Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 28 March 2017

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, 30 Gheringhap Street, Geelong.

1. Investigation of the Impacts of Extending Free Parking to Weekdays – Central Geelong

2. Proposal for an Integrated Child and Family Centre – Purnell Road, Corio West

3. Johnstone Park Raingarden – Submissions Review Panel

4. Leisuretime Synthetic Soccer Pitch – Submissions Review Panel

5. Community Grants Program 2016/2017 – Summary of Allocations – 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016

6. Revocation of Flood-Prone Area Designation of New Lots at Lara Central, Stage 6

7. Delegation to the CEO for the Construction of the Green Organics Composting Facility, the Drysdale Sports Precinct, the Rosedale Community Hub and the Johnstone Park Raingarden

8. Pioneer Road, Grovedale – Proposed Footpath Construction – SRC344 – Declaration of Charge

9. Tender T1600014 – Municipal Solid Waste and Green Organics Haulage Services

1. Investigation of the Impacts of Extending Free Parking to Weekdays – Central Geelong

Purpose

To inform Council of the outcomes of the investigation carried out in response to a request by the previous Council.

Background

SGS Economics & Planning and O’Brien Traffic were commissioned to investigate the impacts of extending free parking to weekdays in Central Geelong, as per a Council Notice of Motion on 15 March 2016.

Key Issues

• Independent advice from SGS Economics & Planning and O’Brien Traffic indicates that the potential costs of extending free parking outweigh the potential benefits.

• The SGS Economics and O’Brien Traffic report made similar conclusions as the numerous independent reports commissioned since 2002.

• Effective and vibrant businesses in central Geelong rely on good vehicle and pedestrian flow and access to public transport and parking. A parking strategy for central Geelong is under development.

• Free parking relies on compliance of parking limits, to manage turnover and availability. Offering free parking will rely on issuing fines as a turnover management tool.

• There is no data available on the impact of free parking on demand nor a detailed inventory of parking restrictions in central Geelong. Consideration should be given to introducing ground based technology (sensors), to support decision making and to better inform customers about their parking time limits.

• There is evidence that in ground parking technology provides real time information on parking availability and data that contributes to parking strategy development.

• Community workshops conducted in 2013 revealed that motorists were more concerned about paying a $72 fine than paying the hourly parking fee. Currently 0.6% of parkers receive a fine (compared to 10.6% in the City of Melbourne) which suggests that the majority do not finding the parking arrangements problematic.

• Parking fees in Central Geelong compare favourably to other cities of similar size (refer Attachment 1).

• Newcastle City trialled free parking but reverted back to paid parking at the request of the business community due to congestion and poor parking turnover.

• Community views arising from Our Future engagements indicate significant support for improving central city access by cycling, walking and public transport rather than encouraging car use. Encouraging greater car use will be counter to community expectations.

• The financial impacts are as follows:

•	Revenue loss		approx $14M
•	Expenditure	- in ground sensors	$ 1.75M
		- labour and technology support	$ 0.760M

P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -

That Council endorses the:

1. current paid parking and variable parking regime to manage fair and equitable parking turnover;

2. development of data sets and analysis to provide evidence of the impact of changes to the parking arrangements;

3. investigation into ground based technology sensors to assist with traffic management and parking operations.

Carried.

Attachment 1

Discussion

Council adopted free parking on Sundays within Central Geelong in December 2006 and expanded this to include free parking on Saturdays in April 2014. In March 2016 Council passed a resolution calling for a further expansion of free parking in central Geelong beyond weekends, including consideration of any direct or indirect impacts of such a change. Council resolved that ‘Council Officers provide a report to Council outlining the potential to expand the free parking program in Central Geelong, including a full cost benefit analysis by June 2016.

In August 2016, Council engaged O’Brien Traffic Consultants (OBTC) and SGS Economics & Planning to undertake an independent study on the possible introduction of free parking and its impacts (refer Attachments 2-4).

Within Central Geelong, the City owns and manages approximately 5,400 on street and 3,750 off street parking bays. 3,593 on street bays are subject to paid parking between the hours of 9.00am and 5.30pm Monday to Friday at the base rate of $2.70 per hour and $1.60 per hour in areas that have longer time periods with capped fees. The latter are typically located around the periphery of the City centre.

Through the findings of the study, there is nothing to suggest that either the dollar rate or the hours of operation of pay parking are inappropriate, and compare favourably to other cities such as:

Expanding free parking to include weekdays is at odds with the direction of the adopted 2015 Integrated Comprehensive Transport Plan, which provides a greater focus on improving other modes of transport such as public transport, cycling and walking and improving access to various railway stations as long term and sustainable solutions.

Similarly the findings in Council’s Central Geelong Parking and Access Strategy 2013, state that it is unsustainable for the community to continue to travel to and from Central Geelong by car and to continuously expand car parking to accommodate demand.

Since 2007, Council has invested approximately $4.21M in parking technology which has improved the manner and ease in which the customer can transact their parking arrangements.

With the introduction of free weekend parking, there appeared to be an increase in parking patronage - along with increased business owner complaints to Council about many vehicles overstaying time periods, thereby reducing the ability of other customers to find a car space.

As the parking ticket machines were not operational on Saturdays and Sundays after free parking was introduced, any opportunity to record and analyse parking data was not possible. However the provision of in ground sensors would enable Council to obtain valuable data to inform key transport engineering and compliance decisions. The introduction of sensors at City of Melbourne reduced non-compliance from 19% to 10.6%. Of the 5 Councils surveyed who do not currently use ground based technology, all are currently considering it.

Currently only 0.6% of motorists within the paid parking area of Central Geelong receive fines for failing to pay for parking (this compares with 10.6% for the City of Melbourne). It is estimated that there are approximately 3.5M parking transactions within this precinct each year. Other outer shopping precincts do not share the diversity of stakeholders as those within Central Geelong which include many small to medium business enterprises, 2 hospitals and associated allied health services, significant number of retailers, hospitality, entertainment, Deakin University and the Gordon Institute, TAC, Barwon Water, Worksafe, NDIA, CoGG and a growing inner city residential population. This in turn creates a parking demand that other outer shopping precincts do not experience.

