Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 16 August 2016
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
Reports tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on Tuesday date held at the Council Conference and Reception Centre in City Hall, 57 Little Malop Street, Geelong.
Source: |
Planning and Development – Strategic Implementation |
Acting General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Application: C337 |
The purpose of this report is to adopt Planning Scheme Amendment C337 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
Amendment C337 proposes to correct mapping and ordinance anomalies within the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme.
The Amendment is a housekeeping Amendment and has been undertaken to ensure that the Planning Scheme is accurate.
The Amendment applies to a number of different locations across the municipality.
Corrections of these anomalies does not change the intent of any part of the Planning Scheme and is consistent with Council and State policy as it is procedural in nature.
The Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) has authorised the Amendment to proceed.
The Minister for Planning has given the Amendment exemption from the notification requirements of Section 19(2) and 19(3) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987.
The Minister has also advised that a minimum two weeks must be allowed between notification of the three prescribed Ministers under Section 19(1)(c ) of the Act, and adoption of the Amendment by Council.
Council has notified the three prescribed Ministers to whom the Minister cannot grant exemption, and provided them with required period of time. No submissions were received from the Ministers.
As the proposed Amendment affects Crown Land, the DELWP required Council to notify Native Title Services Victoria of this amendment. No submission was received.
Officers determined that there would be no material detriment to other parties and have not notified individual landowners of the Amendment.
It is recommended that the Amendment be adopted and forwarded to the Minister for approval.
K Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council
Adopts Amendment C337 to the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme as contained in Appendix 1 of this report; and
Submits the adopted Amendment together with the prescribed information to the Minister for Planning requesting approval.
Carried.
The Amendment is required to correct a number of anomalies in the Greater Geelong Planning Scheme (both maps and ordinance) that have become apparent during the past months of operation. The Amendment is considered to be house-keeping in nature and has been prepared to ‘tidy-up’ the Scheme.
It is incumbent on Council to resolve these anomalies so that the Planning Scheme is relevant, up-to-date, of a high quality and standard, and meets the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) requirements. This Amendment will address these matters. This is the ninth anomalies amendment since the new format Scheme came into operation in July 2000.
Amendment C337 applies to a number of different locations across the municipality including:
On 29 March 2016 Council sought authorisation from the Minister for Planning for this Amendment and exemption from notification as per its resolution under delegation on 23 March 2016. DELWP subsequently advised Council on 5 April that it may proceed to prepare the amendment. As part of that authorisation, DELWP provided the following requirements:
As the proposed amendment affects Crown Land, Native Title Services Victoria should be given notice.
Compliance with the notification requirements of Sections 19(2) and 19(3) is not warranted.
Granted an exemption from the requirements of sections 19(2) and 19(3).
Provide the prescribed ministers for a minimum of two weeks between the giving notice and adoption of the Amendment.
Council as planning authority to form its own view as to whether any parties may be materially affected by the amendment and should be given notice.
As part of the authorisation process DELWP queried one proposed change affecting the schedule to the Heritage Overlay for 43 Lawton Avenue Geelong West. Officers had made an error in the description of the change and this has been correctly described in this report for adoption. The correction required is to delete HO721 from the Planning Scheme Maps and in its place apply HO1633 – this being the precinct overlay.
The three prescribed Ministers (Minsters for Environment, Agriculture, and Energy & Resources) from which exemption of notice cannot be granted under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, have been notified for a two week period between 22 April and 13 May 2016 (allowing time for mail). No submissions have been received from them. As one of the changes proposed affected Crown Land, DELWP required Council to notify Native Title Services Victoria of the amendment. Again, no submission has been received from that Authority.
Amendment C337 proposed for adoption makes the following changes to the Planning Scheme:
Part of the land at 11 and 12 Marina Court, Lara.
Part of the land at Pt Henry – the former navigation station and the memorial to the founding of Geelong.
Part of the land at 3/85 The Terrace, Ocean Grove.
311-329 Wallington Road, Wallington.
2, 3, 4-5 and 7 Panyall Close, Hamlyn Heights and 42, 44 and 46 Chaucer Street, Hamlyn Heights
Part of the land at 61-65 Kensington Road, Leopold.
South eastern corner of the land at 66 Gellibrand Street, Portarlington.
Part of the land at 27-31 McCurdy Road, Herne Hill.
110 Marshalls Road, Staughton Vale.
Part of the land at 127 Staceys Road, Connewarre.
Lot 89F and 25 Staughton Vale Road, Staughton Vale.
Part of the land at 25 Staughton Vale Road, Staughton Vale.
43 Lawton Avenue, Geelong West.
33 Retreat Road, Newtown.
311-329 Wallington Road, Wallington.
274 Latrobe Terrace, Newtown
Land affected by the Special Building Overlay at the Grand Lakes Estate Lara.
