Council Minutes - Section B: Reports - 27 August 2019

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.

1. Future of the Former Geelong Post Office

2. 2018-2019 Project Funding Carryover to 2019-2020

3. Courthouse Youth Arts – Strategic Plan and Funding

4. Road Renaming – Chiton Way to Casablanca Way, Point Lonsdale

5. Tender T1900054 Sparrovale Wetlands Construction Works

6. Contractual Matter (Confidential)

7. Contractual Matter (Confidential)

1. Future of the Former Geelong Post Office

Purpose

1. To consider the future ownership or potential use options of the former Geelong Post Office, 83 Ryrie Street Geelong.

Background

2. At its meeting of 22 May 2018, Council resolved to give notice of intention to sell the former Geelong Post Office at 83 Ryrie Street, Geelong and to refer its Conservation Management Plan (CMP) to Heritage Victoria and the National Trust for comment.

3. On 25 September 2018 Council then resolved to commission another CMP and that the proposed sale of the property be considered by the Council when the new CMP became available.

4. At the Council meeting of 9 April 2019, the Council received a new CMP and resolved for officers to seek feedback on use and ownership of the building. A copy of the prior Council resolutions are provided in Attachment 2.

Key Matters

5. The City invited community submissions seeking feedback about options for the use and ownership of the former Geelong Post Office (criteria as per Attachment 3). 17 submissions were received in response through the City’s Have Your Say website. A summary of submissions contained in Attachment 3.

6. Whilst all submissions identified linkages to the Clever and Creative vision, the proposed solutions for how the restoration obligations identified in the CMP could be achieved, the refurbishment for proposed use or financially sustainability of its ongoing requirements identified that significant capital contribution and ongoing operational subsidisation would be required by the City.

7. Philanthropic funding sources were identified that could provide a contribution to the restoration and the ongoing maintenance of the former Geelong Post Office, however, there is no certainty of achieving funding. A defined use and a supporting business plan would need to be developed prior to seeking any funding source

8. Whilst the submissions identify possible uses, there remains significant debate around what role Council should play in supporting additional (new) discretionary services such as museums, exhibition spaces and spaces for collections. This is all the more relevant in an environment where Council is seeking to define priorities within limited funding sources (e.g. rate capping), whilst also considering future use of City Hall. In addition, Council has committed to generating significant funding from the sale of surplus properties for the Civic Accommodation project. In light of these important Council positions, management is of the opinion that the sale of the Post Office should proceed on the condition that:

1. the CMP is adhered to; and

2. uses and development of the building are complementary to the overall precinct (including possible accommodation and tourism).

Councillor Mason moved, Councillor Murnane seconded -

9. That Council:

1. Note the feedback and suggestions received by the City as to the future use and ownership of the former Geelong Post Office including the advice from the Heritage Advisory Committee on Wednesday 21 August 2019;

2. Note that, whilst the submissions identified possible future uses of the former Geelong Post Office, those possible future uses did not provide details of how they would be financially sustainable; and

3. In light of 9.1 and 9.2 above, approve the property at 83 Ryrie Street, Geelong, being certificate of title volume 10280 folio 676 be sold or leased conditional on:

9.3.2 The use and development of the property being complementary to the overall Civic & Cultural precinct and consistent with the Conservation Management Plan: Lovell Chen (February 2019);

9.3.2 The sale or lease of the property being undertaken through a competitive two stage marketing process, including an Expression of Interest (EOI) for use of the building and a subsequent select Request for Tender (RFT) for accepted uses for price only; and

9.3.3 If the property is to be sold:

1. the contract of sale including a requirement for an agreement under Section 173 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 with the responsible authority and registered on title which requires the purchaser to adopt the policies and recommendations within the Conservation Management Plan: Lovell Chen (February 2019);

2. the contract of sale price being no less than a certified market valuation of the property obtained no more than 6 months prior to the date of sale; and

9.3.4 If the property is to be leased:

1. the lease will incorporate conditions requiring the successful tenderer to adopt the policies and recommendations within the Conservation Management Plan: Lovell Chen (February 2019); and

2. the tenant will be responsible for all costs associated with occupation and maintenance of the property.

4. Request the Chief Executive Officer will report back to Council for final approval with the lease or sale; and approval with the lease or sale; and

5. Should there be no proposals that meet the above mentioned conditions, request the Chief Executive Officer to report back to Council for further consideration.

Carried.

Division Requested:

For: Councillors Aitken, Grzybek, Kontelj, Mansfield, Harwood, Murrihy, Mason, Asher, Nelson, Murnane

Attachment 1

Financial Implications

1. The City purchased the property in 1994 with an interest free loan of $670,000 from the State Government which shall be payable upon sale of the property. The Minister has approved the redirection of the repayment to the restoration of Osborne House and the Stables at Osbourne Park, North Geelong.

2. The financial implications of retaining the building for redevelopment and repurposing cannot be estimated without fixed plans and detail established. The suggestions and options proposed through community submissions did not resolve financial sustainability and would require significant capital and ongoing operational contributions from the City. The National Wool Museum provides an example where the property has a mix of public and commercial use and relies on the City to contribute a further $1M annually to maintain.

3. Suggestions were made that the City could access external grants which could subsidise the City’s contributions this has been included in Attachment 3.

Community Engagement

4. Community engagement has been undertaken, firstly in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 section 189 and section 223, with public notice inviting submissions which were subsequently considered by a Submissions Hearing Panel and Council adopted the Panel’s report at its meeting on 25 September 2018.

5. With the Council resolution of 9 April, 2019, further submissions were invited.

6. The submissions presented a range of innovative options including:

1. redevelopment and repurposing of the building while remaining in public ownership for uses such as a museum, tourist information centre, events and functions centre, office accommodation or activation that supports the cultural and arts precinct, proposing the use of grant funding to support the remediation works;

2. lease of the former Geelong Post Office as a public, private partnership (PPP as business incubator, incorporating bookable spaces and leasing portions of the building. All operating costs including maintenance would be managed by the tenant, with a minimal rental to cover a small portion of the City’s ongoing operating costs for the building); and

3. outright purchase.

Social Equity Considerations

7. Council’s funding of refurbishment and reuse of the property may impact its financial capacity to meet other social service requirements.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

8. The City has complied with the requirements of with the Local Government Act 1989, section 189 - Restriction on power to sell land and, if the Council resolved to sell the property a current market valuation would be obtained.

9. A contract of sale could include the Conservation Management Plan: Lovell Chen (February 2019) in the contract of sale with a condition that the purchaser adopts its recommendations and policies.

