastructure – the formal and informal places and spaces that provide physical resources for community activity and services. The SIP breaks down the municipality into IS planning areas and considers each area within its own right and also within the broader regional context.

  Projects to be considered include:

  Short term (1-5 years)

• investigation of a multi-purpose community and cultural hub in Belmont/Highton/Wandana Heights planning area

• multi-purpose community hub in Portarlington

• Rosewall Neighbourhood House upgrade

• Medium Term (5-10 years)

• integrated children’s centre in Corio West

• planning for future of Belmont Civic Centre

• Long Term (10 years plus)

  • delivery of infrastructure in Armstrong Creek in line with growth

  • multi-purpose stadium in Grovedale/Waurn Ponds.

  The SIP identifies gaps in the provision of spaces and facilities for youth activities and services, arts and cultural spaces and services, multi-purpose meeting and social spaces and respite/day activity.

  The SIP will provide the foundation of future planning needs to meet a continually changing environment.

• Council’s Learn to Swim programs are again achieving outstanding results. In term four of 2015 the programs attracted 6,604 enrolments across the four indoor leisure centres (Leisurelink, Waterworld, Splashdown and Bellarine Aquatic and Sports Centre). This is a 10 per cent increase from term four last year.

• Children's Week was celebrated in Geelong in October, 2015 and focused on celebrating the contributions young children make to our community. Over 60 events hosted by 43 local organisations were undertaken during the week of 24 October to 1 November, 2015. The diverse range of local events held targeted children aged between 0-12 years. Approximately 14,724 children and adults participated in the events.

• Geelong Seniors Festival was held throughout the month of October. The theme of the festival was ‘Celebrating Community' which encouraged seniors to explore cultural, health, educational and social opportunities within their communities. The festival was attended by over 10,000 people and hosted over 100 events and activities including musicals, concerts, dancing, history tours of Geelong, cycling, trailable yacht sailing, art exhibitions from local artists and multicultural events.

• A number of awards were achieved this quarter -

• Healthy Together Geelong received an International Association for Public Participation (IAP2 Australasia) “Highly Commended” award in October for Capacity Building with the Healthy Workplaces Network. The IAP2 awards recognise and encourage projects and organisations that are at the forefront of public participation. This award demonstrates the leading practice that underpins the work that Healthy Together Geelong is doing.

• The Greenway project picked up an award at the prestigious Parks Victoria Environmental Sustainability Awards in the regional achievement category. The ambitious five year Greenway project managed by Council’s Tree Management Unit will revegetate 21 kilometres of the Ted Wilson Trail alongside the Geelong Ring Road with 80,000 trees and 15 hectares of native grassland.

• Council’s Sport and Recreation Unit won the Parks and Leisure Australia National Award for innovative regional planning for sport. This award is high recognition for the collaborative effort between all G21 councils and participating sports for excellent strategy and planning. The way that the City of Greater Geelong operates has been recognised by the sporting associations, and now the industry peak body, as the model to be replicated across other regions.

• Leisurelink Aquatic and Recreation Centre received Life Saving Victoria’s (LSV) Platinum Pool award for the forth year running.

Growing Our Economy

Status Summary:

Major issues summary:

• A number of events were held during this quarter including Sidewalk Sales, Toast to the Coast, Ride2WorkDay, Oktoberfest Geelong, Twilight Gala Parade, Run Geelong, Streetlife Festival, Extravaganza, Geelong Revival Motoring Festival and Geelong Cup all bringing in valuable economic and community benefit.

  The City of Greater Geelong is busily planning for the peak event season with events in the next quarter such as The Cadel Evans Great Ocean Road Race, Victorian Open Golf Tournament and the Festival of Sails. These major events will showcase Geelong and generate economic benefit to the region. Major events held during the 2014-2015 financial year injected an estimated $84 million into Geelong’s economy.

• Geelong’s Iconic Floating Christmas Tree came alive again in a spectacular light show for the second year on Friday 13 November, 2015. The estimated crowd attending waterfront activities during the Christmas in Geelong 2015 was approximately 213,500. The tree was part of Christmas in Geelong 2015, with some of the other events showcased including the Myer Christmas windows, giant snow globe, City Hall projections, and 24 Christmas trees handmade by local primary school students.

• The Central Geelong Action Plan continues to encourage activity into the Geelong CBD.

• A funky pop up urban space (Malop Street Lab) was created in Malop Street in late October and will remain in place until end of summer.  The installation of the pop up space is an initiative of the Central Geelong Task Force. The temporary installations aims to activate the space, provide better opportunities for alfresco dining and demonstrate the City in a Park initiative.

• The Little Malop Street Mall has been transformed physically and socially in order to attract more publicly acceptable behaviour and create a space where people want to be. The City of Greater Geelong teamed up with the State Government to create a “Can Do Zone” in the mall which encourages positive behaviour among those using the space.

• The $45.5 million Geelong Library and Heritage Centre opened on 21 November, 2015. During the period 21 November to 15 December, 2015 there were 49,426 visitors to the Library and 15,014 visitors to the Heritage Centre. Construction of the library was the largest and most ambitious project ever undertaken by Council and was successfully delivered on time and on budget. The Geelong Library and Heritage Centre features 6,000m² of space, diverse collection of print, multimedia and heritage items, a major event space including seating for 300 people, 80 seat café, one entire floor dedicated to children and young people, high end digital technology, Heritage Centre repository, eight meeting rooms available for hire and exhibition space.

Sustainable Built and Natural Environment

Status Summary:

• National Recycling Week occurred in November. This annual campaign continues to bring recycling options to the attention of the general public. Options available included: free disposal of paint, fluorescent lights, computer equipment and televisions at the Geelong Resource Recovery Centre, and discount for disposing of old mattresses.

  Over the past 12 months there have been significant gains in dealing with dumped rubbish. Most notable has been a decline in the number of dumped televisions, computer equipment and white goods.  The decline indicates a greater usage of the recycling services offered by Council. Other gains include closing down a number of dumping hotspots. These gains have been achieved by using various intervention strategies including mobile cameras and regular patrols of litter hotspots.

• The Sustainable House Day was held on 24 October, 2015 and featured 11 houses open to the public for viewing. Attendance on the day was good with over 1,160 visitors visiting the properties. Sustainable House Day offers people the chance to talk directly to experts and homeowners. The open houses feature a variety of ways to become more sustainable including examples of passive solar design, recycled materials, latest technologies, double/triple glazing, and on and off grid solar energy.

• Council’s Land Management Team organised two successful community nature walks. One at Kingston Park in Ocean Grove and the other at Buckley Park in Collendina. The programs were both well attended and informed participants about local flora and fauna as well as restoration programs currently being undertaken by the Conservation Reserves Team. As a result of this event, many participants are now involved in a community 'weekday weepers' group which eradicates weeds and improves the native vegetation.

• The City of Greater Geelong is just the third city in Australia to be awarded One Planet certification. Certification was based on the City’s existing performance and current sustainability strategies and policies. Council adopted a new Environmental Management Strategy in 2014 after consulting extensively with the community. Some of Council’s more notable environmental projects which helped gain the One Planet Certification included; construction of the five star Greenstar rated Geelong Library and Heritage Centre, implementation of the Low Carbon Growth Plan, and new cycling facilities across Geelong and adoption of the principle Bicycle Network.

How We Do Business

Status Summary:

• The Know Your Council website was launched on 27 November 2015 with the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework indicator results for all Victorian councils being made available to the public.

  The results indicated that the average residential rate for the City of Greater Geelong ($1,326) is well below the Regional City average ($1,468) and the All Council average ($1,409).

  City of Greater Geelong services were well performed with most indicators comparing as well or better than average when compared to both the Regional City and All Council averages.

  There were however indicators where Council’s results compared unfavourably to the Regional City and/or the All Council average and are being addressed.

  These included:

• Reportable safety incidents at aquatic facilities

• Percentage of animals reclaimed from Council

• Sealed local road requests per 100 kilometres of sealed local roads

• Cost of sealed local road reconstruction per square metre

• Council planning decisions upheld at VCAT

• Asset renewal as a percentage of depreciation

• Recurrent grants per head of municipal population.