On 29 March 2016 Council sought authorisation from the Minister for Planning for this Amendment and exemption from notification as per its resolution under delegation on 23 March 2016. DELWP subsequently advised Council on 5 April that it may proceed to prepare the amendment. As part of that authorisation, DELWP provided the following requirements:
As the proposed Amendment affects Crown Land, Native Title Services Victoria should be given notice.
Compliance with the notification requirements of Sections 19(2) and 19(3) is not warranted.
Granted an exemption from the requirements of sections 19(2) and 19(3).
Provide the prescribed ministers for a minimum of two weeks between the giving notice and adoption of the amendment.
Council as planning authority to form its own view as to whether any parties may be materially affected by the Amendment and should be given notice.
As part of the authorisation process DELWP queried one proposed change affecting the schedule to the Heritage Overlay for 43 Lawton Avenue Geelong West. Officers had made an error in the description of the change and this has been correctly described in this report for adoption. The correction required is to delete HO721 from the Planning Scheme Maps and in its place apply HO1633 – this being the precinct overlay.
The three prescribed Ministers (Minsters for Environment, Agriculture, and Energy & Resources) from which exemption of notice cannot be granted under the Planning and Environment Act 1987, have been notified for a two week period between 22 April and 13 May 2016 (allowing time for mail). No submissions have been received from them. As one of the changes proposed affected crown land, DELWP required Council to notify Native Title Services Victoria of the amendment. Again, no submission has been received from that Authority.
Amendment C337 proposed for adoption makes the following changes to the Planning Scheme:
Planning Scheme Map Changes:
Rezone part of the land at 11 and 12 Marina Court, Lara from UFZ to GRZ1.
Delete HO1582 from part of the land at Pt Henry, and apply HO1133 to another part of the land at Pt Henry.
Rezone part of the land at 3/85 The Terrace, Ocean Grove from RDZ1 to C1Z.
Delete HO1636 from the land at 311-329 Wallington Road, Wallington.
Delete HO151 from the land at 2, 3, 4-5 and 7 Panyall Close, Hamlyn Heights and 42, 44 and 46 Chaucer Street, Hamlyn Heights
Delete HO1567 from part of the land at 61-65 Kensington Road, Leopold.
Rezone the south eastern corner of the land at 66 Gellibrand Street, Portarlington from PPRZ to GRZ2.
Rezone part of the land at 27-31 McCurdy Road, Herne Hill from C1Z to GRZ2.
Rezone the land at 110 Marshalls Road, Staughton Vale from PCRZ to RCZ1.
Delete HO1708 from part of the land at 127 Staceys Road, Connewarre.
Rezone land at lot 89F and 25 Staughton Vale Road, Staughton Vale from part PUZ1 and Part FZ to PCRZ.
Delete SLO5 from part of the land at 25 Staughton Vale Road, Staughton Vale.
Delete HO721 from 43 Lawton Avenue, Geelong West.
Planning Scheme Ordinance Changes
Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to correct the outbuilding description for HO1411.
Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to delete the entry for HO1636.
Amend the Schedule to Clause 43.01 to remove the interior alterations controls requirement for HO90.
Replace Schedule 1 to Clause 44.05 with a new Schedule 1.
No adverse environmental implications are expected as a result of this Amendment.
There are no ongoing financial implications for Council arising from this Amendment.
The Amendment is consistent with the format for Planning Schemes and with the Ministerial Direction on the Form and Content of Planning Schemes. The Amendment is consistent with the State and Local Planning Policy Framework (SPPF and LPPF). As the changes proposed are minor and essentially administrative in nature, there are no implications for the LPPF. Some minor corrections to the LPPF are proposed by this Amendment and will improve its interpretation and relevance.
The Amendment supports the Sustainable Built and Natural Environment and Growing Our Economy strategic directions of City Plan.
No Council officers have any direct or indirect interest, in accordance with Section 80 (C ) of the Local Government Act, to which this Amendment relates.
There are no notable risks associated with either implementing or not implementing the recommendations contained in this report. Given its minor, procedural nature, this amendment has been assessed as having a low level of risk.
No adverse social impacts are expected to result from this Amendment.
The Amendment will not impact on basic human rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter. Planning legislation provides for the exemptions to the usual consultation process for Amendments, which the Minister for Planning duly granted.
Limited notice of the Amendment was given to the three prescribed Ministers and to Native Title Services Victoria. Due to the nature of the proposed Amendments, officers determined that it was unnecessary to notify individual landowners, following the same approach that Council has done with all other anomaly Amendments since 2000.
The planning authority for this amendment is Greater Geelong Planning Scheme
The Greater Geelong Planning Scheme is amended as follows:
Planning Scheme Maps
The Planning Scheme Maps are amended by a total of 14 attached map sheets.
Zoning Maps
Amend Planning Scheme Map Nos. 1, 5, 18, 36, 43 and 81 in the manner shown on the 6 attached maps marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C337”.