10. Regardless of future ownership, planning permit requirements for any redevelopment would require Heritage Victoria approval ensure protection of its heritage significance.

Alignment to Council Plan

11. The recommendation supports the strategic priority organisational leadership, strategy and governance where one of the key priorities is to proactively manage our assets, including land holdings.

Conflict of Interest

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

Risk Assessment

13. No notable risks associated with implementation of the recommendations. The property’s registration with Heritage Victoria and the Planning Scheme Heritage Overlay on the site ensure protection of its heritage significance.

14. Unable to maintain property long term and no funding available to carry out CMP obligations.

15. Risk that funding not available ongoing from philanthropic sources.

16. The City has a number of highly valued heritage assets that will undertake a change of use in the coming years, requiring extensive investment from the City. With Osborne House and the Stables, Customs House and Town Hall also needing to be repurposed, this City needs to consider options how to de-risk our financial responsibility with these assets.

17. Strategically, Council has committed to the restoration of the Osborne House and Stables, has a commitment to the future use of the Town Hall, and Customs House is titled with open space pivotal to the waterfront precinct, leaving the Post Office as the viable option to consider alternate options including sale. Not providing alternate options could leave the City with a requirement to invest significant funds which is not currently in the long term financial plan.

Environmental Implications

18. An extensive CMP, including a contextual history of the property were commissioned by the City, ensuring extensive research and analysis of the heritage significance of the property has been undertaken. Any future development, works or use of the site will be well informed of the implications and requirements.

Attachment 2

22 May 2018 - Council Resolution -

Councillor Mason moved, Councillor Murnane seconded -

That Council:

1. Gives notice under section 189 of the Local Government Act 1989 of its intention to sell the Geelong Post Office and such notice be placed in the Geelong Advertiser and the Geelong Independent;

2. Includes in notices given as required by paragraph 1 above advice regarding the right of a person to make a written submission on the proposed sale and to be heard in respect of their written submission;

3. Appoints the Submissions Review Panel to hear any submissions;

4. Be provided a further report to consider the outcomes of the Submission Review Panel and or the sale of the property; and

5. Refer the Conservation Management Plan dated 2 May 2018 to Heritage Victoria and the National Trust for comment, with comments available to Council by 31 July 2018.

25 September 2018 - Council Resolution -

Councillor Mason moved, Councillor Kontelj seconded -

That Council:

1. Agree to commission another Conservation Management Plan;

2. Adopt the recommendation of the Submissions Hearing Panel that the proposed sale of the property be considered by the Council when the new Conservation Management Plan is available; and

3. Inform all persons making a submission of the Council’s decision.

9 April 2019 - Council Resolution -

Councillor Mason moved, Councillor Murnane seconded -

9. That Council:

1. Recognise the City’s efforts in commissioning a Conservation Management Plan, ensuring extensive research has been undertaken and analysis of the heritage significance of the property has been undertaken;

2. Endorse the Conservation Management Plan: Lovell Chen (February 2019), its recommendations and policies;

3. Taking into account the new Conservation Management Plan, request the CEO to consider various options for the use and ownership of the Former Post Office including:

1. sale, including tender and expression of interest processes;

2. public private partnership

3. opportunity for fundraising including philanthropy and State and Commonwealth grants

4. call for public submissions for sustainable solutions that support the cultural and civic precinct ; and

4. Request the CEO to report back to Council by 9 July 2019 on the options in 9.3 above.

Attachment 3

Summary of submissions for options for the use and ownership

In accordance with the Council resolution, the community were invited to make submissions. 17 submissions were received and have been provided to the Councillors in full. As this was not a statutory submission process, it is not appropriate to make private details publicly available.

Submission criteria

• your proposed use of the building;

• how this will be financially sustainable long-term;

• the ownership model;

• the proposed funding model to bring the building up to standard to deliver your proposed use;

• how your proposal adds to the cultural and civic precinct;

• demonstrating how this aligns to a clever and creative vision for the city; and

• other comments

The responses have been summarised below:

Submission 1

The Geelong and Region Branch National Trust of Australia (Victoria) submission (summarised points only).

Supports Council retaining ownership rather than sale of the property as it aligns with key strategies.

The proposed use for the future is as Geelong's Design Showcase And Collections And Education Discovery Centre which can combine centres for Old and New Design, for Historical Collections, for a Children's museum, all of which can be experiential, interactive and educational.

Public access

• some part of the building be used for displays and exhibitions of Geelong related historical collections, with an annual calendar of changing material

• some part of the building be used for public access related to tourism information

• parts of the building be available for the sale of locally produced art work

• parts of the building be available for hire for short-term commercial displays

• parts of the building with independent access be made available for rental or lease.

Financially sustainability:

• proposed funding model to bring the building up to standard to deliver proposed use

• the Former Geelong Post Office qualifies as a place of state significance for various funding grant programs; and

• long-term

• income from short-term hire of some areas

• income from areas made available for rent or lease.

Submission 2

I fully support the position of the National Trust and consider the Post Office should be a centre for UNESCO city of design exhibitions and local Geelong heritage collections since we have no municipal museum plus the tourism body. It sits well within the Arts & Culture precinct.

Submission 3

This submission is in support of the National Trust proposition that the former Geelong Post Office building be used for a Social History Museum/Centre. This would preserve the building and its architecture for the community and provide a central location for housing historic and special interest collections. The building could also be a centre for tourist information helping attract visitors to the city.

Submission 4

I fully support the submission of the National Trust of Australia Geelong branch for the retention of the former Geelong post office. I believe the post office could house a museum of local artefacts and general historic information.

Submission 5

I support the National Trust of Australia Geelong branch submission for the public retention of the former Geelong post office.

Submission 6

I would like to form a public-private partnership with the city of Greater Geelong to open a large scale co working destination within the old post office. It will be a combination of hot desks and small/medium and larger office accommodation, providing a shared space where start up, home based and micro businesses, teleworkers and creatives can operate from to create jobs, foster innovation and grow the economy.

The ownership model would see the City of Greater Geelong retaining ownership of the building but all of the running and maintenance costs of the building will be met by the private entity.

I believe that this exciting project will really align well with councils creative vision for the cultural and civic precinct.

I would also like to mention that if the Councils preferred option is a sale then I would to negotiate on this.