Introducing free parking would mean that an effective parking management program would rely on non-compliance through fines and penalties rather than compliance and ‘user pays’ fees. Non-compliance would need to be monitored by conducting patrols of all precincts every 1-2 hours or installing in-ground sensor technology. This may increase consumer dissatisfaction since it’s contrary to the view of the 2013 Central Geelong Stakeholder Workshops, that motorists were more concerned about receiving a $72 fine than paying $2/hr (at that time).

Council has previously undertaken several studies with respect to car parking revenue. In the ‘CAA Travel Demand Management’ Study (Booz Allen Hamilton, April 2004) it was stated that; “our analysis put forward a clear case for continued use of parking pricing as a means of encouraging turnover of premium parking locations and where possible, Council should consider the use of funds derived from parking for funding other transport initiatives in the CAA’.

In March 2015, the City released an Integrated Comprehensive Transport Plan. Within this plan, it was identified that 86% of all trips in the City of Greater Geelong are undertaken by cars and that the current car parking strategies in Central Geelong are encouraging people to make car trips. A key theme to arise from this plan was the need to change the community’s car dependent culture which in part relies on engaging with the State Government to improve public transport for local and regional trips.

During the ‘Our Future’ community engagement process, popular visions arose from the transport theme including:

“effective, affordable well located public transport for all residents including outlying suburbs”

“footpaths and bike paths everywhere to reduce our reliance on cars”

“excellent public transport connections between suburbs, the Bellarine and Geelong CAA”

“an accessible and efficient public transport system moving people into and through the city. A great network of bike and walking paths”

“huge improvements to public transport, cycling and walking – you’ll be able to walk, ride anywhere around Geelong because its fun, safe and completely comfortable. Cars will be used much less”

This is supported by findings from the City’s Central Geelong Parking and Access Strategy 2013, which highlights some of the potential impacts of introducing free parking including:

• Sending the wrong message to the community – implying that there is no issue with people continuing to travel to and from Central Geelong by car and that car parking can be endlessly expanded to accommodate the demand, which is not sustainable.

• Increasing demand for long term parking – more parkers will try and squeeze into the same number of spaces, causing congestion and cars to be shuffled about the various zones throughout the day

• Likelihood of an increase in non compliance – due to car shuffling and limited ability for Council to monitor without the introduction of further technology such as in ground sensors

• Undermine the viability of off street parking – free on street parking is likely to have a flow on effect to off street car parking by potentially deterring investment in car park infrastructure.

• Undermine the viability of public transport, cycling and walking initiatives by reducing the attractiveness of such alternatives modes

• Overall negative impact on traders – with more cars and longer duration of stays will mean an increase in parking demand resulting in the likely reduction of parking availability for customers

Further, as outlined in the ‘City of Greater Geelong – CAA Stages – Traffic Analysis Draft (Sinclair Knight Merz, April 2001) and the ‘Central Activities Area Revitalisation Program Study (Hansen Partnership and Team 1998):

“income generated by parking fees in new parking buildings will fall well short of the funds needed to build them. The emphasis should be towards providing a level of parking to meet general demand (not peak demand) which recognises the cost of the provision of necessary infrastructure and revenue required to provide future parking facilities and find road, pedestrian and cyclist improvements in the CAA”.

The introduction of free parking would be a major deviation from the above principle.

The outcomes of the OBTC, Central Geelong Parking Study and SGS financial analysis are shown in Attachments 2-4. This report also identifies at page 3: “of particular note, Newcastle Council reported they trialled free parking but this had a negative impact on access to the city and pay parking was reinstated at the insistence of business”.

As outlined in ‘The High Cost of Free Parking (Donald Shoup, 2004) ‘the cost of free parking is hidden in higher prices for everything else. In addition to the monetary cost, free parking imposes many other hidden costs on cities, the economy and the environment. The costs of supporting free parking will fall to the general community through taxes and rates, even those who do not own a car.

In assessing the benefits against the costs of expanding free parking, the consultants made note that the number of potential costs (6) significantly outweighs the number of potential benefits (1) as follows:

Financial Implications

The introduction of free weekday parking in Central Geelong would result in a loss of revenue to Council of approximately $13.99M per annum. Additionally there would be a need to expend approximately $1.75M to support other technology such as in-ground sensors, that would be a critical tool in being able to effectively manage parking in this precinct. This represents an additional annul cost of $134 to every ratepayer.

Since 2013, the overall income generated from parking fees and fines has increased by 7.6% with fines actually decreasing by 4.4%. Income generated from the overall parking activities currently represent approximately 4.9% of Council’s total revenue.

Further funding would also be required to engage additional parking compliance staff to undertake the manual monitoring methods that would be required to be undertaken to ensure parking turnover.

In summary the impacts are:

1. Income loss – $13.99M

2. Expenditure Increase – $1.75M capital (technology), $400k recurrent (staff) and recurrent new technology maintenance and operational costs - $360k –

3. Total Project Cost - $16.5M

Alignment to City Plan

This report is consistent and aligns to the strategies and master plans within each of the City Plan 2013-2017 (2016-2017 updated) themes, Sustainable, Built and Natural Environment, Community Wellbeing and Growing our Economy.

Conflict of Interest

There is no officer conflict of interest in preparing this report.

2. Proposal for an Integrated Child and Family Centre – Purnell Road, Corio West

Purpose

To seek endorsement for the construction of an Integrated Children's Centre (ICC) on adjoining Council land situated at 152 Purnell Road and 1-9 Cheshire Street Corio West. To note the Drysdale and Purnell Road ICC detailed design will commence in 2016-2017 and will be completed in the 2017-2018 financial year.

Background

An ICC includes early childhood services such as maternal and child health, long day care, kindergarten and occasional care and therefore is an efficient and effective way to support families and the community.

• Council has successfully opened five new ICC’s since 2013.

• The Purnell Road ICC has been highlighted as a priority in Council’s City Plan 2013-2017.

• The Purnell Road ICC will provide significant community benefit, being located within an area of identified disadvantage and vulnerability amongst young children and families.

• Council’s two existing child care centres located in Corio - Norlane have been assessed as being unsustainable and do not provide the opportunity to deliver the suite of services available through an integrated centre.

• An additional 16 kindergarten places will be available through the new centre to support the educational needs of young children in the Corio - Norlane area.