Overlay Maps
Amend Planning Scheme Map Nos. 32HO, 37HO, 40HO, 57HO, 79HO, 81HO, and 5SLO in the manner shown on the 8 attached maps marked “Greater Geelong Planning Scheme, Amendment C337”.
Planning Scheme Ordinance
The Planning Scheme Ordinance is amended as follows:
In Overlays – Clause 43.01, replace Schedule 1 with a new Schedule 1 in the form of the attached document.
In Overlays – Clause 44.05, replace Schedule 1 with a new Schedule 1 in the form of the attached document.
End of document
*Note that due to its size, the full Schedule 1 to Clause 43.01 has not been included – only the pages with changes have been included in this report
*Note that due to its size, the full Schedule 1 to Clause 44.05 has not been included – only the pages with changes have been included in this report
Source: |
Strategy & Performance - Financial Services |
General Manager: |
Dean Frost |
Index Reference: |
Financial Reporting - Financial Year 2015/2016 |
To seek approval to rename Dog Leg Lane, Geelong West to Timms Lane, Geelong West.
A public petition from 43 community members was tabled at the Council Meeting of 15 March 2016 requesting a renaming of Dog Leg Lane, Geelong West.
Dog Leg Lane, a recently named laneway, runs east between Pakington and Emerald Streets, Geelong West (Attachment A).
The new name chosen is named after an historical land owner.
The proposed renaming was advertised in the Independent newspaper on 15 April 2016 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 16 April 2016.
Council received five submissions regarding the proposal.
K Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council approve the renaming of Dog Leg Lane to “Timms Lane, Geelong West”.
Carried.
Council is the responsible authority for naming and renaming roadways under the Local Government Act 1989. To administer this, Council is required to utilise the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 (the Guidelines).
A subdivision occurred on the property historically known as 60 Aberdeen Street, Geelong West, that created two new properties with frontage and access off the laneway that runs parallel between Villamanta and Aberdeen Streets, Geelong West. Current building development on the site required unique street addresses to be allocated. Prior to the subdivision, no property fronted the laneway concerned. The name Dog Leg was suggested by the property owner, together with a number of other names as part of the subdivision consultation process. Dog Leg was the only name that met the Guidelines.
Council received a petition from nine adjoining and 34 non adjoining property owners / residents requesting that Dog Leg Lane, Geelong West be renamed. The majority of the petitions were opposed to the name Dog Leg as they believed it was a derogatory name.
The petition requested that a new name be chosen based on heritage aspects of the area.
Letters have been sent to the petition submitters, adjoining property owners and residents advising them of the proposal and intention to rename this laneway to “Timms Lane, Geelong West”.
It is proposed to rename Dog Leg Lane to “Timms Lane, Geelong West”.
This name has been chosen in honour of the Timms family who were one of Geelong’s largest wool exporters. Their property holdings were between Aberdeen and Autumn Street, Geelong West. Records show that the Timms Family were the early owners of the land near the corner of Aberdeen Street and Coronation Street. Part of this land was sold to James Austin in 1849 and later became the Argyle Hotel in 1855.
The name “Timms” meets the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.
The proposed renaming was advertised in the Independent newspaper on 15 April 2016 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 16 April 2016. Five submissions on the proposal were received.
Two submissions requested that Dog Leg Lane be retained. Two submissions did not object to the name “Timms” however, provided other suggested names. One submission suggested that instead of honouring an historic land owner, Council should honour someone who has left a lasting legacy. Three submissions suggested other names that they believed should be considered however, by using the Guidelines these suggested names were shown to be duplications and therefore cannot be used.
There are no environmental issues arising from this report.
The approximate cost to Council is $940.00 This includes advertising, notification to adjoining property owners and residents, notification to authorities and street signage.
The Local Government Act 1989, the Geographic Place Names Act 1998 and the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010 have been followed.
The proposal aligns to City Plan with the encouragement of Community Wellbeing.
There is no Council Officer with direct or indirect interest involved in this report.
If an emergency situation occurred, Council’s proposal to rename this section of roadway could minimise the risk or failure to be able to access a situation in a timely manner.
The renaming of this roadway will ensure the community have a more acceptable road name in place and allow for clearer identification of properties by the general public and emergency services.
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.
Correspondence has been sent to the petition submitters, adjoining property owners and residents advising them of the proposed renaming and inviting submissions.
The proposal was advertised in the Independent newspaper on 15 April 2016 and the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 16 April 2016. This advertisement also advised that descendants of the Timms family were invited to submit submissions.
The proposal was published on Council’s Geelong Australia website for 30 days as per the Guidelines for Geographic Names 2010.
Council was unable to identify and thus consult with any surviving members of the Timms family.
Five submissions were received in regards to this proposal.
Subject to Council and the Registrar of Geographic Names approval, the relevant authorities and abutting owners and residents will be notified of the official registration of this road renaming.