Submission 7

It is an ideal venue to showcase Geelong's scientific, historical and cultural collections. A great place to display collections and artefacts that demonstrate the many achievements of the citizens of Geelong in these various fields. On an international level Geelong has been recognised in this way. Now we need a venue to showcase our achievements. The Collection housed in the building would become part of the tourism drawcard to the city and would therefore contribute to the economic income the city of Geelong. It should not have to turn a "profit".

The building should be owned and maintained by the Council with government assistance. Various functions at the venue could generate income also. The Council should show that it is worthy of being part of the clever and creative city of Geelong by not selling off this building in this prime position. Think "big" like the industrial cities overseas who have got off their knees from economic and social depression by investing in what they already have in their cities - making their old buildings and cultural precincts the springboard for attracting tourism and jobs. Don't lose this building or this chance. The Council should use overseas funding platforms like those employed by these various cities to achieve the preservation and conversion of the Old Post Office into a state of the art museum.

Submission 8

I believe that the old Geelong Post Office building should remain in public ownership and that the premises should be used as a repository for Geelong's cultural heritage. The Conservation Management Plan indicates that it is in sound condition and is an integral part of Geelong's disappearing history.

Submission 9

I believe that the Post Office should remain in ownership of the City of Greater Geelong. Its ground floor and part of the first floor should be used for tourism information, community and museum display purposes. It is close to the railway station and cultural precinct and easy walking distance of those place for the increasing number of tourists visiting Geelong by rail (which is increasing) to visit our shopping, cultural, cafe and music venues that are now vibrantly occupying that area. Part of the first floor would be suitable for leasing for office space and similar purposes, to generate income to sustain maintenance and operation of the building. A small section of the first floor must be retained and used to display part of the original automatic telephone exchange that was installed there, an example of Geelong being at the forefront of world technology and design.

Submission 10

With its central location and prominent presence it could make a an excellent space to showcase an aspect of Geelong's Clever, Creative and Sustainable presence and future. With the removal of all contemporary office walls and fixtures undertaken to open up the space, I can see it becoming a cultural icon, with the ground floor being filled with reclaimed and renewed products, and the upper floor being used to hold events and workshops that assist locals in living more creatively and sustainably.

There are two models for this to be undertaken in a financially sustainable manner - the enterprise operating out of the space could either pay a reasonable rent for the space, or they could take on the space rent-free in exchange for assistance in returning the interiors of the space to their former glory over a period of time. In either case I foresee the space's ownership being retained by the council. A space dedicated to re-use and recreation - putting the city a step ahead of most in recognising the importance of re-use in a more sustainable future. Sweden has achieved worldwide recognition for ReTuna, their flagship space for re-use, why can't Geelong achieve the same, and prove how clever, creative and sustainable it is?

Submission 11

The Post Office should be kept in public ownership and used to promote Geelong's status and resources in the area of heritage and design. This would amplify the city's status as the only UNESCO City of Design in Australia. This is a significant advantage for the city to advance its goal of being a clever and creative city. It would be a physical representation of the city's design credentials. Its location in the cultural precinct cannot be bettered for attracting cultural tourists to the city.

Submission 12

The former Geelong Post Office is a magnificent, iconic building of great historical significance. I would like to see it retained as a council/community asset and incorporated into the Cultural Arts Precinct, adding to Geelong's brand as a clever and creative city.

Submission 13

Geelong Children's Museum

Submission 14

The place should be made into a Geelong and District Museum. Old photos of Geelong, History of the natives to today. Old paintings, gold, springs, trams.... We don't even have a History Walk as most cities do. We have tunnels and all sorts of interesting history here but where do we go? It should be free for all. Otherwise, no one will go. Education is key.

Submission 15

This building is a monument to our past and must remain in public ownership at some level, be it Local, State or Commonwealth government.

I propose that it be re-purposed as an exhibition and meeting centre, providing facilities for permanent display of historical artefacts and items that support this city's design ambitions on a rotating basis. Its location within our cultural and civic precinct and landmark status make it admirably suited for this purpose.

A new auditorium should be incorporated, together with a couple of meeting rooms for the use of local organisations. The Heritage Centre should be relocated from its present site in the Library to this building, as its present facilities are cramped, poorly-lit and gloomy, in stark comparison to their former site.

It is proposed that the Greater Geelong City Council own and fund any necessary refurbishment, obtaining grants from State and Federal governments and local philanthropists, perhaps in exchange for naming rights. It would charge market rents for commercial displays and the use of the auditorium and meeting rooms, subsidised in the case of community organisations.

The City owns many facilities without requiring that they be self-supporting, eg, the Botanic Gardens, Art gallery, Libraries, Swimming Centres, Carousel and the like and especially Kardinia Park Stadium. This project is at least equally deserving.

This project would self-evidently enhance the cultural and civic precinct due to its prime location and visible presence and by saving it from being spoilt by commercial exploitation by people whose primary objective is profit. I would point out that the clock was paid for by public subscription.

My proposal would demonstrate unequivocally that the city values its past and emphasise its drive to develop its and our future. This is a once-only opportunity to show that we not only care about our history, but to make and record our future history. To forgo this opportunity would show the world that we do not cherish these values and would reflect poorly on those responsible.

Submission 16

I wish to inform the COGG Council and Management that the GEC is strongly opposed to any proposed sale of the Geelong Post Office. Over many years GEC has been involved in the protection of a number of heritage buildings in Geelong. We believe the character of a city depends on the quality and care of its built environment. The opportunity for the Post Office to be retained in public ownership and used for a community facility must not be overlooked and lost. The Post Office is a landmark within the city. We refer to the Former Post Office Conservation Management Plan prepared in 2019. This plan by respected consultants, CMP, Lovell Chen assessed the building as being in a sound condition and suitable for future on-going use. It would seem a great opportunity for Council to make a positive decision to retain the Post Office in ownership and develop a plan for some form of civic or community use. We note the National Trust has proposed that a much needed Design Centre would be an appropriate use, (to complement Geelong as a UNESCO City of Design) the Post Office building has an imposing presence in the Arts and Culture Precinct and its use as a Civic and Community Centre would complement the other quality and excellent buildings in central Geelong.

GEC believes the first requirement is for the COGG to make a positive decision to retain the Post Office in Council ownership, followed by a public discussion regarding possible uses.