• Kelvin Spiller was appointed in November as the permanent Chief Executive Officer for the City of Greater Geelong. Kelvin had been acting as interim CEO since June 2015, following the resignation of the City’s previous CEO Dr Gillian Miles.

• Social media continues to be a key communication channel for Council to inform and engage with the community. The City of Greater Geelong and Geelong Mayor's Facebook and Twitter accounts are monitored seven days a week.

• A number of corporate training programs have been undertaken by Council staff during this quarter including MS Weave, OHS Training, Project Management Fundamentals, MS Word and Outlook.

• The development of Council’s 2016-2017 budget commenced with Community Budget Submissions being called for in October. Community groups and organisations were invited to lodge their submissions, with priority being given to organisations or clubs that can partly finance or offer in kind contribution to their project. Submissions closed on 20 November, 2015.

• During the period October to December 2015, a total of 22 engagement activities were undertaken by the Council. Methodologies employed included (online surveys, information sessions, listening posts and face to face surveys).

• The City of Greater Geelong Annual report for 2014-2015 was published and distributed this quarter. The report provides a comprehensive account of Council’s performance across the 120 plus services that are delivered to our 225,000 residents. The City of Greater Geelong Annual Report is available on Council’s website or can be viewed at any of the Council’s Customer Service Centres.

Environmental Implications

There are several actions under the Sustainable Built and Natural Environment Strategic Direction within City Plan that aim to enhance and protect natural areas and ecosystem health, support our community to live sustainably, advocate for and promote sustainable design and development, and minimise our environmental footprint.

Financial Implications

Council’s Annual Budget provides the Resource Plan to support the initiatives identified within the adopted Annual Business Plan.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Council’s external auditors will undertake a Performance Audit of the planned Key Strategic Activities and prepare a report as part of the ‘sign off’ of the Annual Accounts.

Alignment to City Plan

This report is the quarterly progress report of the organisation’s achievements against the adopted City Plan 2013-2017, 2015-2016 actions.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no conflict of interest to be disclosed

Risk Assessment

The risks arising from the actions are managed within the framework of the Council’s adopted Policies, Procedures and Risk Management strategies.

Social Considerations

Several of the actions identified within City Plan are aimed at improving the quality of life for the residents in the City of Greater Geelong. This is particularly the case for actions within the Community Wellbeing Strategic Direction.

Human Rights Charter

This report provides an update on the implementation of City Plan 2013-2017 and will be made available on Council’s website and on request at Council’s Customer Service Centres as part of the Council meeting minutes. There are no known positive or negative effects.

Consultation and Communication

A comprehensive report on the 2015-2016 City Plan actions will be published in the City of Greater Geelong Annual Report by 30 September, 2016, which will be submitted to the Minister for Local Government and available to the public in hard copy and on the Council’s website.

6. Financial Management Report – December 2015

Purpose

The Quarterly Financial Report for the period ending 31 December 2015 is prepared as a requirement of Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989.

Summary

• Council approved amendments to the adopted Budget on 25 August 2015 and variances are reported based on comparing actuals to amended budget.

• The recurrent operating surplus for the half year is $3.8M, being $12.4M favourable to amended budget and reflects favourable performance and timing issues.

• A half year review has been undertaken to consider likely impact of progressive results on full year projection. The projected recurrent operating result is forecast to be $2.41M favourable to the amended budget.

• The non-recurrent surplus for the half year is $33.1M, being $9.7M favourable to budget with favourable Recognition of Infrastructure $9.9M, Developer Contributions $0.7M and Loss on Disposal of Infrastructure $2.1M, offset by unfavourable Capital Income ($0.8M), Gain (Loss) on Sale of Property ($1.7M) and Prior Year Adjustments ($0.4M).

• Capital expenditure for the year to date is $39.0M against a year to date projection of $48.3M, which is $9.3M underspent to projection.

• The cash and investment balance of $61.0M is $4.5M favourable to budget.

Cr E Kontelj moved, Cr Harwood seconded -

That the Quarterly Financial Management Report to 31 December 2015 be endorsed by Council.

Carried.

Background

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.

Discussion

Operating

The December Management reports are provided in the following table to report year-to-date performance and full-year projection performance versus budget.

The Adopted Budget was amended by Council on 25 August 2015 to include Carryover Capital and discretionary projects, plus other Capital and recurrent amendments.

The impact on the Recurrent Expenditure Budget is ($17.76M), consisting of carryover discretionary projects funded in 2014-2015, plus other budget amendments including adjustment for early receipt of first two quarters Grants Commission funding in June 2015.

The impact on Non Recurrent income was $10.34M for carryover of capital income from 2014-2015 projects, plus other budget amendments.

The amended capital expenditure budget includes $52.27M to complete 2014-2015 Projects, including Corio Landfill Rehabilitation, Geelong Library and Heritage Centre, Drysdale Landfill Cell 6, Central Geelong Advancement Fund, Drainage Construction Program, Central Road Drainage, Street Construction SRC and Austin Park Redevelopment.

Other budget amendments increased total budget by $0.87M.

The following major variances to budget contributed to this result:

Recurrent Income

Recurrent Expenditure

The favourable projection changes provide the opportunity to complete the internal financing of 2011 Unfunded Superannuation of $1,741,000 and remove this obligation from the 2016-2017 Budget.

The projection does not include any provision for costs associated with the State Government Investigation with appointment of Commissioners in the period January – March 2016.

The capital program is $9.30M underspent compared to Projection year to date, with the major project variances as follows:

The month end cash and investments balance was $61.05M. This was $4.57M favourable to budget, mainly due to favourable recurrent surplus and behind schedule spend on Capital, offset by deferred loans ($11.2M).

Council has future commitments for $25.1M, which are fully cashed back:

The Landfill Provision balance is currently $17.2M.

Environmental Implications

There are no environmental implications arising from this report.

Financial Implications

As detailed in the attached report.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The report is provided in accordance with requirements under the Local Government Act 1989.

Alignment to City Plan

This report contributes to responsible and sustainable financial management as aligned in Council’s City Plan objective on How We Do Business.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

Council staff preparing this report have no direct or indirect interest.

Risk Assessment

There are no risk implications arising from this report.

Social Considerations

There are no social implications arising from this report.

Human Rights Charter

There are no known positive or negative effects.

Consultation and Communication

The attached report is provided for information and public record and is available from the Council Governance or Financial Reporting units.

7. Christmas in Geelong Program 2015

Purpose

To update Council on the outcome of the 2015 Christmas in Geelong Program, and seek direction on the 2016 installation of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree.

Summary

• The 2015 Christmas in Geelong program generated 213,500 visits with a Total Economic Output of $15.6 M.

• The key attraction was the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree with 123,000 visits. Central Geelong Marketing organised and sponsored activities that attracted 44,900 visits. The City Hall Projections attracted 31,000 visits.

• Council sponsored Christmas events for 2015 included Denis Walter Carols by the Bay, Gala Parade and Geelong Carols By Candlelight. These events attracted an additional 30,000 visitors to Central Geelong and the Waterfront during the Christmas period.

• The Geelong Advertiser reported on 6 January 2016 that Central Geelong traders had reported having a ‘bumper’ Christmas trading period.

• The 749 surveys and pedestrian counting data undertaken as part of delivering the range of Christmas activities, indicate that the range of Council and Central Geelong Marketing activities, events and marketing have played a significant part in this success.

• Social Media accounted for 63% as a source of information about activities such as the Christmas in Geelong program. Others were radio, family and friends, newspapers and signage,

• 37% of responses said that the Christmas in Geelong program activities were good for creating a sense of community and good for families. 41% of responses said that the activities were good for Geelong’s economy and City promotion opportunities.

• An independent media analysis was undertaken that showed a total Christmas program (including the Iconic floating Christmas Tree) Public relations value of $9.33 million. The Iconic Floating Christmas Tree on its own delivered a $5.3 million Public Relations value.

• With Council’s current commitment to the ongoing installation of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree ending in 2015 consideration now needs to be given to its installation for future years.

• Council needs to commit to the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree early in 2016 to allow marketing specialists to work with potential sponsors to identify and enter into potential sponsorship arrangements for the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree.

• The annual cost of installation for the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree is likely to rise to between $350,000 - $400,000 in 2016.