Source: |
Investment & Attraction - Central Geelong Action Plan |
General Manager: |
Brett Luxford |
Index Reference: |
PRJ-16-1281: Central Geelong Action Plan Correspondence SUB-16-3146: Speed Limits & Zones |
To reduce the speed limit within Central Geelong in order to create an environment that supports safe movement and city life.
A 40km/hr speed zone is proposed within Central Geelong to support the pedestrianisation and activation of streets.
The Central Geelong Task Force first considered a proposal for a 40km/hr zone in the CBD in April 2015. Subsequently, the implementation of a Central Geelong 40km/hr speed zone was endorsed for consultation in March 2016.
VicRoads has provided in-principle support for the proposal.
Officers have worked in partnership with VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) to resolve the details of the speed limit change and develop the communication program.
Council and VicRoads support the TAC ‘towards zero’ vision, which is based on the principle that everyone has the right to use our roads and streets without threat to life or health.
A community engagement period of four weeks is proposed from 25 August 2016 to 22 September 2016, pending Council endorsement on the 16 August 2016.
The purpose of the engagement is to obtain public feedback on the proposal and understand the concerns arising from the initiative, to inform decisions about implementation.
The timing of the engagement period for the Central Geelong 40km/hr zone has been coordinated with the communications and engagement activity by TAC for its ‘Graham’ campaign, which focuses on the vulnerability of road users and the limitations to the forces the human body can tolerate.
K Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council:
notes the Central Geelong 40km/hr speed zone initiative;
undertakes community engagement for a period of one month;
receives a report on the outcomes of the engagement and implementation.
Carried.
The Central Geelong Action Plan aims to:
“Create an environment which prioritises safe and accessible movement of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport and redirects non-city destination heavy vehicles away from Central Geelong and links precincts.”
(Central Geelong Action Plan, Page 16)
A slow-speed environment has been demonstrated to substantially improve safety for all transport modes, particularly pedestrians and cyclists. A 40km/hr speed zone is proposed within Central Geelong to support the pedestrianisation and activation of streets.
It should be noted that the 40km/hr zone initiative is directly aligned with the 2013-2022 Victorian Road Safety Strategy and the implementation of State Government policy, as follows:
“… the Victorian road safety partners (VicRoads, Victoria Police, the Department of Justice and the Transport Accident Commission) have adopted a Safe System philosophy to road safety. This is a holistic method that aims to minimise the risk of death or serious injury on the roads by taking into account the interaction between roads, vehicles, speeds and road users.
The key principles underpinning and driving a safe system approach are that:
People make mistakes
People have a limited tolerance to injuries
Safety is a shared responsibility”1
What is known, is that even ‘low level’ speeding impacts on the number of crashes, as it is:
“the most common where drivers are marginally over the limit (usually 5km/hr). Research shows that with each 5km/hr increase in travelling speed above 60km/hr, the risk of a collision resulting in death doubles. Reducing speed by 5km/hr can result in a 15% decrease in crashes”2.
Council and VicRoads support the TAC ‘towards zero’ vision, which is based on the principle that everyone has the right to use our roads and streets without threat to life or health. The key message of this campaign is that ‘life and health should never be exchanged for other benefits in our society, such as getting from A to B quicker’.
The Central Geelong Task Force first considered a proposal for a 40km/hr zone in the CBD in April 2015. Subsequently, the implementation of a Central Geelong 40km/hr speed zone was endorsed for consultation in March 2016.
Since that time, officers have worked in partnership with VicRoads and the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) to resolve the details of the speed limit change and develop the communication program.
What are the statistics that support a 40km/hr zone in Central Geelong?
156 reported crashes have occurred on roads in Central Geelong in the last five years, involving over 400 people. 52 people suffered a serious injury and 135 suffered minor injuries as a result of a collision. Both pedestrians and bike riders are over represented in the statistics. Approximately 70% of all crashes were recorded to have occurred in daylight.
Traffic surveys show the average travel speeds of vehicles in Central Geelong are between 37km/hr and 46km/hr. A summary of the findings is provided below on a seven day average:
For a 24 hour period the average speed is 39.6km/hr, 85th percentile is 49.0km/hr.
Between 7am to 7pm the average speed is 38.9km/hr, 85th percentile is 48.1km/hr.
Between 7pm to 7am the average speed is 43.4km/hr, 85th percentile is 52.3km/hr.
It is important to note that only 13% of traffic volumes within Central Geelong occur between 7pm to 7am and on some roads up to 8.5% of traffic is travelling above the posted speed limit.
In a CBD setting, where there are increasing numbers of pedestrians and cyclists, their level of interaction between roads, vehicles and speeds increases, as does the risk of crashes, injury or death. In this context, the implementation of a 40km/hr zone is a significant initiative in improving safety for all road users.
What should the extent of a 40km/hr zone be for Central Geelong?
Crash statistics, the existing and future urban environment have been considered in developing the extent of the 40km/hr speed zone shown in Attachment 1.