Submission 17

Re-using this building as a Design and Community Collections Discovery Centre would respond to principles of sustainability by retaining in public ownership the social heritage and energy embodied in the building as it stands:

• support community groups by fulfilling a long-held need for space to display Geelong’s social history;

• celebrate Geelong's history together with its UNESCO Creative City designation as Australia’s only City of Design. Social history and innovation would intersect;

• help to re-activate Ryrie St, at the same time returning the Former Post Office to its role as one of the Civic and Cultural Precinct’s ‘landmark buildings’ (Arts and Culture Masterplan 2017);

• help to fulfil the objectives of the Council Plan 2018 – 2022, the Clever and Creative Futures Plan 2017, the Heritage Strategy 2017, and the future Arts and Cultural Strategy due to be completed in 2019; and

• increase community pride in being a Geelong citizen as people would have a focal point to see their innovative past and future – and how Geelong has developed to the present.

The Former Post Office in the French Second Empire style (similar to the Princess Theatre in Melbourne) is already an architectural landmark distinguishing the Arts and Culture Precinct.

• Public access to the building, not possible for 25 years;

• Sale of locally designed goods in a retail gallery;

• Design workshops for entrepreneurial or practical use; and

• A return to productivity for the first floor as it would be available for lease.

The project would likely need:

• an appointed Board under the auspices of the City of Greater Geelong; and

• a Director and some ancillary staff to manage the collections and rotating displays (including by businesses hiring Design Centre space to demonstrate innovations), manage volunteers, liaise with Design Workshop tenants; and support events such as Design Week.

Attachment 4

Opportunities for fundraising including philanthropy and State and Commonwealth grants

This review is preliminary only and presumes that the purposes for which fundraising might be sought will relate to works for the conservation of the building and/or its on-going operation for range of potential public activities (none of these uses have been assessed in terms of demand/need):

• Arts (because of its proximity to the arts precinct and potential for use by an existing public arts organisation);

• Innovation/technology (relationship to the Clever and Creative City of Design and a nod to the building’s history that it once contained the first automatic telephone exchange in the southern hemisphere);

• Heritage (because of the historic building); and

• Youth support/development (its use in recent years).

The Geelong Post Office is listed on the Victorian Heritage Register.

Opportunities for direct grants to Council for building conservation, development or the uses mentioned above are:

1. Victorian Living Heritage Grants ($20,000 to $200,000) administered by Heritage Victoria. Councils , committees of management, trusts and not-for-profits may apply without making a co-contribution. The building must be publicly accessible. Preference will be given to conservation repairs that reduce risk to the building. (This is unlikely to be a short-term opportunity given the building’s good condition).

2. Regional Infrastructure Fund – Productive and Liveable Cities and Centres - Regional Development Victoria (can be multi-million $). Open to local governments, government agencies, businesses and not-for-profits. One-off grants. Must not have commenced. A co-contribution is expected. Not for operating costs. Activities include “unifying existing, or creating new heritage, cultural or arts precincts that offer a range of visitor and resident experiences.”. Need to demonstrate:

1. economic benefits

2. social and environmental benefits

3. alignment with state and regional priorities and demonstrated project need

4. demonstrated project feasibility and delivery

5. financial viability

6. maximising value to the state

7. program stream criteria.

3. A number of Arts grants are available to support regional local governments (or not-for-profits) from Creative Victoria. For example: Regional Partnership annual grants of up to $90K for a small regional gallery or up to $70K for a small performing arts venue or other grants of smaller size to support particular productions.

4. Regional Jobs Fund – Innovation and Productivity - Regional Development Victoria (can be multi-million $). Open to local governments, government agencies, businesses and not-for-profits. One-off grants. Must not have commenced. A co-contribution is expected. Not for operating costs.

   Activities include “industry clusters/networks that bring together representatives of regional businesses, research centres and government to strengthen regional supply chains and competitiveness through collaboration and innovation.”. Need to demonstrate the same criteria as for the Regional Infrastructure Fund (point 2 above).

5. A number of grant programs to support youth are available through the Victorian Dept of Health and Human Services. Most are relatively small in size.

Grant opportunities from Commonwealth Government programs were not examined because of the impending election at that time and may take some time to emerge while the new government is established.

If the Council were to put the management of the building in the hands of a community-based committee of management or not-for-profit organisation, application can be made to the National Trust of Australia to establish tax-deductible appeals for maintenance, repair and restoration to the heritage fabric of the building. An appeal could then attract donations from third parties (also opens up access to philanthropies). Appeals can be on-going.

Occupation of the building by a not-for-profit organisation with tax deductible status also opens up the opportunity for that organisation to access funding through the philanthropic sources described in the Appendix, noting that most of these will not fund business-as-usual costs.

Appendix

Extract from Philanthropy Australia’s Directory of Funders (who will fund in Victoria) and other local philanthropic funders.

Note: In addition to the legal requirements on who may apply, most funders will not fund individuals, political, religious, for-profit or State and Commonwealth government organisations or fund business-as-usual costs.

Geelong Connected Communities

Give Where you Live

Geelong Foundation

2. 2018-2019 Project Funding Carryover to 2019-2020

Purpose

1. To adopt the 2019-2020 capital and non-capital projection changes to complete projects carried over from 2018-2019 and other material adjustments impacting the 2019-2020 budget.

Background

2. Each year as part of the annual budget process the City commits to capital and non-capital projects notwithstanding that many of these projects may take more than the current budget year to deliver.

3. At 30 June each year a review is undertaken of current year capital and non-capital programs that are incomplete and represent commitments to be carried over into the subsequent financial year.

4. The 2019-2020 budget process provided increased attention to the planned delivery and phasing of capital and non-capital projects. The list of works focusses on just the capital and non-capital works that will be completed this year and aims to exhaust any carryovers from periods prior to 2019-2020 and to complete most of the 2019-2020 budgeted works.

5. The 2019-2020 budget was developed to include $27.8 million of expected capital expenditure carryover. This report amends the actual carryover by project to $36.2 million, an increase of $8.4 million on the estimated carryover per the Adopted Budget. The amount carried over last year was $49.5 million.

6. Where a project has departed from plan and the delay will necessitate a movement of funds from one budget cycle to another, the quarterly finance report will list relevant projects and the reasons for the delay and seek endorsement of the funding transfer. It is expected the volume of carryover projects under the revised approach will be reduced relative to this year’s report.

7. The carryover requirements are incorporated as part of 2019-2020 projection changes. No extra funding is required to complete the committed projects.

8. The total capital program expenditure for 2018-2019 was $124.5 million which represents the largest annual capital spend of Council to date.

Key Matters

9. The 2018-2019 income and expenditure amounts required to carryover are added to the 2019-2020 budget program with the expanded program defined as the 2019-2020 Projection. The 2019-2020 Projection is the authorised program and will be used for variance reporting on a quarterly basis through 2019-2020.