Cr Harwood moved, Cr Ansett seconded -

That Council:

1. note preliminary figures show the 2015 Christmas in Geelong program generated 213,500 visits and an estimated $15.6M in Total Economic Output.

2. authorise officers to procure the installation, dismantle, maintenance and storage of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree for the 2016, 2017 and 2018 Christmas periods.

3. note the annual cost for the installation, dismantle, maintenance and storage of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree in future years could be up to $400,000 per annum.

4. authorise officers to advertise and enter into sponsorship agreements to offset the annual costs to install, dismantle, maintain and store the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree.

5. receive a report at a later date regarding planning issues related to signage and commercial advertising in the Steampacket Quay location of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree.

6. authorise officers to undertake a full review of the Christmas program inclusive of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree to inform activities post 2016 Christmas.

Amendment

Cr Farrell moved, Cr Irvine seconded –

That Council:

1. note preliminary figures show the 2015 Christmas in Geelong program generated 213,500 visits and an estimated $15.6M in Total Economic Output.

2. authorise officers to procure the installation, dismantle, maintenance and storage of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree for the 2016 Christmas period.

3. note the annual cost for the installation, dismantle, maintenance and storage of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree in 2016 could be up to $400,000 per annum.

4. authorise officers to advertise and enter into sponsorship agreements to offset the annual costs to install, dismantle, maintain and store the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree.

5. receive a report at a later date regarding planning issues related to signage and commercial advertising in the Steampacket Quay location of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree.

6. authorise officers to undertake a full review of the Christmas program inclusive of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree to inform activities post 2016 Christmas.

7. request officers provide a report to the new Council at its January meeting, that includes accurate costings, both on land and water, and opportunities for sponsorship.

The amendment was put and lost.

Division Requested:

For: Crs Ansett, Murrihy, Nelson, E Kontelj, Fisher, Lyons, Harwood, Heagney, Irvine

Against: Crs Ellis, Macdonald, Richards, Farrell

Background

The Christmas in Geelong program is delivered by various Council Departments and Central Geelong Marketing with the aim of:

• Providing economic benefit to Central Geelong;

• Boosting the profile, visitation and positive experiences in Central Geelong;

• Enhance the Christmas spirit in the local and surrounding communities.

The Christmas in Geelong program which formed the Christmas Trail in Central Geelong ran from November 2015 to January 2016.

A key component of the Christmas in Geelong program is the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree. This feature of the program was initially planned to be delivered annually under a long term services contract. However, due to a contractual matter, Council at its meeting of 11 August 2015 resolved to terminate the Ongoing Services Contract with its contractor Creative Production Services and proceeded to deliver the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree in 2015 under a subcontracted management arrangement.

This process involved Council sourcing quotations for the works associated with the delivery of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree for 2015 and delivering the tree through a number of subcontracts.

Discussion

The Christmas in Geelong program which formed the Christmas Trail in Central Geelong ran from November 2015 to January 2016 and included the following activities:

As part of the Christmas in Geelong program Council carries out a review to determine how popular the activities were and what economic benefit is derived for the community and Central Geelong.

The Christmas program was evaluated using the following methods:

• Pedestrian / participant counting at each of the activities on a mixed sample of weekdays, weekends, during the day and night.

• 749 surveys were completed either at the activity sites or on-line, asking participants about their visit, in particular their spending and opinion on the program.

• The Carousel’s attendances and turnover as a Council operated business, were able to be measured for the same period the previous year.

The economic benefit generated by the program is calculated using a REMPLAN evaluation method and calculations, and is based on the standard process used by Central Geelong Marketing, Tourism Greater Geelong and Bellarine and G21.

In making the calculation, Council and Central Geelong Marketing collected the following information over a cross section of days and times:

• Pedestrian / participant counts to calculate number of people attending the activity / event

• Surveys at the event / activity and on-line to ask questions of place of residence, opinions on experience and benefits, spend and information source

Findings

* Attendance figures do not double count public attending multiple attractions in a single visit.

In addition to the above findings an independent media analysis was undertaken that showed a total Christmas program (including the Iconic floating Christmas Tree) Public relations value of $9.33 million. The Iconic Floating Christmas Tree on its own delivered a $5.3 million Public Relations value.

How visitors found out about Christmas in Geelong Program / Activities

*People surveyed were able to give more than one source of information.

Survey Responses on the Experience and Importance of the Activities

*This was an optional question, so not all people surveyed responded.

The Christmas in Geelong program is very complex and planning for the 2016 event needs to commence immediately if we are to deliver the program successfully.

The most complex component of the program and most visited, is the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree, and it is also the component that requires the most preparation.

The Iconic Floating Christmas Tree was delivered in 2015 via a number of subcontracts which were administered by the Capital Projects department. As the value of these contracts is significant any future installation of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree will need to occur via formal quotation and tender processes to comply with Council and Local Government Act requirements.

The lead time for the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree installation, dismantle, storage and maintenance contracts is significant and these timeframes combined with procurement requirements mean that these processes need to start in early 2016.

To ensure delivery of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree for 2016 Council needs to recommit to the program and project.

Whilst officers were able to deliver the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree for approximately $340,000 in 2015 we have become aware of some additional costs which are likely to impact future installations. These additional costs include maintenance, cleaning, lighting, storage, anchoring, security and transport.

There was an overspend in 2015 relating to storm damage, vandalism, stevedoring, storage and the unscheduled lighting change out of respect for France.  

Officers are aware that both the 2014 and 2015 installation of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree occurred with considerable in-kind support from organisations who received non financial benefits as a result of their involvement, such as publicity.

We are unsure as to how long this support is likely to continue and therefore need to budget for the worst case scenario. However, we can confirm that the Port of Geelong has committed to providing support to the project by waiving direct port costs with an estimated value of $100,000.

We are also aware that the status quo lighting component of the tree is significantly greater than the fee paid in 2015. Any improvement to the lighting show would require funding above that currently detailed in the 2016/17 budget estimate.

Preliminary work has been done with a specialist business with regard to sponsorship opportunities in an effort to reduce future costs associated with the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree’s annual installation.

Feedback from two independent sponsorship specialists has indicated that commencing the sponsorship process mid calendar year is too short a timeframe as many organisations will have set and allocated their budgets already. 

We have been advised that any potential sponsor considering or being presented with a proposal for a significant level of investment would need at least 3-6 months consideration.

Thirdly we were advised the certainty of a product like the tree has to be established before commencing discussions with potential sponsors. Commencing sponsorship discussions without the known commitment to deliver the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree in 2016 could harm Council’s reputation.

Therefore a decision on the future of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree needs to be made quickly to allow Council to ‘go to the market’ to allow the best opportunity for sponsorship offers.

There are some Legislative limitations on what can be offered to sponsors in the form of commercial branding in and around the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree. Having the State empathetic and flexible to the sponsorship needs and opportunities would improve the chances of securing sponsors. Given the timelines we will need to work with the Victorian Government to see what can be achieved. The limitations will be reflected in the offer to potential sponsors.

It is proposed that a report be presented to Council outlining the challenges and identifying options to address some of these issues.

This process may be lengthy and is likely to limit the level of sponsorship that would be achievable in 2016 but can only commence once Council confirms that the activity is definitely proceeding for 2016 onwards.

Environmental Implications

Low energy use LED lights will continue to be used as part of the tree to reduce energy consumption and environmental impact.

Financial Implications

If Council determines to proceed with the delivery of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree in 2016, a budget allocation of approximately $400,000 is required.

Independent advice has indicated the need for a timely decision on the Christmas tree to ensure the greatest opportunity to procure sponsorship and to commence the process of seeking amendments or exemptions to current limitations on commercial advertising on the tree.

The Geelong Port has committed to providing access to the port free of charge for the 2016 tree installation, a commitment which is valued at approximately $100,000.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

All policy, legal and statutory implications associated with this project will be managed by the Capital Projects and Events, Central Geelong and Waterfront Departments.

Alignment to City Plan

The Christmas in Geelong program aligns with the Community Wellbeing, Growing Our Economy, and How We Do Business strategic directions of City Plan.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates.

Risk Assessment

The most significant risks for the project are project timing, Council’s reputation and budget.