• Four Council assets will be decommissioned eliminating the current maintenance backlog on existing buildings by $357,439 and providing the opportunity for return on the sale of an asset estimated (on current valuation) at approximately $530,000.

• An application for State Government funding has been submitted. The amount of funding available is yet to be determined.

• In principal philanthropic support of $300,000 per annum for the first 10 years of ICC operations will be provided based on specific integration requirements with Northern Bay College which have been assessed as being achievable. This contribution will equate to approximately 10% of the operational costs of the ICC across this period.

• Preliminary meetings between Council representatives and key stakeholders – Department of Education and Training, Northern Bay College, Colman Foundation and the Funds for Future Community Foundation – have confirmed strong in-principle support and a commitment to collaborative development of the project.

Key Issues

The significant community benefits associated with the ICC link strongly to the Council’s key driver to achieve social equity among residents. The key issues noted below are expanded on in the attached report with potential offsets explored.

• Capital cost of $12.6m is projected for this project (Attachment 1, Ref 1.5).

• Initial design costs of $100,000 will be incurred (Attachment 1, Ref 1.5).

• Relocation, decanting and demolition costs of up to $40,000 will be incurred (Attachment 1, Ref 1.5).

• Loss of open space at the Cheshire Reserve of up to 5,300m² out of the total 12,000m² the Reserve site covers (Attachment 1, Ref 1.4).

• Relocation of the Regal Arkhan Marching Club would be required (Attachment 1, Ref 1.6).

• The Drysdale and Purnell Road ICC detailed design will commence in 2016-2017 and will be completed in the 2017-2018 financial year.

L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -

That Council:

1. approve commencement of the detailed planning and design of an ICC at Purnell Road, Corio West;

2. approve development of a joint development agreement and funding contribution through the Victorian State Government to deliver the project; and

3. agree to negotiate a joint use agreement with the Department of Education and Training and Northern Bay College for access to the school’s outdoor areas for public use outside of school hours.

Carried.

Attachment 1

Discussion

1.1 Project Rationale

Corio - Norlane has the largest population of children within the 0 - 4 years age cohort of any single suburb within the City of Greater Geelong (currently 1,512 children). Population projections indicate that the current number of children aged 0 - 4 years is likely to remain relatively stable over the next 20 years.

The Corio - Norlane Structure Plan indicates that planned residential expansion in areas surrounding Corio - Norlane will substantially increase the population of residents within two kilometres of the northern boundary of Corio and within four kilometres from the Corio Sub-Regional Activity Centre. This, combined with growth along the western edge of Geelong, could significantly raise the demand for goods, services and community infrastructure in Corio - Norlane.

The proposed centre provides an opportunity to develop a strong partnership with Northern Bay College and secure substantial philanthropic support to subsidise the operational requirements of the centre. The proposal has also received strong in-principle support and endorsement from the Victorian Department of Education and Training (DET).

Although there are four Council buildings that are being decommissioned only one building could be considered for future sale with a return estimated to be approximately $530,000 (City Learning and Care Corio). Two buildings (Trudy Mortiz City Learning & Care and the Family Access Centre) are on Evans Reserve and will be returned to open space. Preliminary discussions have taken place with Corio Kindergarten with a view to incorporate the current site in the new build.

1.2 Project Scope Proposed Concept Plans

The scope and scale of the proposed ICC would be similar to the Boorai Centre in Ocean Grove and would include the following facilities and services:

• 90 place child care centre;

• 66 place kindergarten (132 sessional kindergarten places are currently available, this is an increase of 16 places); and

• two maternal child health consulting rooms (providing an additional consulting room).

Services and facilities which will be provided through the ICC which are currently not available to the Corio – Norlane community in an integrated centre are:

• five flexible consulting rooms with waiting room;

• multi-purpose room for group based programs;

• play therapy room;

• staff and public facilities including a meeting room;

• parent lounge/drop-in area; and

• toy library.

Initial concept plans demonstrate potential delivery of a facility with one level consistent with the following services and capacity:

• comprehensive range of early childhood services;

• physical connections with the school through integrated entrance and/or potential shared administration;

• state-of-the-art facility with high quality design features and capacity to meet all necessary Disability Discrimination Act and high level ESD requirements including northerly aspect for kindergarten playgrounds;

• retention of 1,316m² of green space surrounding the site through a set back along Purnell Road and Cheshire Street;

• opportunity to open the existing closed Wexford Court - providing vehicle (including bus) access through the car park to facilitate improved traffic movement and access;

• ability to operate as two separate entities or fully integrated between the school and early childhood centre;

• shared car parking facilities with the school.

1.3 The Proposed Site

The proposed ICC site incorporates two adjoining Council owned properties located at 152 Purnell Road (site of the existing Corio Kindergarten which comprises approximately 1,166m²) and the Cheshire Reserve open space area of approximately 12,000m² located at 1-9 Cheshire Street, Corio as indicated on the aerial image below.

Cheshire Reserve is currently one of the most substantial areas of open space within the local area. The reserve includes a small pavilion which accommodates the Regal Arkhan Marching Club.

The existing Corio Kindergarten adjoins Cheshire Reserve and comprises approximately 1,166m². Current kindergarten facilities accommodate a double room kindergarten licensed for 58 children, a small office and off-street car parking and is shared with the reserve.

The building was originally constructed in 1975. The last major capital works on the building were conducted in 2005. Property reports on this facility indicate that a minimum of $32,500 will need to be made available for periodic maintenance works over the next five years.

1.4 Loss of Open Space

This proposal will have a significant impact on open space. While there are a range of potential measures that could be undertaken to ameliorate the impact, any measures are likely to either add project costs and/or compromise either the scope of the proposed facility or open space provision.

Preliminary design estimates for the footprint of the proposed ICC indicate a building of between 5,800m² to 7,400m² (including outdoor playground areas and car parking).

Based on this estimate, the open space retained at Cheshire Reserve would be in the range of 5,100m² to 6,700m² depending on the final design and configuration of the building. The open space retained will be landscaped to maximise activation.

A range of potential measures to reduce the extent of encroachment of the proposed development into Cheshire Reserve have been examined.

The most effective option is to negotiate a joint use agreement with the Department of Education and Training, and Northern Bay College, for sustained access to the adjacent school oval and playground areas for public use outside of school hours.