10. The Capital carryover amounts represent commitments where program managers have provided updated project expenditure phasing. A total of $36.2 million expenditure and $14.7 million income is now phased for completion in 2019-2020. The 2019-2020 Projected Capital program expenditure is $125.3 million with Projected Capital income $23.4 million.

    The capital program is fully funded and will have no impact on the closing cash position as outlined in the adopted 2019-2020 Budget. Attachment 3 shows all capital projects carried over into 2019-2020.

11. A review of the non-capital program at 30 June 2019 indicates that funding of $8.9 million is required to carry over into 2019-2020, partly offset by $1.0 million projected non-capital income. The result is net carryover of $7.9 million. Last year the non-capital amount carried over was net $9.3 million. Attachment 4 shows all non-capital projects carried over into 2019-2020.

12. In June 2019, the Commonwealth Government brought forward payment of half of the estimated 2019-2020 Financial Assistance Grant allocation to Victorian Councils. Subsequently, $10.7million was paid to the City. This has been budgeted in 2019-2020, however is to be removed from the budget due to the early payment being recognised in the 2018-2019 financial year.

13. The projected operating expenditure is $390.5 million and income $373.2 million with a deficit of ($17.2 million). This deficit will be mostly funded from a higher than expected cash balance as at 30 June 2019 of $13 million.

14. The projected capital and non-capital program will be used for variance reporting (actual versus projection) in the quarterly finance reports to Council.

Councillor Murnane moved, Councillor Murrihy seconded -

15. That Council:

1. Adopt the 2019-2020 Capital (Table 1) and Operational (Table 2) projection changes; and

2. Note that the budget process gave increased attention to the planned delivery and phasing of capital and non-capital projects.

Carried.

Attachment 1

Financial Implications

1. The program variances and carryover represents commitments that have been re-phased for completion into 2019-2020.

2. The incomplete program, together with other favourable cash flows have increased the City’s year end cash balance (30 June 2019) to a total of $105.5 million or $13million higher than projected. The projected closing cash position (30 June 2020) will be impacted by $7.9million incomplete non-capital program and $10.7million other operating projection changes, representing a net reduction of $5.6million.

Community Engagement

3. Project managers have submitted requests for carryover and will be advised of the outcome pending consideration of this report by Council.

Social Equity Considerations

4. There are no social equity implications arising from the subject of this report.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

5. Section 144A part 1 of the Local Government Act states “A Council must prepare a revised budget if circumstances arise which cause a material change in the budget and which affect the financial operations and position of Council.”

6. In the context of the total budget, the projected changes to the closing cash position is not considered material.

Alignment to Council Plan

7. This report contributes to responsible and sustainable financial management as aligned to the Council Plan key priority – Innovative Finance and Technology.

Conflict of Interest

8. No council officers or contractors who have provided advice in relation to this report have a direct or indirect interest.

Risk Assessment

9. Capital projects by their nature are susceptible to delays for a large variety of reasons including weather, delays in approvals (that is: Special Rates & Charges programs) contractor availability, performance, etc.

10. The carryover capital program will result in a gross capital program for 2019-2020 of $147.6 million.

Environmental Implications

11. The adoption of the 2018-2019 carryover program recognises the required funding to complete the environmental programs previously approved as part of the 2018-2019 budget.

Attachment 2

Discussion

Capital Projects Program

1. Carryover requirements.

1. During the 2019-2020 budget development the capital carryover was projected to be net $14.8 million comprising of $27.8m expenditure and $13 million income. At the end of the 2018-2019 financial year a review was carried out to determine the actual capital program carryover requirements.

2. The review indicates a net carryover of $21.5 million comprising of $36.2 million expenditure and $14.7 million income is required to complete the projects planned for 2018-2019. The net variance between actual net ($21.5 million) and estimate included in 2018-2019 Budget ($14.8 million) is ($6.7 million).

3. The budgeted capital program carryover into 2020-21 is $22.3 million. This will be reviewed on a quarterly basis and updated projections made following review of planned program delivery and phasing of project expenditure.

4. The following table summarises the 2019-2020 Projected Capital program.

5. The Projected Capital program will be used for variance reporting in monthly management reports and quarterly finance reports.

Table 1 – 2019-2020 Projected Capital Program

	Expenditure $	Income $	Net Expenditure $
Council adopted 2019-2020 Budget - New Capital funding (excluding carryover)	111,424,052	8,739,880*	102,684,172
2018-2019 Capital carryover requests	36,159,274	14,661,766	21,497,508
Planned carryover into 2020-21 (June 2020)	(22,285,000)	0	(22,285,000)
2019-2020 Projected Capital program	125,298,326	23,401,646	101,896,680

* Does not include proceeds on the sale of fleet $1.3 per adopted budget, as this is treated as operating income.

Operating budget projection

2. Non-capital projects carryover requirements.

1. In addition to the capital program, project managers have undertaken a review of incomplete non-capital projects budgeted in 2018-2019 that have been requested to be carried over into the 2019-2020 financial year.

2. The 2018-2019 recurrent operating result was favourably impacted by $7.9m of incomplete non-capital programs which are being re-phased on completion in 2019-2020.

Other Projection Changes

3. Early payment was received in the 2018-2019 financial year from the Commonwealth Government of $10.7m for half of the 2019-2020 Financial Assistance Grant. This will subsequently be removed from the 2019-2020 budget.

4. The impact of the requested non-capital program carryover and other budget adjustments affecting the 2018-2019 Projected Operating Surplus / (Deficit) is summarised in Table 2 below.

Table 2 – 2019-2020 Projected Operating Surplus/(Deficit)

	Expenditure $	Income $	Surplus/(Deficit) $
Council adopted 2019-2020 Budget - Recurrent surplus/(Deficit)	381,565,113	382,962,386	1,397,273
2018-2019 Non-Capital Carryover Requests	8,890,909	981,956	(7,908,953)
2018-2019 Other Projection Changes	0	(10,716,905)	(10,716,905)
2019-2020 Operating Projection	390,456,022	373,227,437	(17,228,585)

3. Courthouse Youth Arts – Strategic Plan and Funding

Purpose

1. To present the Courthouse Youth Arts Strategic Plan 2019-202021 and seek endorsement for a four year funding and lease agreement.

Background

2. Courthouse Youth Arts Centre Inc (CHYA) is an incorporated not-for-profit association established in 1996 and led by a Board of Management.

3. Through a diverse and tailored programme of arts and cultural events, activities and product development, CHYA provides an accessible entry point for young people interested in engaging with the arts, and those seeking to forge a career in the arts sector.