A ‘whole of city grid’ approach is proposed, to provide consistency and clarity for all road users. The area between Swanston Street and Latrobe Terrace and McKillop Street to the bay is proposed to be included. The general principle is, once you cross these key streets or turn into the grid, you are in the 40km/hr zone. However, the detail of the signage plan will determine the exact transition points.
Importantly, Myers Street, Bellarine Street and the intersections with these two key roads are intended to be included in the 40km/hr zone, ensuring that the busy pedestrian environment of the major hospitals and health precinct are included within this pedestrian-priority zone. These reinforce the eastern and southern extents, with Matthew Flinders College, The Gordon, Geelong Station and Deakin University’s landholdings reinforcing the western extent of the proposed 40km/hr speed zone.
It should be noted that the ‘whole of city grid’ approach reflects what currently exists in Melbourne. Advice has been sought from officers involved in implementing the 40km/hr speed zone initiative in Melbourne CBD, who raised concerns that the staged approach to roll out in that context created confusion for all road users.
VicRoads has provided in-principle support for the proposal.
Communication and engagement
The draft Communications Brochure (refer Attachment 1) has been prepared in conjunction with VicRoads, planned to be publicly released as a co-branded initiative.
A video has been developed to demonstrate the ‘real’ impact the speed zone change will have to vehicle users. The video demonstrates two cars travelling through Central Geelong, one at 50km/hr one at 40km/hr, showing there is no significant difference in travel time in a CBD environment.
A community engagement period of four weeks is proposed from 25 August 2016 to 22 September 2016, pending Council endorsement on the 16 August 2016. The purpose of the engagement is to obtain public feedback on the proposal and understand the concerns arising from the initiative, to inform decisions about implementation.
This approach is consistent with the IAP2 spectrum of public participation, ‘consult’ level of engagement.
The timing of the engagement period for the Central Geelong 40km/hr zone has been coordinated with the communications and engagement activity by TAC for its ‘Graham’ campaign, which focuses on the vulnerability of road users and the limitations to the forces the human body can tolerate. Graham is a human sculpture of what the body would look like if it was to be designed to survive low-impact crashes and will be on exhibition in Geelong from 11 August 2016 until 14 September 2016.
There are no environmental impacts arising from this report.
A preliminary estimate to implement the initiative is $250,000, part funded by the Central Geelong Action Plan cost centre, with funds also being sought as part of a TAC Safer Road Infrastructure program.
There are no policy/legal/statutory implications arising from this report.
The proposal closely aligns with ‘Growing the Economy’ and ‘Sustainable and Built Environment’ by supporting the revitalisation of Central Geelong and use of more sustainable transport options to move around within the CBD.
No officers involved in this report have any direct or indirect interest in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act.
Risks to the safety of all road users in Central Geelong will be reduced as a result of the implementation of the initiative outlined in this report.
The social impacts arising from this report include creating a safer environment for all road users through lowering vehicle speeds. Slower speeds will enhance the environment for pedestrians and cyclists, as well as improving amenity and enhancing opportunities for street life.
The outcomes described in this report will not impact on any basic rights, freedoms and responsibilities as set out in the Charter.
This project has been developed in collaboration with key stakeholders including VicRoads and TAC. As outlined in the report, it is proposed to ‘consult’ as defined in the IAP2 spectrum of public participation, to inform decisions about implementation.
Source: |
Strategy & Performance - Strategy & Program Delivery |
General Manager: |
Dean Frost |
Index Reference: |
Corporate Management - Planning & Strategy |
To provide Council with a quarterly update on the organisations performance measures and assist in strategic decision making and continuous improvement activities.
The introduction of a quarterly headlines report will provide a snapshot of the organisation and community key performance measures, to assist in strategic decision making and continuous improvement activities.
Regular reporting and discussion of key organisational and community metrics will uplift enterprise performance measure, instil a performance and improvement culture and increase senior leader accountability of enterprise performance.
K Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council notes the CEO Quarterly Headline Report – April to June 2016, as a means of providing a comprehensive picture of Council’s performance in particular areas.
Carried.
The headline report has been prepared quarterly to provide Council visibility of the health of the organisation and assist in strategic decision making and continuous improvement activities.
This report contains key information about the delivery of organisational activities and high level headlines that measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the organisation
Data is captured with a focus on the following:
Community Indicators – (Strategic view of outcomes the organisation is aiming to influence). Data was collected from the following for the quarterly report:
Community Satisfaction Survey,
Unemployment statistics for March,
Building Activity for June and
Quarterly Engagement Dashboard were captured in this section.
Visitors to Geelong & The Bellarine including facts and figures to support the regions popularity and reputation of a short-break destination.
Our People (Measuring our resourcing, health and engagement of our people/employees). Staff achievements have been highlighted this quarter.
Community Interactions (Measuring the community’s satisfaction with Council). Online activity and media coverage being the items of prominence this quarter.