Other options that have been considered include:

• acquisition of land to compensate for the equivalent area of open space. Estimates for the acquisition of adjacent residential properties indicate the costs are likely to be upwards of $700,000 and would only provide an additional 1,000m². This would also be subject to a Public Acquisition Overlay (PAO) in the planning scheme before acquisition could proceed. PAOs for a project of this nature are not common and would be subject to approval by the State Planning Minister;

• provision of underground (basement) car parking. Preliminary estimates for the provision of underground parking suggest the cost differences between basement cark parking and regular car parking (based on 50 car spaces) is approximately $1.1m which would add significantly to the cost of the project;

• design options for the proposed new building to increase the elevation scope and reduce the on-the-ground footprint. This is likely to increase the construction costs beyond the scope of the present project budget and potentially, impact on ESD building performance and outcome requirements;

• reduce the scope and scale of the proposed development to a smaller facility. This is unlikely to achieve the required objectives to rationalise the range of existing service facilities; deliver a comprehensive range of services to the local community; or provide a long-term improved financial sustainability. A reduced scope would also present a risk to Council of inequitable service level provision compared with other areas where more comprehensive service and infrastructure has been provided;

• approximately 2,297m² of open space could be made available through the disposal and demolition of the Corio City Learning and Care Centre located at 116 Purnell Road – 170 metres from Cheshire Reserve.

1.5 Financial Implications

The preliminary estimates for the proposed project indicates a budget of $12.6m is required to deliver a single level facility.

The preliminary cost plan is accounted for within Council’s Strategic Resource Plan.

Council’s 2017-2018 Strategic Plan includes provision of $100,000 toward the initial design phase of the project. This budget provision is supported by additional funding allocations proposed in Council’s Strategic Resource Plan for $500,000 in 2018-2019, $5m in 2019-2020 and $7m in 2020-2021.

The current cost plan estimates for this project could, potentially, see additional cost incurred in the following areas and will be built into final financial modelling at the point of design being agreed for construction:

• additional costs of $10,000-$20,000 in response to potential requirements to consolidate the land titles at 152 Purnell Road and 1-9 Cheshire Street;

• approximately $40,000 in decanting and relocation costs of existing services to the new facility; and

• any staging of works that maybe required (cost not able to be estimated at this time).

All costing presented for this project relates to provision of a single story facility with on site parking. Development of a second level option to reduce the building footprint (or increase the overall available floor space to accommodate additional service provision) would see funding requirements increase to approximately $16m. This option is not being considered at this point in the project and would only be activated if additional funding through either State or Federal grant programs could be sourced.

Council’s capital outlay for this project could be potentially reduced by securing funding through any of the following:

• successful outcome to the current application submitted through the Victorian Shared School Facilities Fund;

• a future funding application through the Victorian State Government Children’s Facilities Capital Grants Program;

• a future funding application through the Regional Development Fund, or alternatively, a Commonwealth/State funding arrangement; and/or

• asset sales.

Operational Estimates

The projected operational costs of the Purnell Road ICC reflect a positive outcome for Council in reducing current outlays associated with existing service facilities and asset management costs. The Trudi Moritz and Corio City Learning and Care Centres have a combined negative operating cost of $249,247 per annum.

Overall, the cost to Council in operating the new ICC will be approximately $192,439 per annum (excluding depreciation and amortisation), providing a saving of approximately $56,808 per annum. If philanthropic funds are received and are able to be apportioned against operational costs, projections show a positive annual return of $107,561 per annum (excluding depreciation and amortisation) which will be able to be invested into provision of additional services once the facility is fully operational.

Projections for revenue and cost have been based on a moderate increase in parent fee income consistent with expected future year budget increases and the consolidation of Council’s existing child care provision in Corio and Norlane to achieve improved efficiencies of scale and program modelling.

1.6 Stakeholder Consultation and Communication

An internal Council Project Control Group (PCG) was formed to oversee the development of the Purnell Road ICC proposal in 2014 with the initial preliminary planning and feasibility investigation being undertaken.

A number of preliminary meetings have been held between Council representatives and key stakeholders including the Department of Education and Training, Northern Bay College, Colman Foundation and the Funds for the Future Community Foundation over the past eighteen months to examine the potential development of a fully integrated early childhood facility connected to the primary school.

These discussions have confirmed strong in-principle support for the project amongst stakeholders and a commitment to engage in a collaborative development of the project.

Consultation has also been undertaken with the Regal Arkhan Marching Club who currently use the reserve and pavilion as the base for their club activities. The Marching Club have indicated that they would be open to being relocated to a suitable alternative venue and facility if the reserve was to be redeveloped.

1.7 Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

Council’s role in supporting provision of local child care is consistent with obligations under Section 3E (a); (b); (c); and (d) of the Victorian Local Government Act 1989.

The planning and regulatory role of Local Government in relation to the provision of services for the community is also legislated in the Victorian Planning and Environment Act (1987) and the Health Act (1958) and acknowledged within the MAV/DET Partnership Agreement.

The proposed project is consistent with Federal, State and Local Government policy in relation to the development of integrated children’s services.

The proposed project is consistent with recommendations contained within the Municipal Children’s Services Infrastructure Plan and Corio Norlane Structure Plan as follows:

• 14.1 support Council’s long term directions for integrated community precinct planning, to include a mix of family, children, community, health and learning environments;

• 14.2 prepare/update and implement concept planning for the development of five key integrated community precincts (including multifunctional family services and shared facilities) at Corio West and Purnell Road / Cloverdale; and

• 14.3 establish local schools as priority partners in precinct planning to achieve practical action.

1.8 Alignment to City Plan

The content of the report supports the ‘Community Wellbeing’ strategic direction of City Plan by planning for an environment which supports healthy lifestyles and a connected, creative and strong community.

The development of the Purnell Road, Corio West ICC is specifically referenced within City Plan as listed within Council’s Strategic Resource Plan.

1.9 Conflict of Interest

No officers involved in this report have any direct or indirect interest in accordance with Section 80(c) of the Local Government Act.

1.10 Risk Assessment

A number of risks have been identified and are mitigated through variance control measures.