4. The City has provided funding to CHYA since its inception in 1996 to facilitate this important youth development opportunity. Key performance indicators (KPIs) for the organisation are negotiated as part of the funding agreement.

5. CHYA also leases the Courthouse building (Corner Gheringhap and Little Malop Streets) from the City, with the lease and funding agreement being tied.

Key Matters

6. In 2016, the Courthouse Board of Management commenced an independently facilitated organisational review. The review looked at CHYA’s accountability to Council and the community as well as identifying the arts and cultural needs for young people in the City of Greater Geelong and CHYA’s capacity to respond to these needs.

7. The review found that there is a strong desire and rationale for CHYA to continue operating, and made recommendations to strengthen the organisation, including a developing a strategic plan and a revised financial and operational model.

8. The CHYA Board appointed a new Executive Producer in 2018 to develop a draft Strategic Plan that responded to the key findings of the review. The City sought to have the Strategic Plan in place before committing to a new agreement. This requirement has recently been fulfilled with the finalisation of the Courthouse Youth Arts Strategic Plan (Attachment 2).

9. A four-year agreement is proposed, which aligns with the Victorian Government funding model through Creative Victoria, and will enable long-term planning and support leveraging of local, state and federal funding and sponsorships.

10. There is an existing recurrent budget allocation to fund CHYA, which would be administered via the funding agreement.

Councillor Mason moved, Councillor Nelson seconded -

11. That Council:

1. Note the draft Courthouse Youth Arts Strategic Plan; and

2. Commit annual funding of $265,915 (+CPI increments) and rental income from the Courthouse Café to Courthouse Youth Arts Centre Inc through a four-year funding and lease agreement for the years 2019-2023.

Carried.

Attachment 1

Financial Implications

1. In 2014, the City moved from funding CHYA via a budget allocation only to a multi-year funding model to better ensure understanding and accountability of deliverables, with Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) articulated in the funding agreement.

2. CHYA received $232,116 (+CPI increments) in annual core funding from the City for the period 2014-2017. Two single-year extensions to the funding agreement were granted in 2017-19 while the organisation was undertaking its review and developing a new Strategic Plan.

3. The City also currently transfers monthly rental income from the Courthouse Café to CHYA, in the amount of $33,215 per annum, additional to core funding and as per the lease agreement.

4. In 2015, the Australia Council for the Arts fund was discontinued as a result of substantial national budget cuts. During this time 10 out of 13 youth arts organisations across the country lost funding, triggering a challenging period for CHYA.

5. CHYA has worked to strengthen their position artistically, organisationally and financially. Their 2018 Annual Report lists a surplus of $18,528; a strong result in comparison with a $77,593 deficit recorded for the year ending December 2017.

6. The organisation is currently performing well against KPIs detailed in their lease and funding agreement with the City.

7. There are limited alternative providers for the programs run by CHYA. CHYA offers a unique model in that it provides programs across a range of arts disciplines (drama, music, visual arts, multimedia etc) and is an incorporated not-for profit wholly focussed on young people.

8. A four-year funding model is now proposed to align with the state government funding model and provide greater stability for the organisation.

Community Engagement

9. CHYA’s organisational review incorporated interviews with stakeholders, including CHYA board and staff, participants and young people, and integrated desktop research of local, national and regional youth arts data and benchmarking with like-organisations.

10. The review reported that the demographic served by CHYA programs falls into two distinct groups:

1. 12-17 years, who rely more heavily on parents and carers to facilitate their engagement, and require certainty and regularity in order to plan ahead

2. 18-25 years, who are more autonomous and mature in their engagement, and engage through studio and equipment access and independent art making.

11. Key themes from the review which related to engagement, included:

1. Young people are at the heart of the organisation

2. CHYA creates connections to nurture creativity, encourage risk and experimentation

3. CHYA develops critical thinking skills to create resilient, engaged and intelligent young people who challenge the status quo;

4. CHYA creates and builds strong leaders who contribute to the community;

5. CHYA builds a community where all generations respect each other.

Social Equity Considerations

12. Inclusivity and Diversity, Community, and Advocacy are key values of the new Strategic Plan – statements corresponding to each of these can be found in the draft Strategic Plan 2019-21 (attached). The review proposed a move away from a service provider model to an artist-led modality, repositioning CHYA as a creatively focused organisation with more young people being positioned at the helm.

13. Independent not-for-profit Somebody’s Daughter Theatre Company (SDTC) have been undertaking a creative residency entitled “Nobody’s Fool” at the Courthouse over the past several years for marginalised and disadvantaged young people in the Geelong area who are ‘school refusers’ or too volatile to be in school. This highly successful education program has partnered with Newcomb Secondary College, Barwon Child Youth and Family Services, and CHYA.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

14. The Old Courthouse building is owned by the City. In addition to CHYA, two other tenants lease in the building; Back to Back Theatre Inc, Courthouse Café Australia Pty Ltd

Alignment to Council Plan

15. Activity at CHYA strongly aligns with multiple elements of Strategic Priorities 1, 3, 6, 8, 9 and 20 of Council Plan 2018-2022.

16. Key alignments include: Maintaining visitation to Courthouse Youth Arts; Supporting music and art programmes and galleries; Developing programmes that support young people in our community; Building on the current events program and increasing cross promotional opportunities; Recognition and sharing of heritage; Increased employment in creative occupations; Attracting and supporting creative industries; Advocating for inclusive multicultural activities and respect for cultural diversity; Continuing to work with government to deliver projects that revitalise Central Geelong; Proactively managing our assets, including land holdings; Increasing state and federal funding for the region; Leading major organisations in collaborative projects

Conflict of Interest

17. No Council officers or contractors who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a conflict of interest regarding the matter under consideration.

Risk Assessment

18. CHYA are one of the key platforms through which the City supports and encourages young people to access the arts, develop their skills and foster confidence in applying those skills. A number of their activities particularly target at-risk youth and young people from traditionally under-represented groups. If the City were to reduce or discontinue funding, there would be a significant gap in support and service provision to what can be a vulnerable part of our community.

19. The risk of CHYA not delivering the City’s objectives in supporting youth arts is mitigated by:

1. including key performance indicators in the funding agreement ;

2. the mutual understanding of CHYA’s direction as articulated in their Strategic Plan;

3. the effective working relationship between CHYA and the City’s Arts & Culture Department and Youth Development Unit.

20. A multi-year funding agreement further reduces risk to the City as it provides stable and consistent funding for CHYA to successfully plan and deliver their programs.