Due to the short timeframes for quotation submissions and the uniqueness of the project, there remains a risk of unexpected financial costs occurring. Council Officers will actively seek to mitigate all risks if the project proceeds.

With large numbers of people at the opening nights of the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree and the City Hall Projections, extra safety measures need to be put in place to maintain a safe environment.

Social Considerations

The Geelong Christmas program attracted 213,500 people into the City. This included 123,000 people visit the Iconic Floating Christmas Tree during the Christmas period.

Human Rights Charter

It is not evident or likely that this report would negatively impact any of the rights contained in the Charter of Human Rights.

Consultation and Communication

The Christmas program is promoted on the City of Greater Geelong’s website, via social media and through local media outlets.

8. Caretaker Policy Council Elections and General Signage (Including Electoral Advertising Signs) Policy

Purpose

For Council to adopt the updated Caretaker Policy (Council Elections) and the General Signage (Including electoral Advertising Signs) Policy.

Summary

• The Local Government Amendment (Improved Governance) Act 2015 requires Council to adopt and maintain an election period policy by 31 March 2016.

• The election policy include procedures to prevent the council from making inappropriate decisions or using resources inappropriately during the election period.

• For the 2016 General Election the caretaker period commences midnight on
  20 September and continues until 6.00 pm 22 October 2016.

• Council’s General Signage (Including Electoral Advertising Signs) has had some small amendments primarily to acknowledge the City of Greater Geelong Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014.

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Harwood seconded -

That Council adopt:

1. The Caretaker Policy Council Elections CPL45.5 Appendix 1;

2. The General Signage (including Electoral Advertising Signs) on Council Road Reserves and Land Policy CPL45.8 Appendix 2.

Cr Nelson left the meeting room at 9:56pm

Carried.

Background

Recent amendments to the Local Government Act 1989 (The Act), specifically s93B, requires council to adopt and maintain an election period policy by 31 March 2016.

Council’s previous caretaker policy was adopted on 24 April 2012 and updates to the policy take into consideration changes to the Act, The Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate Information Bulletin No.4 August 2012 and the recent LGPro Caretaker Workshop Series 2016.

The General Signage (including electoral Advertising Signs) on Council Road Reserves and Land Policy has been updated as a result of the adoption of the Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014.

Discussion

The policy has been updated to ensure that council elections are not compromised by inappropriate electioneering by existing councillors and to safeguard the authority of the incoming council.

In accordance with the Act the policy must cover three matters:

• Preventing inappropriate decisions and misuse of resources

• Limiting public consultation and council events

• Equitable access to council information for all candidates.

The caretaker policy must be transparent and accessible to ensure that the general elections are conducted in a manner which is fair and equitable.

There are a variety of issues and considerations that need to applied to council’s daily operations during the caretaker period in order for councillors and staff to comply with the requirements and spirit of the Act.

The Caretaker Policy articulates how the business of council will be conducted prior to an election, including:

Major Policy Decisions

Section 93A of the Act prohibits council from making major policy decisions during the caretaker period, which relate to the appointment, dismissal and remuneration of the Chief Executive Officer and committing to contracts or entrepreneurial ventures in excess of $1,819,030 (14/15 rates revenue).

Use of Council Resources

Council’s equipment and resources must not be used for election purposes. Council staff cannot undertake any tasks that are either directly or indirectly connected with a candidate’s election campaign. Councillor budgets for allocations such as seminars/training and attendance at conferences will be on a pro-rata basis from the commencement of the financial year to the election date.

Information

While it is important for sitting councillors to continue to receive information that is necessary to fulfil their elected roles, there are serious penalties pursuant to s76D of the Act for any councillor who inappropriately makes use of their position to gain an advantage.

Council Communications and Publications

Section 55D of the Act imposes restrictions on publications during caretaker period. Publications need to be impartial and will require the Chief Executive Officer certification. No media advice or assistance will be provided to councillors regarding election campaign matters.

Public Consultation

During the caretaker period public consultation will be limited. While consultation is an integral part of council’s operations, there are concerns that consultation undertaken close to a General Election may become an election issue in itself, and influence voting.

Functions and Events

Council organised events and functions will be minimised during the election period and shall relate only to legitimate council business.

Travel and Accommodation

Councillors should not travel interstate or overseas in their capacity as an incumbent councillor. Attendance by the Mayor (or nominee) at a delegation or forum which is imperative to Council’s interests may be approved by resolution of Council. If consideration by council is impractical, the Chief Executive Officer may determine the issue.

Advice to Candidates

Any advice or material will be made available to all candidates. All election related matters from candidates, whether current councillors or candidates will be directed to the Returning Officer.

General Signage (Including Electoral Advertising Signs) On Council Road Reserves and Land

Council’s General signage policy has been amended to acknowledge the updated Neighbourhood Amenity Local Law 2014. It provides advice on the placement of general signage (including electoral advertising signs) on any Council land, municipal building or road whilst providing protection of community safety and amenity.

Monitoring the Policy

The Chief Executive Officer will attempt to resolve any issues in relation to this policy in first instance. There are specific penalties for breaches of the Act which may be applicable to councillors, the chief executive officer or staff. Council’s policy and procedures are designed to mitigate such breaches occurring.

Following the General Election on 22 October 2016, council must continue to maintain the election period policy by reviewing, and if required, amending no later than 12 months before the commencement of each subsequent general election period.

Environmental Implications

There no environmental implications arising from this report.

Financial Implications

It is important that any contracts which are likely to fall due in the caretaker period are identified and actions implemented to ensure that the business of council is able to proceed. Any contracts or ventures in excess of $1,819,030 (14/15 rates revenue).which may be required to be entered into will require Ministerial approval.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

These policies provide clarity about how council business is to be conducted throughout the caretaker period and to ensure council maintains the highest standards of good governance.

Alignment to City Plan

How We Do Business

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officers involved in the preparation of this report have either a direct or indirect interest.

Risk Assessment

By adopting these policies and procedures, council will be able to demonstrate to the community how we will conduct business immediately prior to an election. Council’s policy has been updated to mitigate breeches to the Act.

Social Considerations

Caretaker provisions are standard for all levels of government during elections.

Human Rights Charter

This policy considers the key principles of human rights such as fairness, equity and accessibility.

Consultation and Communication

Council has considered guidance available from Local Government Victoria, Local Government Investigations and Compliance Inspectorate, LGPro and other Councils, in amending our existing policy.

The updated policy will be made public on council’s website and available in hardcopy for inspection. All councillors will be provided with a copy.

9. Councillor Portfolios 2016

Purpose

To assign portfolio responsibilities to individual Councillors for 2016.

Summary

• Councillor Portfolio responsibilities were introduced early in 1998 to enable Council to better conduct its business by having Councillors that were more intensively involved in a specialist area of the Council’s policies and strategic planning.

• The allocation of portfolio responsibilities has evolved over a period of time, reflecting the changing structure of the Council and the focus of individual councillors.

• Whilst it is acknowledged that the portfolio system is an effective and efficient approach for the City a review of the number and methodology of establishing portfolios would be beneficial.

• The Mayor, as the elected leader, retains overall responsibility as spokesperson on behalf of Council.

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Farrell seconded -

That Council:

1. adopts the portfolio structure set out in Appendix 1;

2. instructs officers to review the portfolio structure prior to the 2016 General Elections.

Cr Nelson re-entered the meeting room at 10:00pm

Carried.

Background

Councillor Portfolio responsibilities were introduced early in 1998 to enable Council to better conduct its business by having Councillors that were more intensively involved in a specialist area of the Council’s policies and strategic planning.

The portfolio system has evolved since this time, reflecting the changing structure of the Council and the focus of individual councillors.

Discussion

Portfolio responsibility provides the Council with the benefit of having individual Councillors, who are informed regarding issues relating to their portfolios.

Consequently, the portfolio holder is generally in a strong position to provide leadership and direction on policy development and strategic planning in their area of responsibility.

The portfolio role includes:

• Informing the Mayor and Council on matters relating to their particular portfolio.

• Being informed of policy reviews and also policy development positions to put to the various decision making bodies.

• Assisting other elected representatives to develop an understanding of matters being considered by Council and enabling the Portfolio Councillor to lead discussions on relevant items.

• Facilitating the briefing of other councillors in specialist areas within the portfolio.