1.11 Environmental Implications

Council’s Sustainable Building Policy requires that major new asset developments of the nature proposed in this report are designed to meet the 5 Star Green Star rating. The cost estimates for the Purnell Road (Corio) ICC include an allowance that will enable the facility to be developed with a 5 Star Green Star rating.

3. Johnstone Park Raingarden – Submissions Review Panel

Purpose

To consider recommendations from the Submissions Review Panel hearing held 14 March 2017 as it relates to Council’s Policy – Approval Procedure for Open Space Development Projects for the development of a raingarden within Johnstone Park.

Background

Council is seeking to develop a raingarden at Johnstone Park, Geelong in collaboration with the Victorian State Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.

The project is a key short term initiative of the Revitalising Central Geelong Action Plan released by the Victorian Government in 2016.

The Victorian State Government has invested $1,700,000 and Council is contributing $150,000.

The project is consistent with the draft Concept Plan prepared for Johnstone Park.

Key Issues

• The Johnstone Park raingarden project sought public submissions inline with Councils Policy - Approval Procedure for Open Space Development Projects.

• Public submissions on the raingarden were sought via community engagement on the broader Johnstone Park Concept Plan.

• Thirteen (13) submissions were received for the Johnstone Park Concept Plan.

• Six (6) submissions to the Concept Plan related to the Johnstone Park raingarden.

• Three (3) submitters took the opportunity to present to the panel hearing as part of the open space approval process.

• Objections to the project were based on a range of issues. A summary of issues and responses is provided in Attachment 2.

L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -

That Council:

1. note the supplementary information provided in Attachment 3 & 4.

2. approve the raingarden project to proceed subject to the following conditions:

1. replace the trees in the vicinity of the raingarden development within two years;

2. remember the involvement of Dan Dan Nook, Harry Gore and Willem Baa Niip, noting their involvement in the planting of She Oak trees, and involve the Tournier family and Aboriginal Leaders of their choice in the design of the Memorial and its location in the Park;

3. refer submissions received during question time at this evening’s Council Meeting relating to the broader Johnstone Park Concept Plan to the Johnstone Park Masterplan process, in particular noting the need for mapping and inventory of heritage items is important and that heritage values should remain where possible.

Carried.

Attachment 1

Discussion

The raingarden project is a key short term initiative of the Revitalising Central Geelong Action Plan released by the Victorian Government in 2016. Funding is available for the project to commence in 2017.

Objections to the project were based on a range of issues. A summary of issues and associated responses is provided in Attachment 2.

Financial Implications

Current approved budget.

Stakeholder Consultation and Communication

• Public submissions on the raingarden were sought via community engagement on the broader Johnstone Park Concept Plan. Consultation closed for submissions in December 2016. Thirteen (13) submissions were received for the Johnstone Park Concept Plan and six (6) submissions related to the raingarden project.

• The six (6) submitters were offered an opportunity to have mediation to discuss their objection to the project. Three (3) submitters took the opportunity to attend mediation with one (1) mediated solution agreed.

• Three (3) submitters presented to the submissions review panel hearing panel held on 14 March 2017.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The project is compliant with Councils Policy Approval Procedure for Open Space Development Projects.

Alignment to City Plan

This report is aligned to the community well-being objective of City Plan.

Conflict of Interest

No officer involved in the final recommendation of this report has any direct or indirect interest.

Risk Assessment

Should the project not proceed, there is a risk of non-compliance with the State Government funding agreement and meeting key project milestones.

Environmental Implications

This project will enhance Johnstone Park and will remove some contaminates from entering the bay.

Attachment 2

Summary of issues identified by submitters (Nine issues / concerns in total)

4. Leisuretime Synthetic Soccer Pitch – Submissions Review Panel

Purpose

To consider recommendations from the Submissions Review Panel hearing held 14 March 2017 as it relates to Councils Policy - Approval Procedure for Open Space Development Projects for the development of a synthetic pitch at Leisuretime Centre.

Background

Council sought the development of a non-aligned full size synthetic pitch with associated infrastructure at Leisuretime Centre, Corio.

The development is a key recommendation and priority for the G21 Region in the G21 Regional Football (Soccer) Strategy 2013 and is endorsed by G21 Region Councils and the City of Greater Geelong Council.

The G21 region has the fastest growing soccer participation in the state. The 2014-15 season recorded a 12.1% increase, while there was a 19.2% increase in the 2013-14 season. The majority of this growth occurred in Geelong’s north.

The Victorian State Government has invested $600,000 towards a total project value of $2 million.

The location of the facility with the Leisuretime Centre takes advantage of industry recognised key success factors such as alignment to existing intensive management structure and location on a non club aligned site.

The pitch will service local demand while supporting regional programs and pathways and increase local participation opportunities for emerging sports and activities.

Key Issues

• Council has sought public submissions in line with Councils Approval Procedure for Open Space Development Projects. Two (2) submissions were received and submitters took the opportunity to attend mediation as part of the open space approval process.

• Objections to the project were based on a range of issues. A summary of issues and associated responses is provided in Attachment 2.

L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -

That Council approve the development of a non-aligned full size synthetic pitch at Leisuretime Centre subject to a commitment:

• to no increased flood risk to adjoining properties;

• to improve parkland amenity through the provision of tree planting and park furniture;

• that Council’s Draft Open Space Strategy considers opportunities to improve access to parkland that supports informal / passive opportunities for local residents in the Corio Norlane area as a priority.

Carried.

Attachment 1

Discussion

Objections to the project were based on a range of issues. A summary of issues and associated responses is provided in Attachment 2.

The project is supported by the state, regional and local soccer community along with the Victorian State Government.

Financial Implications

Current approved budget.

Stakeholder Consultation and Communication

Through the development of the G21 Regional Football (Soccer) Strategy in 2013 and again in project proposal development, the following external stakeholders were consulted;

• G21 Local Government Representatives;

• State Government Agency Representatives (for example: Sport and Recreation Victoria);

• Football Federation Victoria; and

• Geelong Region Football Committee represented by local clubs

Council has engaged local residents to form a project reference group. This group comprised residents who expressed initial concerns regarding the development of the pitch. This group contributed to the detailed design process to ensure a local focus and input is incorporated into the design.

The wider community had the opportunity to comment on the concept design through a public exhibition process conducted over a four week period and public submissions closed on 5 December 2016. Two submissions were received.

Letters of support were received from G21 Strategic Alliance Sport and Recreation Pillar, Governing Bodies for soccer and other emerging sports such as touch football and ultimate frisbee.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The project is compliant with Councils Policy - Approval Procedure for Open Space Development Projects.

Alignment to City Plan

This report is aligned to the community well-being objective of City Plan. The provision of sport and recreation facilities promotes healthy lifestyles through physical activity.

Conflict of Interest

No officer involved in the final recommendation of this report has any direct or indirect interest.

Risk Assessment

Should the project not proceed, there is a risk of non-compliance with the State Government funding agreement and meeting key project milestones.

There is also a risk that the existing network of soccer facilities will continue to be significantly constrained, poor conditions exacerbated and overall participation impacted.

Environmental Implications

The project involves the development of a portion of parkland.

No other environmental implications are evident.

Attachment 2

Summary of issues identified by objectors (20 issues / concerns in total)

5. Community Grants Program 2016/2017 – Summary of Allocations – 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016

Purpose

This report presents details of the Community Grants Program allocations for the period 1 July to 31 December 2016.

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

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.

Key Issues

• The 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.

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

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

• Details of grant recipients awarded funds for the period 1 January 2016 to 30 June 2016 were detailed in the Council report of 31 August 2016.

• This report provides a statement of the allocations made during the period of 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016 (Attachment 2).

• The total amount funded under this program for the period was $129,700.00 distributed among 58 community organisations.

P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -

That Council:

1. notes the statement of allocations under the 2016/2017 Community Grants Program provided to community groups and organisations as detailed in Attachment 2 for the period 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016;

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.

Attachment 1

Discussion

The allocation of grants assists with meeting the objectives of City Plan’s Community Wellbeing priority areas. This funding provides 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.

Several grant rounds are advertised throughout the year and eligible applicants can apply through an online portal accessible through the Geelong Australia website.

The accountability framework for managing the Community Grants Program is in accordance with the City of Greater Geelong Grants, Donations and Sponsorship Policy and a management procedure provides guidance on administering the program.

Grants must support a specific activity, project or event that can demonstrate community benefit and address the set criteria detailed in the grant guidelines.

Submitted applications are then assessed based on the set criteria.

The outcome of the assessments is referred to a grants assessment panel that includes staff from the Community Life Division and from the City’s Chief Executive (Governance) area. The panel review the recommendations and provide the outcomes to the General Manager, Community Life for final approval.

All applicants are then advised of the outcome of their submissions.

A total $129,700.00 was allocated among 58 community organisations through the Community Grants Program between 1 July 2016 and 31 December 2016.

Attachment 2 provides a list of groups, the type of projects and the amounts allocated during the period 1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications.

Stakeholder 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.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The provision of grants to the community supports local, community organisations and endorses 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, and healthy environments that provide broad benefits to the City of Greater Geelong community.

Conflict of 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.

Environmental Implications

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

Attachment 2

Statement of Community Grant Allocations

1 July 2016 to 31 December 2016

6. Revocation of Flood-prone Area Designation of New Lots at at Lara Central, Stage 6

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to revoke the designation of flood affected land within the stages of the development of Lara Central, Lara Stage 6.

Background

The current designated flood mapping (refer to Attachment 2) was designated by Council at its meeting of 26 October 2004, under the provisions of the Building Regulations 2006.

The subject of this report is the residential land at Lara Central, 131A Flinders Avenue, Lara. Prior to subdivision the parent lot was used primarily as farmland.

Key Issues

• The flood mapping is subject to a revision due to the subdivision and development at 131A Flinders Avenue, Lara. Prior to subdivision the parent lot was considered to be liable to flooding. This development site, which is also known as Lara Central Stage 6, achieves flood immunity for newly created lots for flood events up to and including the 100 year Average Recurrence Interval (ARI) event due to approved internal earthworks.

• The earthworks undertaken have resulted in the floodwaters from the 100 year ARI event being contained within the boundaries of the road network. (Refer Attachment 3).

• Council has a statutory obligation under the Building Regulations 2006 to designate land as liable to flooding where it reasonably knows it to be prone to flooding. Conversely, there is an obligation to remove the encumbrance of designation from land that is no longer considered to be flood-prone.

P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -

That Council revoke the Council designation of 26 October 2004 of flood affected land Lara Central, Stage 6 as liable to flooding pursuant to Regulation 802(2) of the Building Regulations 2006.

Carried.

Attachment 1

Discussion

Designation of land as liable to flooding under Regulation 802 of the Building Regulations 2006 enables the control of floor levels for acceptable building permit applications, or refusal of consent to building applications where there is likely to be a danger to life, health or safety due to flooding. Designation also enables disclosure of flood status within statutory information certificates such as the Land Information Certificate and Building Information Request Form.

Overland flows that may occur within the subdivision during the 100 year ARI flood event are now contained within road and drainage reserves in accordance with accepted best practice for development within flood-prone areas. Best practice requires that any overland flows within residential areas satisfy public safety criteria with respect to velocity and depth of flow.

Council has a statutory obligation under the Building Regulations 2006 to designate land as liable to flooding where it reasonably knows it to be prone to flooding. Conversely, there is an obligation to remove the encumbrance of designation from land that is no longer considered to be flood-prone.

Financial Implications

No impact to budget.

Stakeholder Consultation and Communication

A revocation of designation does not warrant public consultation as it constitutes the removal of an encumbrance on land.

Relevant Council databases and flood maps will be revised and updates sent to the Corangamite Catchment Management Authority and Building Control Commission.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

The City has various statutory responsibilities for drainage management and flood management (prevention, response and recovery) as set out in the Local Government Act 1989, Local Government Regulations 1990, Planning and Environment Act 1987, Building Regulations 2006, Water Act 1989, Subdivision Act 1988 and Emergency Management Act 1986.

Alignment to City Plan

The recommendations of this report are consistent with City Plan, in relation to Growing our Economy and promoting a sustainable built environment, sustainable land use and development.

Conflict of Interest

There are no officer direct or indirect interests with respect to this report.

Risk Assessment

Council also has some risk exposure with any failure to disclose the flood-prone status of a property in a Land Information Certificate.

The designation of the flood data produced by the flood study is a key step toward minimising Council’s exposure to these risks.

Environmental Implications

The revocation of flood-prone areas designation and designation of revised flood data does not result in any known adverse environmental impacts.

Attachment 2

CURRENT FLOOD MAP

Attachment 3

REVISED FLOOD MAP

7. Delegation to the CEO for the Construction of the Green Organics Composting Facility, the Drysdale Sports Precinct, the Rosedale Community Hub and the Johnstone Park Raingarden

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to seek Council consent to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power to accept or reject tenders for various project contracts, provided tenders fall within the adopted budget.

Background

Council has previously approved and funded the Green Organics Composting Facility, Drysdale Sports Precinct and Rosewall Community Hub projects.

Due to the tight timelines associated with all four projects, the Capital Projects team are looking to award the construction contracts in the most efficient manner possible.

Refer Table 1 in Attachment 1.

Key Issues

• Delay in the awarding of the construction contracts will have a negative impact on the completion time for all 4 projects.

• Delays in completion time will impact on service provision for the Geelong community.

• All procurement rules will apply.

P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -

That Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer its powers and functions to accept or reject tenders and sign the contract documents for the construction and associated works of the Green Organics Composting Facility, Drysdale Sports Precinct, the Rosedale Community Hub and the Johnstone Park Raingarden works provided the tenders are within approved budgets.

Carried.

Attachment 1

Table 1

8. Pioneer Road, Grovedale – Proposed Footpath Construction – SRC344 – Declaration of Charge

Purpose

This report seeks Council approval to declare the charges for 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 – Attachment 5).

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. It is estimated that this road carries approximately 12,000 vehicles per day.

Council made its Intention to Declare the scheme at its meeting of 15 March 2016 and a panel hearing was held on 7 September 2016. Four property owners voiced their concerns to the panel and many additional comments were received from the floor.

As a result of the panel hearing, a pedestrian survey for Pioneer Road was requested and carried out to confirm pedestrian numbers. The results of the pedestrian counts are included in Attachment 7.

Key Issues

• It is proposed to construct 650 meters of 1.5 metre wide footpath to provide for pedestrian access along the south side of 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 $227,280.

• 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.

• The scheme was advertised on Saturday 26 March 2016 and eighteen (18) objections were received. At the conclusion of the subsequent submissions panel hearing of 7 September 2016, the panel requested further information in the form of pedestrian counts.

• The pedestrian counts were carried out over two days between Thursday 10 November 2016 and Friday 11 November 2017 at four locations along Pioneer Road (See Attachment 5). A conclusion can be drawn from the counts that a footpath on the south side of Pioneer Road is warranted (Refer to discussion and Attachment 7 for pedestrian count summary).

• A footpath in Pioneer Road has been identified as a link in Council’s priority Footpath Network Strategy. Attachment 6 of this report shows Council’s new Principal Pathway Network (PPN) for Grovedale and surrounding areas including Pioneer Road.

P Dorling moved, L Gardner seconded -

That Council:

Resolves to declare the Special Charge Scheme as follows:

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

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 (Attachment 5).

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.

Attachment 1

Discussion

Clause 56.06-8 of the Geelong Planning Scheme states design standards for our new roads in developing areas. According to these design standards, roads with over 1000 vehicles per day should have footpaths on both sides as a minimum within new developments. In terms of traffic volumes, arterial roads have been classified as roads with over 7000 vehicle per day. Pioneer Road meets this classification and it is managed by Vic Roads.

Further identifying the need for footpaths for this category of road is the Infrastructure Design Manual (IDM) of which Council has adopted as a means of delivering standardised infrastructure for new development. Table 2 at Clause 12.3.2 of the IDM details the road characteristics and road reserve widths for development. Footpaths on both sides of the road for most road categories is stated, particularly for arterial or collector roads. Pedestrian counts were carried out on 10 and 11 November 2016 at four locations along Pioneer Road between the Surf Coast Highway and Burdoo Drive. Morning (7:00AM – 11:00AM) and afternoon (2:30PM – 7:30PM) counts were carried out. A summary of findings is as follows:

• In the sections of Pioneer Road where there was no footpath on the south side, higher numbers of pedestrians used the existing footpath on the north side of the road. An average of 24 pedestrians were observed (morning and afternoon counts) walking on the south side nature strip without a footpath compared with an average of 122 pedestrians walking on the north side with a footpath.

• In the section of Pioneer Road where there is a footpath on both sides of the road (between Burdoo Drive and Beltana Street), the results were more even. An average of 92 pedestrians used the south side footpath and an average of 114 pedestrians used the north side.

• For pedestrians crossing the road a total of 185 pedestrians were observed crossing from the south side to the north over the four count locations. Interestingly, it was found that the majority of crossings from the south side to the north (100 count) occurred in the section where there was a footpath on both sides of the road. This suggests that pedestrians preferred to cross over to the north side before the footpath on the south side ended.

• Conversely, a total of 171 pedestrians were observed crossing from the north side to the south. It was found that the majority of crossings from the north to south side (95 count) occurred in the same section as above. This suggests that pedestrians prefer to cross where there is a footpath in place.

From the pedestrian counts, it can be concluded that a footpath on the south side of Pioneer Road is warranted. Refer to Attachment 7 for a summary of the pedestrian survey results. Refer to Attachment 8 for photos of the south side of Pioneer Road.

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 provided by Council. The average cost per property is estimated at $2,612 which is slightly higher than some recent schemes.

The main concerns raised during the panel hearing can be summarised as follows. A corresponding Council officer response to the concerns is also included:

• A footpath exists on the other side of the street.

The Geelong Planning Scheme and Infrastructure Design Manual stipulate the design standards for new developments. Whilst these documents do not specifically cover older roads, they do outline the contemporary design standards that should be adopted. Both documents state that a footpath on both sides of a road of a category such as Pioneer Road is required. The pedestrian surveys of 10 and 11 November 2016 also confirm that a footpath on the south side is warranted.

• There is no access benefit.

The access benefit that an abutting footpath provides to a property is set as precedent under VCAT rulings. These rulings find that special benefit is attributed directly to a property and not the individual needs or desires of a property owner. Furthermore, a new footpath will provide a benefit to the abutting properties which is over and beyond the benefit to properties outside the scheme boundaries.