The CEO Quarterly Headline Report currently provides data from four key areas as means to provide performance measures; which may expand over time with new proposed measures, targets and trends.
The report will allow us to become a results oriented organisation and will monitor how we perform against current organisation, other council’s and state trends.
The CEO Quarterly Headline report could possibly outline objectives and strategies to deliver the environmental benefits to the community.
There are no immediate financial implications, however in the current format provides data of how Council is tracking within its own budget.
No known implications.
Not applicable.
There is no direct or indirect officer interest to which this report relates.
Monitoring Council’s performance measures provides factual data for the organisation to deliver effective and efficient services.
The report outlines objectives and strategies to deliver social benefits to the community.
There are no known positive or negative effects.
Quarterly reporting will be provided to the organisation and made public to the Community via the relevant Ordinary Meeting of Council.
Source: |
City Services - Engineering Services |
General Manager: |
William Tieppo |
Index Reference: |
Project T1600012 |
The purpose of this tender is to establish a panel of concreters for the supply of concrete and concrete works throughout the municipality.
Council has sought tenders for the supply of concrete and concrete works through out the municipality for a period of two (2) years from 1 September 2016 to 31 August 2018 with the option for a further one (1) year term at sole discretion of Council.
The works in this Contract include supply and laying of all concrete pedestrian pavements and kerb and channel for construction works, kerb and channel and footpath replacement works and kerb and channel, footpath and other concrete maintenance works within the municipality of the City of Greater Geelong on a supply needs requirement.
Council will appoint a panel of contractors for the supply of concrete and concrete works through out the municipality. Council reserved the right to select a panel of concreters and provided no guarantee of volume of work during the contract period.
A total of ten (10) companies have provided tender submissions for the supply of concrete and concrete works. Tender submissions include an extensive schedule of rates for all manner of concrete works and the supply of concrete.
The estimated annual value of the works program associated with this contract is $6,300,000.
A detailed evaluation of all tender submissions has been undertaken by an evaluation panel of Council officers, as identified in the body of this report.
Following an evaluation of each of the submissions the following suppliers have been recommended for inclusion to the panel of preferred suppliers:-
Aaron McCurdy Concreting P/L (ATF) A & C McCurdy Family Trust
Armstrong Creek Concreting & Outdoor Constructions Pty Ltd
CCP Group Pty Ltd (ATF) The CCP Group Trust
CJ Walters Concreting P/L (ATF) For Walters Business Trust
Coppards Concreting Trust
Defran Concreting Pty Ltd
Geelong Kerbing Pty Ltd (ATF) The Kerbing Settlement Trust
Vince & Anna Rotiroti Pty Ltd
K Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council:
Accept the tender submission/’s from:
Aaron McCurdy Concreting P/L (ATF) A & C McCurdy Family Trust
Armstrong Creek Concreting & Outdoor Constructions Pty Ltd
CCP Group Pty Ltd (ATF) The CCP Group Trust
CJ Walters Concreting PL (ATF) For Walters Business Trust
Coppards Concreting Pty Ltd
De Fran Concreting Pty Ltd
Geelong Kerbing Pty Ltd (ATF) The Kerbing Settlement Trust
Vince & Anna Rotiroti Pty Ltd
for Tender No T1600012 – Panel arrangement for Supply of Concrete and Concrete Works for the associated schedule of rates (exclusive of GST). The period of the contract will be for two (2) years with an option for Council to extend the period by one (1) year.
The Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign the contract documents for and on behalf of the City of Greater Geelong Council.
Carried.
Tenders for the supply of concrete and concrete works were invited via public tender on Saturday 5 December 2015. At the close of tenders on Thursday 28 January 2016 the following tender submissions were received (in alphabetical order):
|
Tenderer |
|
Aaron McCurdy Concreting P/L (ATF) A & C McCurdy Family trust |
|
Armstrong Creek Concreting & Outdoor Constructions Pty Ltd |
|
CCP Group Pty Ltd (ATF) The CCP Group Trust |
|
CJ Walters Concreting PL (ATF) for Walters Business Trust |
|
Coppards Concreting Pty Ltd |
|
De Fran Concreting Pty Ltd |
|
Geelong Kerbing Pty Ltd (ATF) The Kerbing Settlement Trust |
|
Ozgroup Constructions Pty Ltd |
|
Prestige Concrete Services |
|
Vince & Anna Rotiroti Pty Ltd |
The tender submissions associated with this service were evaluated by a panel of authorised Council Officers.
Stage One – Mandatory Criteria
Mandatory Requirements do not apply to this Tender.