Environmental Implications

21. Outgoings for the building have substantially increased, impacting the building’s environmental and financial sustainability. Independent of CHYA’s organisational review, the City has undertaken a review of the building’s lighting and plant, and provision for a capital works retrofit will be the subject of a future budget bid.

4. Road Renaming – Chiton Way to Casablanca Way, Point Lonsdale

Purpose

1. To seek approval to rename “Chiton Way, Point Lonsdale” to “Casablanca Way, Point Lonsdale” (refer Attachment 3 for diagram).

Background

2. A request was received from developer’s consultants to change the road name from Chiton Way, to Casablanca Way, Point Lonsdale due to confusion in pronunciation.

3. Mispronunciation of the current road name may cause offence or delay in emergency services.

Key Matters

4. The Naming Rules for Places in Victoria 2016 require that road names must be easy to pronounce, not cause offence, or be derogatory.

5. This renaming will result in 11 properties requiring re-addressing. Letters and survey for response have been sent to all affected and adjoining property owners and residents (15). Seven surveys have been returned, four in favour and three against the proposal.

6. An advertisement was placed in the Geelong Advertiser newspaper on 15 June 2019. The proposed renaming was placed on the City’s website for 30 days as per statutory requirement.

7. Responses have been sent to all survey submitters, advising that the proposal to rename Chiton Way to “Casablanca Way” will proceed, and has been submitted for approval at a Council meeting prior to Office of Geographic Names for registration.

Councillor Murnane moved, Councillor Nelson seconded -

8. That Council not approve the renaming of “Chiton Way, Point Lonsdale” to “Casablanca Way, Point Lonsdale”, and the name “Chiton Way” will remain.

Carried.

Attachment 1

Financial Implications

1. The approximate cost to the City is $480. This includes advertising, notification to adjoining property owners and notification to authorities and street signage.

2. The developer has paid the street renumbering fee as per the City’s fees and charges.

Community Engagement

3. Surveys were sent to all affected and adjoining property owners advising proposal and seeking feedback.

4. An advertisement was placed in the ‘Have your say” section of City News in the Geelong Advertiser on 15 June 2019.

5. The proposal was open for comment on the Geelong Australia website for 30 days from the date of the newspaper advertisement.

6. Submissions were reviewed and as per Naming Rules for Places in Victoria 2016 the majority of responses received were in favour of renaming.

Social Equity Considerations

7. The City has a responsibility to the community to ensure that all properties are able to be identified in a clear and logical manner for emergency services and visitors to the area. The proposed renaming will provide this responsibility.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

8. The Local Government Act 1989, the Geographic Place Names Act 1998 and the Naming Rules for Places in Victoria 2016 have been followed.

Alignment to Council Plan

9. The proposed road renaming is consistent with Council Plan strategic priorities for:

1. Improved Health and Safety of our Community by enabling emergency services to locate properties on this roadway in a timely manner with minimal confusion.

2. A more inclusive and diverse Community by respecting the language barrier with different cultures and the way in which words are pronounced.

Conflict of Interest

10. No Council officers or contractors who have provided advice in relation to this report have declared a conflict of interest regarding the matter under consideration.

Risk Assessment

11. If an emergency situation occurred, the City’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.

Environmental Implications

12. There are no environmental implications arising from the subject of this report.

Attachment 2

Summary of Feedback Received

1. Three property owners opposed the name change and provided the following feedback:

1. Strongly oppose to change in Street name - unnecessary, inappropriate and costly.

2. Nothing wrong with the name - Not difficult word to say or spell.

3. Never had a problem with the pronunciation. Chiton is a unique and nice street name.

2. Four property owners agreed to the name change.

Attachment 3

Councillor Kontelj declared a Conflict of Interest in Agenda Item 5, Tender T1900054 Sparrovale Wetlands Construction Works, in that the contractor noted in the item is a customer of a company of which he is a Director and left the room prior to discussion at 9:21pm.

5. Tender T1900054 Sparrovale Wetlands Construction Works

Purpose

1. To award Contract C1900054 for the Sparrovale Wetlands Construction Works project to Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd (ABN 31 127 510 472).

Background

2. The City is constructing a wetland system to treat, store and convey stormwater flows from the upstream Armstrong Creek Development Precincts. The principal items of work to be delivered include the construction and landscaping of linear wetlands, earthen channels, access roads, and drainage structures as per the drawings and specifications.

Key Matters

3. Procurement Services undertook an open tender process seeking to appoint a suitably qualified and experienced Civil Contractor to undertake works associated with the construction of the proposed Sparrovale Wetlands Project.

4. The submissions were evaluated in accordance with the processes detailed in the City’s ‘Procurement and Contracts Manual’.

5. Based on the tenderers project experience, expertise and value for money the Tender Evaluation Panel (TEP) recommend that Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd to be awarded the contract for the provision of these works.

6. Subject to Council awarding the Contract, the project will commence 1 September 2019.

7. The lump sum price for the delivery of the project is $3,251,171.00 (excl. GST).

Councillor Murnane moved, Councillor Nelson seconded –

8. That Council:

1. Award Contract C1900054 for the Sparrovale Wetlands Construction Works project to Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd (ABN 31 127 510 472) for the tendered lump sum price of $3,251,171.00;

2. Delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to execute Contract No. C1900054 and any other documents required by or to give effect to the terms of the Contract on behalf of Council;

3. Delegate to the Manager Capital Projects the authority to approve variations to Contract C1900054 to a maximum of $200,000 (ex-GST). Where the aggregate of all variations exceed $200,000 they must be referred to the Director City Services for authorisation; and

4. Delegate to the Director City Services the authority to approve variations to Contract C1900054 to a maximum of 10% of the Lump Sum Price (ex-GST). Where the aggregate of all variations exceed 10% they must be referred to the Chief Executive Officer for authorisation.

Carried.

Attachment 1

Financial Implications

1. The project is fully funded by the City of Greater Geelong. The total project budget is $4.022M made up of funds from each of the Council’s 2017/18, 2018/19 & 2019/20 budgets.

Community Engagement

2. The project design has been guided by a Project Working Group that includes representatives from the Corangamite CMA. The Lower Barwon Advisory Committee which is made up of representatives from DELWP, Parks Victoria, Field & Game, Barwon Water, Geelong Environment Council etc. have also been briefed on the proposed Sparrovale Wetland Drainage works and are generally supportive of the design. In parallel to this project a Masterplan for the entire Sparrovale Wetlands site is currently being developed. This is being led by the City’s Environment & Natural Resources department.

Social Equity Considerations

3. This project will provide the infrastructure that addresses the needs of the local community while generating economic benefits to local contractors, sub-trades and material suppliers who will be directly engaged in the construction.

Policy/Legal/Statutory Implications

4. This tender was publicly advertised in accordance with the requirements of section 186 of the Local Government Act 1989 and the tender process has been conducted in accordance with the City’s Procurement Policy.

Alignment to Council Plan

5. Development of this site as an end of line drainage solution for the Armstrong Creek Precinct aligns with Council’s strategic priority for planned sustainable development, specifically allowing the ongoing development and growth of the Armstrong Creek Precinct, whilst also preserving our nature reserves and open spaces.

Conflict of Interest

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

Risk Assessment

7. The tender evaluation process involved the assessment of work, health and safety policies, procedures and risk assessment documents. Any other risks associated with the acceptance of this tender will be managed through the contract conditions.

   Council engaged the services of Pitcher Partners to provide independent, experienced and objective probity advice to ensure the integrity of the tender process.

Environmental Implications

8. Any environmental implications associated with this contract will arise from the execution of the works. It is considered that these are the responsibility of the Contractor and will be managed through the contract documentation.

Attachment 2

Tender Details

Contract Details

1. Contract C1900054 for Sparrovale Wetlands Construction Works.

Invitation to Tender

2. The City issued tender T1900054 seeking to appoint a suitably qualified and experienced Civil Contractor to undertake works associated with the construction of the proposed Sparrovale Wetlands Project.

   Table 1 Invitations to Tender

2.1 Medium	2.2 Date Advertised
2.3 Geelong Advertiser 15 June 2019
2.4 eProcure	2.5 15 June 2019
2.6 Geelong Australia Website	2.7 15 June 2019

Tender Evaluation Panel

3. The Tender Evaluation Panel comprised the following staff.

   Table 2 Tender Evaluation Panel

Position Title	Panel role
Procurement Specialist	Chair (non-voting)
Special Projects Co-ordinator - Construction & Partnership	Member (voting)
Manager Capital Projects	Member (voting)
Sparrovale Environmental Project Officer	Member (voting)

4. The independent advisors to the Tender Evaluation Panel comprised the following staff.

   Table 3 Independent Advisors to the Tender Evaluation Panel

Position Title	Panel role
Probity Adviser	Advice

Tender Submissions

5. Tenderers had to comply with the following mandatory criteria:

1. OH&S system – if the tenderers OH&S processes and procedures do not meet a minimum standard determined by the City, the tenderer will not be considered for the Contract.

2. Tenderer must have a heat and UV radiation exposure management procedure, and if not, must be willing to abide by the City’s Heat and UV Radiation Exposure and Outdoor Clothing Procedures (Long/Long).

3. Tenderer must have attended the mandatory site briefing held on Tuesday 25 June 2019 at 105 Sparrovale Road, Charlemont VIC 3217.

4. Tenderer must have demonstrated experience as the principal civil contractor successfully delivering similar type civil works (bulk earthworks, drainage, wetlands) with a capital value >$1M (within the last 3 years). Supporting evidence must be provided.

6. All tenderers complied with the mandatory criteria.

   Table 4 Tender Submissions Received

Tender		Conforming tender
A	Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd	Yes
B	Tender B	Yes
C	Tender C	Yes
D	Tender D	Yes
E	Tender E	Yes
F	Tender F	Yes

Tender Evaluation

7. The Evaluation Panel used the following qualitative criteria (in order of weighting) to assess the submissions:

   Table 5 Comparative Criteria Weighting

Comparative Criteria	Weighting %
Capability & experience: past performance by tenderer for similar works over the past three (3) years	30%
Methodology & plan for performing the contract	30%
Environmental, quality and audit systems; means of controlling quality of subcontractors; assessment of major risks	10%
Economic & Local Content contribution (mandatory)	10%
GROW and G21 initiatives (mandatory)	5%
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders inclusion (mandatory)	5%
Recycled Content and Environment (mandatory)	5%
Clever and Creative (Innovation) (mandatory)	5%

8. The tender was evaluated by the evaluation panel in a two staged process:

1. Qualitative assessment of a weighted score totalling 100%.

2. Evaluation of price against weighted score:

1. VFM = Tendered Price ÷ Weighted Score (lowest VFM Score = preferred supplier).

9. Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd were deemed the best value for money tenderer, with the lowest price and highest ranked tender, demonstrating best value for money for the City, and placing them as the preferred tenderer to progress to interview stage.

Tender Evaluation Scores

10. At the conclusion of the evaluation the tenders were ranked in the following order. In accordance with Tender Condition 5.1, the tender evaluation panel elected to not further evaluate Tender C, D, E and F, as they concluded that they were unlikely to be recommended as the preferred tender, even if the tender was fully evaluated, due to the tendered prices being significantly over budget.

    Table 6 Tender Evaluation Scores

Tender		Rank
A	Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd	1
B	Tender B	2

Post-Tender Contact

11. The Evaluation Panel sought clarification (in writing and at interview) from Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd regarding tender program, minor changes to scope, major risks to the project, service provision, challenges of the landscaping/vegetation component of the project and cost saving identification. Their response demonstrated that Goldsmith Civil and Environmental have undertaken the appropriate due diligence and have allocated the required resources.

12. Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd demonstrated a thorough understanding of the requirements of the specification with a proven record of delivering comparable contracts. The Tender Evaluation Panel noted that Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd are an experienced provider of civil projects requiring experience with water storage and water diversion. They have undertaken contracts of similar scope and value for other government clients over past three (3) years including Barwon Water, City of Greater Geelong and Melbourne Water.

13. Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd submission identified all the experienced personnel, plant and subcontractors required for this program.

14. Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd project methodology demonstrated that they have the available resources and expertise to successfully deliver the works and a detailed works program provided evidence of their capability to deliver the project within the City’s timeframes.

15. Goldsmith Civil and Environmental Pty Ltd OHS documentation addressed the high risk tasks associated with the works providing examples of SWMS used on a project with a comparable risk profile and all relevant qualifications required.

Probity

16. No probity issues identified.

Councillor Kontelj re-entered the meeting room at 9:26pm.

6. Contractual Matter

Councillor Murnane moved, Councillor Nelson 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.

7. Contractual Matter

Councillor Mason moved, Councillor Asher 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

• Copyright CoGG 2012
• Contacts
• Disclaimer
• Privacy
• Last Update: 24 October 2019