The Mayor, as the elected leader, retains overall responsibility as spokesperson on behalf of the Council. The allocation of portfolios enables councillors to provide leadership and direction on policy development and strategic planning in their area of responsibility, and to act as spokesperson on portfolio issues.

The portfolio system is reliant on portfolio holders providing adequate advice to fellow councillors informally, or by presenting information through Councillor Briefings.

Close liaison should also be maintained between the portfolio councillor and ward councillors in circumstances where portfolio issues specifically impact on a particular ward.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the portfolio system is an effective and efficient approach for the City, given the size and complexity of the municipality, it would be timely to review of the number and methodology of establishing portfolios prior to the next Council elections.

Portfolios are set out in Appendix 1.

Environmental Implications

The assignment of a portfolio to individual councillors is seen to provide the most effective means for Council to be made aware of the environmental issues being considered.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications arising from this report.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The portfolio structure is reviewed annually and has served Council well to date.

Alignment to City Plan

All portfolios align with City Plan objectives of Community Wellbeing, Growing the Economy, Sustainable and Built Environment and also How We Do Business.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officer involved in the preparation of this report had a direct or indirect interest.

Risk Assessment

No significant risks are anticipated. Portfolio holders should always confirm the accuracy of any information before commenting to the media. Councillors are encouraged to consult with the Chief Executive Officer or relevant General Manager for clarification.

Social Considerations

The assignment of a portfolio to individual councillors is considered to provide the most effective means for Council to be made aware of the community needs being considered by Council, and adopted by City Plan.

Human Rights Charter

No human rights are impacted by the contents of this report. Most portfolios align with the principles of the Human Rights Charter.

Consultation and Communication

Once Council has decided on its preferred position, an appropriate communication action will be developed and implemented.

10. Committee Representation 2016

Purpose

To advise Council of the Mayoral appointments of Councillors to committees and for Council to appoint Councillors to act as Council’s Representative on various committees for 2016.

Summary

• Section 11E of the City of Greater Geelong Act 1993 (The Act) gives the Mayor the power to appoint Councillors certain committees. Specifically Section 11E(I)(a) of the Act allows for the Mayor to appoint Councillors to ‘bodies’, which are external to Council, where Council is entitled to representation and do not offer remuneration to the member. Section 11(E)(I)(b) of the Act allows for the Mayor to appoint Councillors to chair Special Committees of Council (as defined by Section 86 of the Local Government Act 1989), other committee members are determined by Council ( refer Appendix 1).

• Appendix 2 outlines the appointments made in accordance with the Act by the Mayor.

• Council may determine Councillor Representation for all other committees as set out Appendix 1.

• Council maintains relationships with a number of organisations and operates committees that provide council with an important link for the purpose of improving the social, environmental and financial wellbeing of our community.

• That a review of the committee structure be conducted to ensure that it remains relevant and aligns with Council’s strategic objectives and Councillor’s roles and responsibilities.

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Farrell seconded -

That Council:

1. endorses the Committee appointments as set out in Appendix 1 and notes Appendix 2;

2. instructs officer to review the committee structure prior to the 2016 General Elections.

Cr Lyons vacated the Chair at 10:02pm

Cr Harwood assumed the Chair at 10:02pm

Carried.

Background

This report lists organisations and committees to which the Mayor and Council appoints nominated Councillor Representatives.

Appendix 1 set outs the proposed Councillor Representation on those Committee’s that fall outside the scope of Mayoral appointments in accordance with the City of Greater Geelong Act 1993.

Discussion

The City of Greater Geelong Act 1993 (The Act) gives the Mayor the power to appoint Councillors to certain committees.

Section 11E(I)(a) of the Act allows for the Mayor to appoint Councillors to ‘bodies’:

• which are external to Council;

• which do not offer remuneration to the Councillor member; and

• where Council is entitled to representation.

Council’s ‘entitlement’ to representation can be clarified where there is specific provision within the external Committee’s articles of association, terms of reference or charter for the appointment of a City of Greater Geelong Councillor. The Mayor cannot appoint a Councillor to a committee for which remuneration is given. Such an appointment must be determined by Council.

The Mayor’s power to appoint Councillors under section 11E(1)(b) is limited to their appointment:

• as chairpersons to Special Committees of Council (i.e. those established under s86 of the Local Government Act). This is reflected with the appointment of the Chair to Geelong Major Events committee. Council appoints any additional Councillor(s) to a s86 Committee.

Mayoral appointments for 2016 are set out in schedule in Appendix 2 and do not require formal Council endorsement.

Appendix 1 sets out appointments to committees by Council.

It is important for councillors to understand that the roles and responsibilities may vary, depending on the position for which they are being nominated.

External Legal Entities - Where a councillor or an officer is nominated to the Board of a separate legal entity, the nominee takes on fiduciary responsibilities in accordance with the Corporations Act, and they are required to act in the best interests of that company or entity. Such responsibilities can raise issues that relate to:

• Conflicts of interest;

• Confidentiality of information;

• Personal liabilities, etc.

Council Advisory Committee - There is no formal decision making that can be made in an advisory capacity on behalf of Council, but rather, recommendations arising from the deliberations of the committee may come to Council for consideration and final adoption. The Appendix to this report outlines the proposed appointments to internal and external committees and organisations.

Representation on committees provides council with an important link to improve the social, environmental and financial wellbeing of our community. To ensure that the existing representation on committees remains relevant and aligns to council’s strategic objectives as well as Councillor’s roles and responsibilities, it is recommended that a review be conducted prior to the 2016 General Elections.

Environmental Implications

Nominations to a number of organisations provide a link to the community to enhance the management of the region’s environment.

Financial Implications

Funding arrangements (where in place) are provided within Council’s budget parameters. There are no specific implications in appointing representatives to the various committees.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Mayoral and Council appointment of representatives to committees and external organisations are reviewed annually.

Special Committee (s86) Meetings are open to the public, except where matters of a confidential nature, as prescribed by the Act, are to be considered. These committees may be delegated various responsibilities by the Council, including the expenditure of monies and entering into contracts.

Advisory Committees are formed to provide advice to Council on various matters. They do not have the authority to act on behalf of the Council. They may be appointed for a short term task or on an ongoing basis. Records of meetings are kept, along with declarations of interest, and such records are required to be available to the public.

External Committees are not administered by Council.

Alignment to City Plan

All committee appointments align with the City Plan objectives of Community Wellbeing, Growing the Economy, Sustainable and Built Environment, and also How We Do Business.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No officer involved in the preparation of this report had a direct or indirect interest.

Risk Assessment

Depending on the nature of the relationship, the risks to Councillors and officers can relate to matters of:

• Directors and Officers Liability Insurance;

• Conflicts of Interest;

• Confidentiality of Information;

• Adherence to the required governance proceedings, etc.

Social Considerations

Nomination to these organisations maintains an important link into the community for the purpose of identifying and responding to the social needs of the community

Human Rights Charter

No human rights are impacted by the contents of this report. Appointment to Committees will generally align with the principles of the Human Rights Charter.

Consultation and Communication

Once Council has decided on its preferred position, an appropriate communication action will be developed and implemented.

11. Boundary Realignment – Fyansford and Herne Hill

Purpose

To seek approval to begin an investigation to realign the suburb locality boundary between Fyansford and Herne Hill due to the encroachment of residential property development across locality boundaries (Appendix 1).

Summary

• Current subdivisions are creating properties which will be dissected into two separate suburb localities.

• Current property owners are unaware that their property may be in both the Fyansford and Herne Hill suburb locality.

• It is appropriate to commence a process of investigation and consultation to realign one section of the suburb locality boundary between Fyansford and Herne Hill (Church Street area).

• Principal 3(A) of the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 (The Guidelines) stipulates that a suburb locality boundary should align with the cadastral fabric, road centre lines or easily distinguishable topographical features.

• The Fyansford locality is experiencing significant development and it is important that any changes to locality boundary best represent this growth.

Cr Heagney moved, Cr Nelson seconded -

That Council begin the process of investigation into the boundary of Fyansford and Herne Hill with the view to realign the suburb locality boundary.

The Mayor resumed and Chair at 10:05pm

Carried.

Background

Current subdivisions are creating properties that have become dissected into two separate suburb localities (i.e. half property in Fyansford with the other half in Herne Hill - refer Appendix 1).