Stage Two – Comparative Criteria
Tender submissions were assessed based on the tender response in the following areas:
|
Criteria |
|
Project Delivery – Capability & Experience |
|
Project Delivery – Methodology/plan for performing contract |
|
Project Delivery – Staffing levels, proposed plant & equipment, extent of sub contracting |
|
Economic Contribution to Geelong Region |
|
Price |
At the conclusion of the evaluation of the tender submissions the following eight (8) were the highest ranked with a clear margin to the next tier of tender submissions.
|
Tenderer (in alphabetical order) |
|
Aaron McCurdy Concreting P/L (ATF) A & C McCurdy Family trust |
|
Armstrong Creek Concreting & Outdoor Constructions Pty Ltd |
|
CCP Group Pty Ltd (ATF) The CCP Group Trust |
|
CJ Walters Concreting PL (ATF) for Walters Business Trust |
|
Coppards Concreting Pty Ltd |
|
De Fran Concreting Pty Ltd |
|
Geelong Kerbing Pty Ltd (ATF) The Kerbing Settlement Trust |
|
Vince & Anna Rotiroti Pty Ltd |
Tenderers with an overall score of 60 points or above were deemed to have the necessary skills, experience and resources to undertake the service. The tenderers who achieved this score were then assessed on a value for money basis.
The eight (8) tenderers that scored 60 points or more were subsequently deemed to have provided value for money submissions by the evaluation panel. Each of the recommended panel members were contracted under the previous Concrete contract.
The panel believe that due to COGG’s concrete program requirements that all recommended panel members will be utilized and allocated work via this contract.
Any environmental implications associated with this contract will arise from the execution of these works. It is considered that these are the responsibility of the Contractor and will be managed through the contract documentation
This is a schedule of rates tender and will rely upon the amount of funds allocated in Council’s various capital and recurrent budgets.
The current budget allocation for this service is approximately $6,300,000 per annum. The core programs include Capital and Recurrent Footpath replacement($3.6 million), Capital and Recurrent Kerb works ($2.2 million), Special Rates and Charges footpath and kerb works ($500k).
The requirements of Section 186 of the Local Government Act have been complied with for this tender. There are no other policy, legal or statutory implications associated with this tender process.
The provision of this service has a positive impact on all key City Plan objectives
No officers or contractors involved in the preparation of this report have a direct or indirect interest in matters to which this report relates
There are not considered to be any risks associated with the acceptance of this tender that cannot be managed through the contract conditions
There are no social implications that will arise from the acceptance of this tender.
There are no Human Rights Charter implications that will arise from the acceptance of this tender.
There are no communication issues associated with the acceptance of this tender. Council’s representative will liaise with affected community groups.
Source: |
Community Life / Aged and Disability Services |
General Manager: |
Linda Quinn |
Index Reference: |
UB-16-563: Community Services and Development / Aged and Disability Care |
To advise Council of the net costs associated with continuing as a provider to the NDIS.
The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) became operational in trial sites from July 2013.
In addition to new Federal funding, the State Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) allocated existing funding as part of their bilateral agreement to the NDIS.
Based on DHHS estimates at the time, approximately $2M annually from Council’s HACC budget was allocated as an in-kind contribution to the scheme, necessitating Council to become a service provider to the NDIS.
In 2013 Council resolved to remain a provider to the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) to the extent that all costs were met by the in-kind allocation.
Council received formal advice in May 2016, that the in-kind arrangement would cease as of 30 June 2016 and that $1.798M would be permanently transferred from Council’s Funding and Service Agreement to the NDIA.
The NDIA informed Council of the unit cost for house cleaning, assistance with self-care services and community access in May 2016. The funding gap between Council’s cost and the NDIA unit cost is approximately $17.00 per hour, $510K per annum. There is no provision in Council’s budget in 2016/2017 to meet the deficit.
The Aged and Disability Department has undertaken a number of measures to identify efficiencies, including improved rostering, reduced travel times from client to client, IT improvements to allow staff to download information rather than attending the office, resulting in approximately $300K of savings.
The withdrawal of house cleaning and assistance with self-care services would result in a 13% reduction of service volume. Management will minimise the impact of loss of work on staff through natural attrition, a reduction in the requirement for agency staff, and the reallocation of a small number of service hours. These reductions will have no impact on guaranteed minimum work hours and there will be no requirement for staff redundancies.
Council will work closely with the NDIS to ensure existing Council clients are supported to transition to alternate providers.
It is proposed that Council continue to provide fully funded services to the NDIS (currently Home Maintenance and Delivered Meals) and review its business activities pending changes and opportunities at the NDIA.
K Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded -
That Council:
Consistent with its 2013 decision, and as a result of the NDIA payments being lower than Council’s cost structure, withdraw as a provider of house cleaning and personal care services to the NDIA; and
Formally advise clients and the NDIA of Council’s withdrawal by 30 September 2016.
Kathy Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded –
That Standing Orders be suspended to enable discussion of a question asked from the Gallery in relation to the Future of the NDIS.
Carried.
Standing Orders were suspended at 6:28pm
Kathy Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded –
That Standing Orders be resumed.
Carried.