• Don’t want to encourage use of a footpath past my property (skateboarders and drunks from pub).

It is expected that there will be no increase in antisocial behaviour resulting from the footpath construction. Whilst Council has no data on the issue, it is anticipated that a new footpath will not be the cause of an increase in out-social behaviour. Also, the pedestrian crossing at Torquay Road (near the pub) is located on the north side of Pioneer Road only. In regards to skateboarders, there is currently no law that denies skateboarders from using footpaths in residential streets. It is further considered that a footpath will provide a safer place for skateboarders when compared to the road.

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 set from the core C02303 footpath construction program.

Financial details are as follows:

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.

22 March 2016 – Letter to property owners advising of Council’s Intention to Declare the scheme, upcoming advertisement and invitation to make a submission.

26 March 2016 – Advertisement of the scheme in the local newspaper.

17 May 2016 – Panel Hearing advice letter.

10 August 2016 – Invitation to attend panel hearing.

Further correspondence will be sent to all affected property owners should Council resolve to declare the Special Charge Scheme.

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.

Conflict of 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 declaration of the 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 and green waste.

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.

Attachment 2

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

Attachment 3

Benefit Ratio – Schedule ‘B’

Attachment 4

SCHEDULE ‘C’

SPECIAL CHARGE SCHEME FOR FOOTPATH CONSTRUCTION

PIONEER ROAD, GROVEDALE

Attachment 5

Plan

Attachment 6

Grovedale PPN

Attachment 7

Results of Pedestrian Survey

Attachment 8

Photos of South side of Pioneer Road

Attachment 9

PROCESS CHART

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

PIONEER ROAD, GROVEDALE – PROPOSED FOOTPATH

9. Tender T1600014 – Municipal Solid Waste and Green Organics Haulage Services

Purpose

The purpose of this tender is to establish a panel of suppliers to provide bulk Haulage Services that Council will require for the transport of municipal solid waste and green organic materials throughout the municipality.

Background

The current haulage of green organics will be from the Moolap Transfer Station to processing sites and farms in the region. The current haulage of municipal solid waste will be from the Moolap Transfer Station to the Drysdale landfill and when required to Wyndham Landfill.

Council has sought tenders on 29 October 2016 for a panel of suppliers to provide bulk Haulage Services throughout the municipality for a period of three (3) years with a further two (2), one (1) year options available at the discretion of Council. A total of six (6) companies provided tender submissions for this service. Three (3) tender submissions did not satisfy specification requirements and were not considered further.

Key Issues

• Tender submissions included an extensive schedule of rates for various hire periods and hours per week. The estimated current annual value of the service associated with this contract is $1.3M.

• The average weekly use based on historical data requirements per truck would fall within the 40/50 hour per week dollar scheduled rate. Over the last 12 months, three (3) truck/trailers were utilised daily for five (5) days per week

• As the quantities of material to be hauled and the locations of the collection and delivery sites may vary, the format of this contract is on hourly plant hire at varying time commitments. Council will endeavour to commit most vehicles to long term hire (set hours per week for up to three years), however there potentially will be a requirement that a portion of the hire will be on a reduced hire period. The panel selected and the rates provided, allow the flexibility to accommodate this. Approximately 20,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste and 31,000 tonnes of green organic material is transported per annum.

• Tenders were assessed based upon capability, economic contribution to the Geelong region and past performance. With the formation of a Panel, Council can select the best priced provider to undertake the required services based on a range of options within the schedule of rates.

• Council cannot guarantee hours of engagement under this contract as there are various uncertainties in both the municipal solid waste and greenwaste haulage scenarios that need to be accommodated for. The contract has been structured to allow for this and the panel chosen best suits this structure.

• A detailed evaluation of all tender submissions has been undertaken by an evaluation panel of Council officers.

L Gardner moved, P Dorling seconded -

That Council:

1. accept the tender submissions from:

   D.P. & J.L. Dunoon Pty Ltd trading as Newcomb Sand & Soil Supplies

   Four Seasons Waste Pty Ltd as Trustee for Four Seasons Waste Unit Trust

   Vegetation Management and Green Waste Recycling Service P/L trading as Green Care Mulching for Tender No T1600014 – Panel arrangement for Municipal Solid Waste and Green Organics Haulages Services for the associated schedule of rates (exclusive of GST). The period of the contract will be for three (3) years with a further two (2), one (1) year options available at the discretion of Council.

2. the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign the contract documents for and on behalf of the City of Greater Geelong.

Carried.

Attachment 1

Discussion

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:

The tender submissions for DRW Investments Pty Ltd Trading as Wettenhalls; Lociuro Nominees Trading as Allied Transport Services; and P.J. & T McMahons were deemed non conforming as they did not satisfy the vehicle specification requirements.

At the conclusion of the evaluation of the tender submissions the following three (3) companies were the highest ranked tenders.

Those that tendered with an overall score of 80 points or above were deemed to have the experience and resources to undertake the service. The tenderers who achieved this score were then assessed on a value for money basis.

The three (3) tenderers that scored 80 points or more were subsequently deemed to have provided value for money submissions by the evaluation panel. This was based upon an assessment of their capability, experience, methodology, customer service, quality, flexibility, price, responsiveness and their ability to meet specifications, thus demonstrating their ability to successfully deliver the service, while providing value for money to Council. Each of the recommended panel members were contracted under the previous Haulage contract. The evaluation panel assessed that due to COGG’s Municipal Solid Waste and Green Organic Materials haulage program requirements, that all recommended panel members will be utilized and allocated work via this contract.

Financial Implications

This is a schedule of rates tender and will rely upon the amount of funds allocated in Council’s various recurrent budgets. The current budget allocation for this service is approximately $1.3M. This annual allocation is expected to reduce once Council’s greenwaste processing site becomes operational. The term of the Contract for the provision of this service shall be for a period of three (3) years with a further two (2), one (1) year options available at the discretion of Council.

Stakeholder Consultation and Communication

There are no communication issues associated with the acceptance of this tender. Council’s representative will liaise with affected community groups.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

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

Conflict of Interest

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

Contents | Previous Page: Section A - Procedural Matters | Next Page: Section C - Assembly of Councillors

• Copyright CoGG 2012
• Contacts
• Disclaimer
• Privacy
• Last Update: 4 April 2017