Real Estate Agents are incorrectly advertising properties as Fyansford that are officially in Herne Hill.

There is a need to realign the current boundary to incorporate newly created properties within the Fyansford locality. Any change would need to align the suburb locality with the residential zoning.

Discussion

There is a need to realign part of the boundary between Fyansford and Herne Hill to align with the current development occurring.

Retaining the current boundary alignment will cause confusion with emergency services, owners and visitors to the area.

The investigation will look at the least disruptive way to ensure properties are located within the same suburb locality. The option under investigation that will have minimal impact is to have part of the Fyansford western boundary move east to align with the ridge line and to run north from Hyland Street to meet the existing north boundary with Hamlyn Heights at Church Street. The proposed western boundary would run along the western property alignment of Barwon Water’s Montpellier-Lovely Banks water main property.

The suggested realignment has direct impact on two property owners who are the subdivision developers in the affected area.

Environmental Implications

There are no environmental issues arising from this report.

Financial Implications

The approximate cost to Council is $300.00. This includes advertising and notification to adjoining property owners.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The Local Government Act 1989, the Geographic Place Names Act 1998, the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 and Council policy need to be adhered to.

Alignment to City Plan

This proposal aligns to City Plan with the encouragement of Community Wellbeing.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

There is no Council Officer direct or indirect interest involved in this report.

Risk Assessment

The realignment of these boundaries will allow for clearer identification to the public and utility services in case of an emergency.

Social Considerations

The realignment of this section of boundary will minimise confusion to residents and visitors to the area.

Human Rights Charter

It is the right of every resident and property owner for their property to have a unique address in order to receive services and reduce confusion or delay of emergency services.

Consultation and Communication

Following Council approval of the commencement of this investigation, a letter will be sent to all affected property owners seeking their suggestions or alternative views. Advertisements will appear in local newspapers and notification will be placed on Council’s website.

Submissions under the Guidelines can be received from property owners and any other interested parties within a 30 day statutory period.

12. Pioneer Road, Grovedale – Proposed Footpath Construction SRC344 – Intention to Declare

Purpose

This report seeks a resolution by Council to consider an intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme to partially fund the construction of a footpath along the south side of Pioneer Road, Grovedale between the Surf Coast Highway and Beltana Street. (See plan – Appendix 4).

Summary

• It is proposed to construct 650 meters of 1.5 metre wide footpath to provide for pedestrian access along Pioneer Road, Grovedale.

• There are 28 residential properties abutting the proposed footpath that will receive special benefit. There are no Council owned properties in the scheme.

• The total estimated project cost is $228,147. A detailed breakdown of costs is shown in the financial implications section of this report.

• A Benefit Ratio of 0.32 has been calculated in accordance with Section 163 of the Local Government Act, which equates to a Council contribution to the scheme of $154,132 and property owner contribution of $73,148.

• Property owners are considered to receive benefit from the works by way of improved pedestrian access and general amenity including pedestrian safety improvements.

• The scheme has been prepared in accordance with the Special Rate and Charges provisions of the Local Government Act 1989 along with the 2004 Ministerial Guidelines and Council’s Special Rates and Charges Policy.

Cr Ellis moved, Cr Richards seconded -

That Council:

Gives notice of its intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme in accordance with Section 163 (1A) of the Local Government Act 1989 (The Act), as follows:

1. The Special Charge is declared for a period of five (5) years commencing upon completion of the works and scheme finalisation.

2. The Special Charge be declared for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by Council in relation to the construction of the footpath on Pioneer Road between the Surf Coast Highway and Beltana Street, Grovedale which:

1. Will provide proper pedestrian access, improved pedestrian safety and enhancement to the general amenity for each of the properties included in the scheme;

2. Council considers is or will be a special benefit to those persons required to pay the special charge (and who are described in succeeding parts of this Resolution); and

3. Arises out of Council’s function of planning for and providing infrastructure for property owners.

3. The total cost of project, be recorded as $228,147(Schedule A).

4. It be recorded that, for the purposes of Section 163 (2A) of the Act, the special charge proceeds will not exceed the amount calculated in accordance with the prescribed formula (R x C = S), the:

1. ‘benefit ratio’ (R) being calculated at 0.32 represents the special benefits to all persons liable to pay the special charge (Schedule B);

2. ‘total cost’ (C) of performing the function described in part 1 (b) of this resolution based on estimated cost be recorded as $227,280; and

3. ‘maximum levy’ (S) be recorded as $73,148.

5. the following be specified as the area for which the special rate is so declared:

1. the area within municipal district of Council highlighted in the plan attached to this Resolution (Appendix 4).

6. the following be specified as the land in relation to which the special charge so declared:

1. land within the area shown on the plan.

7. the following be specified as the criteria which form the basis of the special charge so declared:

1. ownership of any land described in Part 1(e) of this Resolution.

8. the following be specified as the manner in which the special charge so declared will be assessed and levied:

1. Each lot receives a primary access and amenity benefit;

2. The maximum levy is divided equally on an access and frontage share basis;

3. The special charge will be levied by sending a notice to the person who is liable to pay, pursuant to section 163(4) of the Act.

9. having regard to the preceding parts of this Resolution but subject to Section 166 (1) of the Act, it be recorded that;

1. the owners of the land described in column 1 of Schedule C to the resolution are estimated liable for the respective amounts set out in column 8 of Schedule C; and

2. such owners may, subject to any further resolution of Council pay the special charge in the following manner;

1. the charge will become due and payable within one month of the issue of the notice requesting payment pursuant to Section 167 (3) of the Act;

2. interest will not be charged for six months after the issue of the notice provided the person liable makes timely payment in accordance with any repayment arrangements that may be agreed on by Council; and

3. in accordance with Section 172 of the Act, the interest rate payable on the special charge which has not been paid by the specific date is set at Council’s overdraft rate, reviewed every three months (provided that it shall not exceed the rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of Section 172 (2A) in which case the rate of interest shall be the maximum rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of this section).

2. Authorise Council’s Chief Executive Officer to levy the Special Charge in accordance with Section 163 (4) of the Act.

Carried.

Background

Existing footpaths are in place along the majority of Pioneer Road, Grovedale except for the south side of the road between Beltana Street and the Surf Coast Highway. This road is busy, with over 10,000 vehicles per day using the road (traffic count data December 2011). Our planning scheme determines that roads of this nature require footpaths on both sides.

Requests from residents and the wider community have been received by Council over the years for the need of a footpath along this section. A footpath here is considered to be an important link in Council’s priority footpath network.

The affected property owners were advised of the scheme proposal via a mail out in June 2015. The mail out included the cost estimate, estimated charges to property owners, the Benefit Ratio calculation, a plan and a Special Rates and Charges Brochure. The mail out also included a survey and out of the 28 properties affected by the scheme, 19 property owners responded.

The results included four (4) yes votes for the proposed footpath, 13 no votes and two (2) property owner stating ‘in principal’ support but objecting to the charge.

Discussion

When considering the Benefit Ratio for this footpath, it is reasonable that a majority of cost be apportioned to the community benefit when investigating pedestrian use of the path. With a calculated Benefit Ratio of 0.32, a majority of funding for this scheme would be coming from Council. The average cost per property is estimated at $2,612 which is slightly higher than some recent schemes.

Of the survey results, there is a majority of objection to the scheme. Of those opposing the scheme, concerns raised and corresponding officer considerations include:

• Should have been constructed a long time ago.

  This is an opinion reflected by three of the objectors.

• Footpath should be funded by Council. Expensive initial cost. Cannot afford this. Unreasonable impost on property owners.

  These are some property owners’ feelings on the charge impost. Eight (8) property owners stated financial reasons as their primary concern.

  The rationale for the special charge and cost allocations have been explained in a previous letter.

• Large variance in cost.

  The cost apportionment is based on access and amenity as described below. The access charge is fixed but the amenity charge is variable based on actual frontage and existing driveway extents.

• A footpath will be a hindrance. It will create more noise from skateboarders and drunken people walking from the pub.

  This is an opinion from one affected owner not necessarily reflected among others.

• We don’t need a footpath. We don’t want a footpath.

  These are some of the other feelings expressed by property owners.

Cost apportionment for the scheme has been divided into access and amenity benefits. It is considered that all abutting properties with direct frontages to the proposed new footpath, regardless of size and shape, receive the same access benefit. Corner properties have received a reduced access benefit due to their double frontage. These properties may potentially be charged for future footpath schemes along their second frontage.

80% of the total benefit has been apportioned to access given the purpose of the scheme. The access benefit includes the provision of an all weather sealed surface that reduces the risk of accidents caused by uneven and slippery surfaces. A new footpath also eliminates the nuisance affect of dust and mud. In simple terms, a new footpath improves accessibility for all abutting properties.

The remaining 20% of benefit is attributed to amenity and this can best be described as the benefit the pathway provides to an abutting property by way of improved aesthetics, safety, enjoyment, comfort and property value. The amenity benefit is based on the actual footpath frontage to a property when existing driveway extents are taken into consideration. This is known as the apportion-able frontage and is shown at Column 4 of Schedule C.

As Council will be funding the majority of works, legislation says that the property owners have no voting rights to this proposal. This means that a majority of objection will not render the scheme invalid and Council has a right to ‘impose’ a charge. This should be a consideration for Council in making its ‘intention to declare’ this scheme

Environmental Implications

The provision of a sealed pathway provides a permanent and safe means of access. During construction and the manufacture and procurement of materials, energy is used resulting in some greenhouse gas emissions. This stops when construction is complete.

The project does not create waste with the exception of some excavated material.

The proposal does not affect any natural habitats.

The proposal may require some nature strip and property trees and shrubs to be trimmed but removal of vegetation is not expected.

Financial Implications

The project is a one off capital cost and there will be minimal ongoing maintenance costs. If approved, the scheme could proceed this financial year as funding is currently allocated in project C02303 SRC footpath construction program.

Financial details are as follows:

From the table above, the total net cost to Council for this project is estimated to be $154,999.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The scheme has been prepared in accordance with the Special Rate and Charge provisions of the Local Government Act 1989, the 2004 ministerial guidelines, Council’s Special Rates and Charges Policy and community engagement guidelines.

Alignment to City Plan

This report aligns with the City Plan as follows:

Sustainably Built and Natural Environment

• Support our Community to live sustainably – Encourage increased use of alternatives to car transport and seek efficient traffic movement throughout the municipality.

• Advocate for and promote sustainable design and development – Promoting sustainable design and retrofitting.

• Acknowledge the community’s desire to have their say and be involved in planning for the future of Greater Geelong.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

In preparing this report, no Council officer has any direct or indirect interest in the properties affected by the scheme.

Risk Assessment

Provision of a sealed pathway will provide safer walking conditions for pedestrians by minimising the risk of personal injuries through conflict with vehicles and the elimination of uneven and slippery surfaces.

There are no identified risks for Council in making its intention to declare the scheme.

Social Considerations

The provision of properly sealed and drained pathways is aligned to Council’s City Plan as described above and provides improved connectivity and safety for pedestrians. It is further considered that the footpath will enhance the general amenity of the area.

Human Rights Charter

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues.  In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report.  It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any adverse human rights issues.

It is further considered that the construction of the footpath upholds the right to freedom of movement (Section 12 of the Human rights Charter) by enhancing a person’s ability to move freely within the area they choose to live.

Consultation and Communication

Community consultation for the footpath construction Special Charge Scheme has been carried out as follows:

2 June 2015 – Initiation letter including a concept plan, cost estimate, apportionment of charges, Benefit Ratio Calculation and survey to property owners.

Some phone calls have been fielded in response to the initiation mail out. Further correspondence will be sent to all affected property owners should Council resolve to make its intention to declare the Special Charge Scheme.

Appendix 1

SCHEDULE ‘A’

The works for the construction of a footpath in Pioneer Road, Grovedale which consist of excavation, concrete footpath, reinstatement of nature strip, miscellaneous construction works, legal advice and professional services associated with survey, engineering design, drafting, supervision and administration of the project all as included in the cost estimate shown below.

COST ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FOOTPATH – Pioneer Road, GROVEDALE

Appendix 2

Benefit Ratio – Schedule ‘B’

Appendix 3

SCHEDULE ‘C’

SPECIAL CHARGE SCHEME FOR FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION

PIONEER ROAD, GROVEDALE

Attachment 1

PROCESS CHART

SPECIAL CHARGE PROJECTS – (Section 163 – Local Government Act 1989)

PIONEER ROAD, GROVEDALE – PROPOSED FOOTPATH

13. Roslyn Road, Highton – Proposed Footpath Construction – SRC346 – Intention to Declare

Purpose

This report seeks a resolution by Council to consider an intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme to partially fund the construction of a footpath along the south side of Roslyn Road, Highton between Scenic Drive and Remony Avenue. (See plan – Appendix 4).

Summary

• It is proposed to construct 600 metres of 1.5 metre wide footpath to provide for pedestrian access along Roslyn Road, Highton.

• There are 24 residential properties abutting the proposed footpath that will receive special benefit. There are no Council owned properties in the scheme.

• The total estimated project cost is $268,714. This includes direct funding by Council estimated at $51,618 for supporting concrete retaining walls and a new pedestrian refuge at the intersection with Thornhill Road.

• A Benefit Ratio of 0.32 has been calculated in accordance with Section 163 of the Local Government Act, which equates to a Council contribution to the scheme of $147,625 and property owner contribution of $69,471.

• Property owners are considered to receive benefit from the works by way of safer pedestrian access and general amenity.

• The scheme has been prepared in accordance with the Special Rate and Charges provisions of the Local Government Act 1989, the 2004 Ministerial Guidelines, Council’s Special Rates and Charges Policy and community engagement guidelines.

Cr Ellis moved, Cr Richards seconded -

That Council:

Gives notice of its intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme in accordance with Section 163 (1A) of the Local Government Act 1989 (The Act), as follows:

1. The Special Charge is declared for a period of five (5) years commencing upon completion of the works and scheme finalisation.

2. The Special Charge be declared for the purpose of defraying any expenses incurred by Council in relation to the construction of the footpath on Roslyn Road between Scenic Road and Remony Avenue, Highton which:

1. Will provide proper pedestrian access, improved pedestrian safety and enhancement to the general amenity for each of the properties included in the scheme;

2. Council considers is or will be a special benefit to those persons required to pay the special charge (and who are described in succeeding parts of this Resolution); and

3. Arises out of Council’s function of planning for and providing infrastructure for property owners.

3. The total cost of project, be recorded as $268,714(Schedule A).

4. It be recorded that, for the purposes of Section 163 (2A) of the Act, the special charge proceeds will not exceed the amount calculated in accordance with the prescribed formula (R x C = S), the:

1. ‘benefit ratio’ (R) being calculated at 0.32 represents the special benefits to all persons liable to pay the special charge (Schedule B);

2. ‘total cost’ (C) of performing the function described in part 1 (b) of this resolution based on estimated cost be recorded as $217,096; and

3. ‘maximum levy’ (S) be recorded as $69,471.

5. the following be specified as the area for which the special rate is so declared:

1. the area within municipal district of Council highlighted in the plan attached to this Resolution (Appendix 4).

6. the following be specified as the land in relation to which the special charge so declared:

1. land within the area shown on the plan.

7. the following be specified as the criteria which form the basis of the special charge so declared:

1. ownership of any land described in Part 1(e) of this Resolution.

8. the following be specified as the manner in which the special charge so declared will be assessed and levied:

1. Each lot receives a primary access and amenity benefit;

2. The maximum levy is divided on an access and frontage share basis;

3. The special charge will be levied by sending a notice to the person who is liable to pay, pursuant to section 163(4) of the Act.

9. having regard to the preceding parts of this Resolution but subject to Section 166 (1) of the Act, it be recorded that;

1. the owners of the land described in column 1 of Schedule C to the resolution are estimated liable for the respective amounts set out in column 8 of Schedule C; and

2. such owners may, subject to any further resolution of Council pay the special charge in the following manner;

1. the charge will become due and payable within one month of the issue of the notice requesting payment pursuant to Section 167 (3) of the Act;

2. interest will not be charged for six months after the issue of the notice provided the person liable makes timely payment in accordance with any repayment arrangements that may be agreed on by Council; and

3. in accordance with Section 172 of the Act, the interest rate payable on the special charge which has not been paid by the specific date is set at Council’s overdraft rate, reviewed every three months (provided that it shall not exceed the rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of Section 172 (2A) in which case the rate of interest shall be the maximum rate fixed by the Governor in Council by Order for the purposes of this section).

3. Authorise Council’s Chief Executive Officer to levy the Special Charge in accordance with Section 163 (4) of the Act.

Carried.

Background

Existing footpaths are in place along the majority of Roslyn Road, Highton except for the south side of the road between Scenic Road and Remony Avenue. This road is busy, with over 9,000 vehicles per day using the road (traffic count data February 2014). Our planning scheme determines that roads of this nature require footpaths on both sides.

Requests from residents and the wider community have been received by Council over the years for the need of a footpath along this section. A footpath here will complete a missing link in Council’s priority footpath network and is considered to be a valuable upgrade to pedestrian safety.

The affected property owners were advised of the scheme proposal via a mail out in July 2015. The mail out included the cost estimate, estimated charges to property owners, the Benefit Ratio calculation, a plan and a Special Rates and Charges Brochure. The mail out also included a survey and out of the 24 properties affected by the scheme, 18 property owners responded.

The results included three (3) yes votes for the proposed footpath, 14 no votes and one (1) property owner who remained non committal.

Discussion

For the footpath section as proposed, pedestrian movement is evident by the existence of a well used ‘goat track’ in the nature strip particularly between Remony Avenue and Thornhill Road. This ‘goat track’ becomes less obvious to the west of Thornhill Road due to the steep nature strips and difficult terrain at this location. A footpath here would reduce the necessity of pedestrians crossing the road to the north side footpath.

When considering the Benefit Ratio for this footpath, it is reasonable that a majority of cost be apportioned as the community benefit when investigating pedestrian use of the path. With a calculated Benefit Ratio of 0.32, a majority of funding for this scheme would be coming from Council. The average cost per property is estimated at $2,612 which is slightly higher than some recent schemes.

Of the survey results, there is a majority of objection to the scheme. Of those opposing the scheme, concerns raised and corresponding officer considerations include:

• Too expensive, wouldn’t spend money on a footpath, Council should pay, price is high.

  Costs considerations were raised by six (6) of the objectors. Council will be funding 74% of the project.

• Traffic is more of a concern. Slow speeds to 50km/h. Introduce traffic calming.

  These feelings were shared by four (4) of the objectors. Although not directly related to the footpath proposal, these feelings do suggest that pedestrian safety is a concern.

• Funding would be better spent installing traffic lights at the intersection of Thornhill and Roslyn Roads and include pedestrian crossings.

  This is an opinion reflected by three (3) of the objectors. This opinion also reflects the safety concerns for pedestrians

• A footpath would create more trespassers, vandalism and littering.

  These feeling were shared between three (3) objectors and are considered to be a subjective view.

• There is a footpath on the north side of Roslyn Road.

  This fact was stated three times among the objectors. The reasons for the footpath have been stated within this report.

• Could kill the century old Morton Bay fig tree on our property

  An analysis of the tree location will be made during detailed design but is not considered to be an issue at this stage. If necessary, alternative construction methods such as asphalt or a rubberised footpath section could be installed past the tree at Council’s expense.

• Retaining the green area is a priority. Aesthetics are more important than convenience.

  This is an opinion expressed by one property owner.

• Nature strip is steeply inclined. Concern about existing driveways.

  The design of the footpath includes some retaining wall structures and matching to existing driveways. Property owners will not be affected by the new footpath in regards to vehicular access.

Cost apportionment for the scheme has been divided into access and amenity benefits. It is considered that all abutting properties with direct frontages to the proposed new footpath, regardless of size and shape, receive the same access benefit. Corner properties have received a reduced access benefit due to their second frontage. These properties may potentially be charged for future footpath schemes.

50% of the total benefit has been apportioned to access. The access benefit includes the provision of an all weather sealed surface that reduces the risk of accidents caused by uneven and slippery surfaces. A new footpath also eliminates the nuisance affect of dust and mud. In simple terms, a new footpath improves accessibility for all abutting properties.

The remaining 50% of benefit is attributed to amenity and this can best be described as the benefit the pathway provides to an abutting property by way of improved aesthetics, safety, enjoyment, comfort and property value.

The amenity benefit is based on the actual footpath frontage to a property when existing driveway extents are taken into consideration. This is known as the apportion-able frontage and is shown at Column 4 of Schedule C.

Environmental Implications

The provision of a sealed pathway provides a permanent and safe means of access. During construction and the manufacture and procurement of materials, energy is used resulting in some greenhouse gas emissions. This stops when construction is complete.

The project does not create waste with the exception of some excavated material and green waste.

The proposal does not affect any natural habitats.

The proposal may require some nature strip shrubs to be removed and property trees and shrubs to be trimmed.

Financial Implications

The project is a one off capital cost and there will be minimal ongoing maintenance costs. If approved, the scheme could proceed this financial year. Funding is currently allocated in C15309 Roslyn Road Footpath ($80,000) and the core C02303 Footpath Construction Program ($188,714).

Financial details are as follows:

From the table above, the total net cost to Council for this project is estimated to be $199,243.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The scheme has been prepared in accordance with the Special Rate and Charge provisions of the Local Government Act 1989, the 2004 ministerial guidelines, Council’s Special Rates and Charges Policy and community engagement guidelines.

Alignment to City Plan

This report aligns with the City Plan as follows:

Sustainably Built and Natural Environment

• Support our Community to live sustainably – Encourage increased use of alternatives to car transport and seek efficient traffic movement throughout the municipality.

• Advocate for and promote sustainable design and development – Promoting sustainable design and retrofitting.

• Acknowledge the community’s desire to have their say and be involved in planning for the future of Greater Geelong.

Officer Direct or Indirect Interest

No Council Officer has any direct or indirect interest in the properties affected by the scheme.

Risk Assessment

Provision of a sealed footpath will provide safer movement conditions for pedestrians by minimising the risk of personal injuries through conflict with vehicles and the elimination of uneven and slippery surfaces.

There are no identified risks for Council in making its intention to declare the scheme.

Social Considerations

The provision of properly sealed and drained pathways is aligned to Council’s City Plan as described above and provides improved connectivity and safety for pedestrians. It is further considered that the footpath will enhance the general amenity of the area.

Human Rights Charter

In developing this report to Council, the subject matter has been considered to determine if it raises any human rights issues.  In particular, whether the scope of any human right established by the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities is in any way limited, restricted or interfered with by the recommendations contained in this report.  It is considered that the subject matter does not raise any adverse human rights issues.

It is further considered that the construction of the footpath upholds the right to freedom of movement (Section 12 of the Human rights Charter) by enhancing a person’s ability to move freely within the area they choose to live.

Consultation and Communication

Community consultation for the footpath construction Special Charge Scheme has been carried out as follows:

8 July 2015 – Initiation letter including a concept plan, cost estimate, apportionment of charges, Benefit Ratio Calculation and survey to property owners.

Some phone calls have been fielded in response to the initiation mail out. Further correspondence will be sent to all affected property owners should Council resolve to make its intention to declare the Special Charge Scheme.

Appendix 1

SCHEDULE ‘A’

The works for the construction of a footpath in Roslyn Road, Highton which consist of excavation, concrete footpath, retaining walls, reinstatement of nature strip, miscellaneous construction works, legal advice and professional services associated with survey, engineering design, drafting, supervision and administration of the project all as included in the cost estimate shown below.

COST ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FOOTPATH – ROSLYN ROAD, HIGHTON

Appendix 2

BENEFIT RATIO CALCULATION

Appendix 3

SCHEDULE ‘C’

SPECIAL CHARGE SCHEME FOR FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION

ROSLYN ROAD, HIGHTON

Appendix 4 - Plan

Attachment 1

PROCESS CHART

SPECIAL CHARGE PROJECTS – (Section 163 – Local Government Act 1989)

ROSLYN ROAD, HIGHTON – PROPOSED FOOTPATH

Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Notices of Motion

• Copyright CoGG 2012
• Contacts
• Disclaimer
• Privacy
• Last Update: 1 April 2016