Standing Orders were resumed at 6.31pm.
Upon resumption of Standing Orders the motion was carried.
The NDIS has been funded through a new Commonwealth government levy and the reallocation of existing program funding, including HACC and Individual Support as in-kind contributions.
The bilateral agreement between the State and Commonwealth governments sought to maintain stability in the service system in the early phases of the scheme and forced Local Government, amongst others, to become service providers to the NDIS.
In 2013 Council resolved to remain a provider to the NDIA to the extent that all costs were met.
The NDIS policy platform is based on:
A move from a charitable to a commercial response;
A shift in service provision from Government/Non Profit to Private Providers;
The replacement of Government managed regional catchment with a national market;
A move from Government mandated service standards to consumer choice;
Creation of new functions and costs associated with marketing, individualising and coordination of services; and the restructure of the current not-for-profit provider system.
Council was advised by DHHS in May 2016 that, as a result of the NDIS full scheme roll out, $1.798M of Council’s 2016-17 HACC income would be permanently allocated to the NDIA. If Council was to remain a provider to the NDIA it would do so on the basis of a retrospective creditor.
From July 2016, the standard payments for house cleaning, assistance with self-care and community access, as shown below, will be inadequate to cover the full cost of Council’s service provision.
From 1 July 2016 the net cost to Council of service delivery would be in the order of $17 per hour ($510,000 per annum).
Ceasing service provision for house cleaning and assistance with self-care will impact over 200 clients who will need to transfer to alternate providers. This change will be difficult for some, although NDIA management have indicated that they are confident that there are ample alternate providers available to take on the clients.
A communications plan will be implemented to ensure that all clients impacted will have consistent and compassionate information and practical assistance. Transition to alternate providers will be managed over a period of time and will be done collaboratively with the NDIA, whose staff have undertaken to provide Service Coordination to all clients who require additional support in moving to a new provider.
The withdrawal of these specific NDIS services would result in a 13% reduction to service hours, and impact on approximately 175 Community Care Workers (CCWs). Of these, 132 CCWs will experience a loss of between 0 and 5 hours per week, and 41 will experience a loss of 5 or more hours per week.
Not applicable.
A budget adjustment of $1.798M of income has been made along with a corresponding level of expenditure in Council’s budget in 2016-17.
Council’s decision has been influenced by, and is a response to, the Commonwealth Government’s policy and legislative changes.
The withdrawal of select service provision to the NDIA will not impact significantly on Council’s Strategic direction.
No officer who prepared this report has any direct or indirect interest other than as an employee of Council.
The withdrawal of services will be stressful for some clients and staff and as such may result in negative press or reputational risk. Staff will be supported through the transition period and will have access to Council’s Employee Assistance Program.
Some permanent part time staff will have their income reduced as a result of the 13% reduction in work. This will necessitate a realignment of resources. Measures will be taken to minimise the loss of work hours to meet the income needs of staff where possible. There will be no net loss of work within the municipality as services will transfer to alternate providers.
It is hoped that with time the NDIS will increase its flexibility with regard to consumer choice and allow for participants to select their preferred provider within an open market.
The loss of NDIS work constitutes a significant change to work as defined by Council’s Enterprise Agreement. The following consultation activities have been held or are planned:
Discussions have been held with ASU officials regarding unit costs and the current Enterprise Agreement conditions such as travel and service cancellation allowances and their affordability in the NDIA market.
CCWs have been informed of the impending changes at team meetings in March, April, May and June 2016, and at regular ASU representative meetings during 2015 and 2016.
Three special mass meetings were held during July 2016 to which the ASU were invited.
CCWs have been given the opportunity to provide verbal or written solutions to the cost gap and nineteen feedback forms were received by the end of July 2016.
The CCW feedback was tabled at a working group meeting comprising management, ASU delegates and officials on the 4 August 2016. Overall the feedback provided no clear consensus on opportunities for savings.
Through the consultation process with the ASU we have not been able to completely address the funding gap. The ASU has advised that further consultation and an efficiency review could close this gap further, however it will still not result in a neutral position.
Individual interviews will be held in August and September with all staff who will be impacted by loss of work. The intent of management to minimise the impact by redistribution of available work has been communicated consistently.
All affected clients will be contacted and assistance offered to transition to alternate providers.
Source: |
Planning & Development - Urban Growth 892d |
General Manager: |
Peter Bettess |
Index Reference: |
Armstrong Creek Horseshoe Bend Precinct |
K Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1989, this contractual matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
[Back to List]Source: |
Chief Executive Office - Corporate Internal Auditor |
Chief Executive Officer: |
Kelvin Spiller |
Index Reference: |
Audit - CG – Internal |
K Alexander moved, P Dorling seconded -
That in accordance with Section 89 (2) (d) of the Local Government Act 1989, this contractual matter be considered at the conclusion of all other business at which time the meeting be closed to members of the public.
Carried.
Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors
