Glenelg Shire Council Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 25 October 2011, at Glenelg Shire Municipal Offices – Council Chamber 71 Cliff Street, Portland
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 2 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Contents Page
Introduction: 5
Attendees, Opening Prayer, Indigenous Acknowledgement, Apologies, Confirmation of Minutes: 5
Declarations of Interest & Conflict of Interest: 6
Question Time: 6
Questions of which due notice has been given in writing or previously taken on notice: 6
Questions from the Gallery: 6
1. Car wrecks in front of properties in Heywood 6 2. Welcoming cruise ships to Portland 7 3. Visiting cruise ships - retail information sessions 7
A. Notices of Motion: 7
B. Deputations: 7
C. Petitions: 7
C1. Petition – Provide a Marina, Boat Trailer/Car Parking and Boat Ramps within Existing Reclaimed Land 8-9
D. Committee Reports: 10
D1. Delegated Planning Committee Minutes 11-12 D2. Receipt of Heritage Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes – Friday 15 July 2011 13 D3. Receipt of the Maritime Heritage Advisory Committee Minutes – Thursday 22 September 2011 14-15
E. Assembly of Councillor Records 16
E1. Assembly of Councillors Records – 26 September 2011 to 13 October 2011 (Inclusive) 17-19
F. Management Reports 20
F1. Monthly Finance Report – 30 September 2011 21-22 F2. Audit Committee Chairperson‟s Annual Report for 2010/2011 23-24 F3. Waste Disposal Options Study, including Future of Portland Landfill 25-50
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 3 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Contents Page
F4. VicRoads Project – Henty Highway Pedestrian Overpass at Fawthrop Street, Portland 51-53 F5. Great South Coast Group Membership 54-59 F6. Aboriginal Advisory Committee 60-62 F7. Library Fines for Overdue Items Amnesty 63-65 F8. Condah Hotspur Upper Road (CHUR) Upgrade – Green Triangle Regional Priority Infrastructure – Proposed Round Two Application, Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) 66-72 F9. Integrated Growth plan (IGP) for Portland Advisory Committee Terms of Reference 73-77 F10. Amend Schedule One – Delegated Planning Committee Charter 78-80 F11. Adoption of the Glenelg Shire Council Annual Report 2011/2012 81-83 F12. Proposed Special Charge Scheme – Blair Street (Part), Portland 84-86 F13. Casterton Town Hall – Disability Access to First Floor Community and Civic Space 87-95 F14. Heritage Loan/Grant Scheme Application Recommendation 96-97 F15. Council Support for Amendment C71 Rezone the Lake Condah Mission from Farming Zone to Special Use Zone 6 98-99 F16. Community Services – Statistical Report 100-108 F17. Emergency Management Green Paper Submission 109-125 F18. The future role of Local Government in Emergency Management Draft Position Paper response 126-135 F19. Designation of Three Neighbourhood Safer Places – Places of Last Resort - Dartmoor, Digby and Heywood 136-138
Any Other Procedural Matter: 139
Urgent Business: 139
1. Portland Harbour Project 139
Receipt of Items Submitted for Information: 139
Index – Separate Circulations to Reports: 140-141
Closure of Meeting to Members of the Public: 141
Adjournment of Meeting: 141
Resumption of Meeting: 142
G. In Camera Reports: 141
G1. Contract No. 201102 – Construction of Extensions to Portland Airport Terminal and Maintenance Hangar 143-147 G2. Portland Landfill – Locality Context 148-157 G3. Urgent Business – Portland Harbour Project 158-161
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 4 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Contents Page
G4. Requests for Leave of Absence 162
Opening of Meeting to Members of the Public 163
Closure of Council Meeting 163
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 5 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
TIME:
7.00 pm
PRESENT:
Mayor, Cr Bruce Cross, Cr Gilbert Wilson, Cr Geoff Wilson, Cr Karen Stephens, Cr Robert Halliday, Cr Ken Saunders and Cr John Northcott.
Also in attendance were the Chief Executive Officer (Ms Sharon Kelsey), Group Manager Corporate Services (Mr Trevor Hornby), Group Manager Community Development (Ms Adele Kenneally), Group Manager Planning and Economic Development (Mr Syd Deam), Group Manager Assets and Infrastructure (Mr Lindsay Merritt) and Governance Support Coordinator (Mrs Kylie Walford).
OPENING PRAYER:
The Mayor opened the Meeting with the Council Prayer.
INDIGENOUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
The Mayor followed with the Indigenous Acknowledgement.
The Mayor continued by expressing his congratulations to the staff associated with the submissions for the Early Years Awards 2011. Last night at the Early Years Awards presentation, the Glenelg Shire Council were not only finalists in two categories but the winner of a prestigious award for the Portland Early Assessment Referral Links (PEARL) developed by Council‟s Maternal Child and Health Service in partnership with Portland District Health, Dhauwurd-Wurrung Elderly and Community Services, St John of God Healthcare – Raphael Centre, Community Connections, Brophy Family Youth Service, and South West Healthcare. A fantastic achievement with over 100 nominations state- wide and it was an honour to be involved and present at the Early Years Awards presentation in Melbourne.
RECEIPT OF APOLOGIES:
Nil
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES:
Crs Wilson and Stephens
That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 27 September 2011, as circulated, be confirmed.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 6 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST:
CONFLICT OF INTEREST „The Local Government Act contains mandatory requirements for both direct and indirect conflict of interest. The objective of the provisions is to enhance good governance in Victorian local government and to improve public confidence in the probity of decision making at Victoria‟s 79 Councils. Councillors are responsible for ensuring that they comply with the relevant provisions contained in Part 4 – Division 1A of the Act.
An online copy of the Local Government Act is available at www.localgovernment.vic.gov.au select – legislation. Alternatively, a printed copy is available for Councillors upon request‟.
Nil
QUESTION TIME:
I. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN WRITING OR PREVIOUSLY TAKEN ON NOTICE:
Nil.
II. QUESTIONS FROM THE GALLERY:
1. Car wrecks in front of private properties in Heywood
The Portland Observer asked the following question:
The Promoting Heywood and District Committee recently raised the issue of car wrecks at the front of properties within the town being an eyesore.
Does the Council have any powers to enforce the removal of car wrecks from such properties?
The Chief Executive Officer, Ms Sharon Kelsey advised that Council does have some powers in relation to vehicles on road ways or nature reserves. If the vehicles are on private property then Council is restricted to some extent in relation to its powers. If there are insanitary conditions there may be a role from an environmental health aspect. More details are required to be able to respond more specifically to this question.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 7 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
III. QUESTIONS FROM THE GALLERY: (continued)
2. Welcoming cruise ships to Portland
The Portland Observer asked the following question:
What ideas does the Council have to welcome ship passengers to Portland when they disembark?
The Chief Executive Officer, Ms Sharon Kelsey advised that at this stage it is a little too premature for specifics, but obviously there will need to be some planning that goes into how we will best welcome cruise ship passengers as a community. There will certainly be some involvement in terms of a range of interested parties to make sure we provide the best welcome possible in relation to our community.
3. Visiting cruise ships - retail information sessions
The Portland Observer asked the following question:
When will the Council start holding information sessions for retail outlets in Portland to prepare them for the influx of overseas visitors from the cruise ships?
The Chief Executive Officer, Ms Sharon Kelsey advised that it is very early days, however Council has had some discussions at a recent meeting with staff from the Portland Observer and there were a range of suggestions that were discussed. At this stage, it is too early to be looking at information sessions, but they will not be disregarded.
A. NOTICES OF MOTION:
Nil
B. DEPUTATIONS:
Nil.
C. PETITIONS:
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 8 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
C1. PETITION – PROVIDE A MARINA, BOAT TRAILER/CAR PARKING & BOAT RAMPS WITHIN EXISTING RECLAIMED LAND (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1268708, 1273080)
Group Manager: Sydney Deam, Group Manager Planning and Economic Development Author: Gary Bebbington, Economic Development and Tourism Manager and Executive Officer Portland Bay Local Port
Executive Summary
This report is to recommend that Council write to the petition organiser advising that the issue has been noted.
Background
A petition signed by 290 people has been received by Council with the key issue being for the Glenelg Shire Council to reassess the options available to provide a marina, boat trailer/car parking and boat ramps within existing reclaimed land, take into account the wishes of the local community and be publicly transparent and accountable for all decisions being made.
Report
The works referred to in the Petition represent Stage 1 of the Portland Bay Coastal Infrastructure Plan as developed by BECA Consulting in 2007 (known as the “Beca Plan”). The current scheme proposes minor adjustments to the Beca Plan to reflect an evolution in requirements since it was originally developed (such as a surge in the recreational fishing tourism sector) and the subsequent findings of an environmental marine study.
At the 24 August 2010 OCM, Council approved the changes and re-endorsed the general design concepts of the Portland Bay Coastal Infrastructure Plan. Works in a coastal environment have their own regulatory requirements under State and Federal environmental protection legislation and these requirements have been addressed.
Prior to Council applying for Coastal Management Act consent the six key foreshore stakeholders; namely the Portland Sport and Game Fishing Club, Portland Yacht Club, Portland Professional Fisherman‟s Association, Boat Owner‟s Action Team, Maritime Heritage Advisory Committee and the Portland Eco Trust were again consulted with an overwhelming majority supporting the proposed plans.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 9 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
C1. PETITION – PROVIDE A MARINA, BOAT TRAILER/CAR PARKING & BOAT RAMPS WITHIN EXISTING RECLAIMED LAND (continued)
Coastal Management Act Consent considers any impact on the Marine Environment, public amenity, views and Heritage assets. After due consideration the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) has issued Council with Coastal Management Act Consent to proceed with the works (subject to conditions) referred to in the petition. a) Funding/Budget implications
Council would not fulfill its Portland Bay Coastal Infrastructure Plan funding obligations from the State Government if the wishes of the petitioners were met. b) Council plan/strategies
Under Building Quality Places the Council Plan recognises the Portland Bay Coastal Infrastructure Plan as a key asset.
Conclusion
To have suitable facilities that meet current foreshore requirements, the proposal as adopted by Council is necessary.
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council consider the petition in accordance with clause 7.55 of the Council‟s Meeting Procedure made under the Governance Local Law 2006.
2. That Council advises the petition organiser in writing following the Ordinary Council Meeting that the issue raised by the petitioners has been noted.
Crs Halliday and White
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 10 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 11 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
D1. DELEGATED PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (For Information) (DWS: 1268668)
Group Manager: Sydney Deam, Group Manager Planning and Economic Development Author: Lyn Meyrick, Senior Administration Officer Planning and Economic Development
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to enable the Council to note the unsigned minutes of the Delegated Planning Committee Meeting held on Tuesday 27 September 2011.
Background
The role of the Delegated Planning Committee is to consider and determine the following matters:
Planning applications which receive three (3) or more objections. Planning applications which fail to meet the objectives of adopted Council policy, and the officer recommendation is to issue a permit. Planning applications with a value of between $1million and $5million. Applications in excess of $5million in value will be referred directly to the Council for determination. Planning applications which, in the opinion of the Statutory Planning Coordinator raise major policy implications and ought to be referred to the Committee for determination. Any other applications for major developments or changes of use which, in the opinion of the Statutory Planning Coordinator ought to be referred to the Committee for determination.
The Delegated Planning Committee Charter requires that the minutes of all Committee meetings must be submitted to the next practicable Council meeting for information.
Report
The Delegated Planning Committee met and considered the following items:
27 September 2011 – P10160, P10161, P10162, P10163 Use & Development Dwelling on Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 4 & Lot 5 Foleys Road, Cashmore
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 12 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
D1. DELEGATED PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES (continued) a) Legislative and Legal Considerations
The Special Committee is appointed, pursuant to section 86 of the Local Government Act 1989, to assist Council in the Decision making on planning matters and for dealing with planning permits under Section 188 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987
The instrument of delegation states - Council pursuant to the powers of delegation conferred on the Council by Section 86(3) of the Local Government Act 1989 HEREBY DELEGATES to the Delegated Planning Committee, being a Special Committee established by resolution of the Council, all of the Council‟s powers, functions and duties relating to the consideration and determination of applications under Section 188 of the Planning and Environment Act 1987. b) Budget Implications
There are no budget implications.
Conclusion
It is recommended that Council note the Delegated Planning Committee unsigned minutes for the meeting held on Tuesday 27 September 2011.
Delegated Planning Committee Recommendation
That Council in accordance with the Instrument of Delegation – Delegated Planning Committee (15 December 2009); minutes of the committee meeting held 27 September 2011 are submitted to Council for information.
Crs Stephens and White
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 13 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
D2. RECEIPT OF HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES – FRIDAY 15 JULY 2011 (Separate Circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1273083)
Group Manager: Sydney Deam, Group Manager Planning & Economic Development Author: Angela Arnold, Planning Administration Support Officer
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to enable the Council to receive a report of the Heritage Advisory Committee through the Minutes of this meeting held on Friday 15 July 2011.
Background
The role of this advisory committee, Heritage Advisory Committee is to advise Council on Heritage matters within the Glenelg Shire and to provide recommendations.
Report
The Minutes of the meeting held on 15 July 2011 are attached.
Recommendations from the Committee are as follows:
Nil
Heritage Advisory Committee Recommendation
That Council receive the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee held on Friday 15 July 2011.
MOTION
Crs Stephens and Saunders
That Council receive the minutes of the Heritage Advisory Committee held on Friday 15 July 2011, subject to a report coming to Council in relation to the heritage book on the Glenelg Shire area.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 14 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
D3. RECEIPT OF THE MARITIME HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES – THURSDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2011 (Separate Circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1121911)
Group Manager: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development Author: Trevor Smith, Cultural Collection Officer
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to enable the Council to receive a report of the Maritime Heritage Advisory Committee through the Minutes of this meeting held on Thursday 22 September 2011
Background
The role of this advisory committee, Maritime Heritage Advisory Committee is to advise Council on places or events of historical or cultural maritime significance and to provide recommendations.
Report
The Minutes of the meeting held on 22 September 2011 are attached.
Recommendations from the Committee are as follows:
1. That Council make a formal approach to the Port of Portland requesting the donation of 15 to 20 removed pylons for later use in construction of the Couta boat jetty.
2. That Council accept the offer from the Portland Professional Divers to assist in storing the pylons and in their later relocation to the north-west corner.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 15 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
D3. RECEIPT OF THE MARITIME HERITAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES – THURSDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2011 (continued)
Maritime Heritage Advisory Committee Recommendation
1. That Council receive the Minutes of the Maritime Heritage Advisory Committee held on Thursday 22 September 2011.
2. That an officers report be submitted to the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on 22 November 2011 considering the following Maritime Heritage Advisory Committee recommendations:
a. That Council make a formal approach to the Port of Portland requesting the donation of 15 to 20 removed pylons for later use in the construction of the Couta boat jetty.
b. That Council accept the offer from the Portland Professional Divers to assist in storing the pylons and in their later relocation to the north- west corner.
Crs Halliday and Wilson
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 16 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
E. ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLOR RECORDS:
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 17 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
E1. ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORDS – 26 SEPTEMBER 2011 TO 13 OCTOBER 2011 (INCLUSIVE) (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1269293, 1272915, 1278040, 1274508, 1278089)
Group Manager: Trevor Hornby, Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Tanya Flockhart, Senior Administration Officer Corporate Services
Executive Summary
In accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 assembly of Councillors records (including records of those titled as committees) must be reported to the next „practical‟ ordinary Council meeting and recorded in the minutes of that meeting. The objective of submitting the assembly of Councillors (including records of those titled as committees) records to Council meetings is to ensure public transparency in Council decision making processes.
Background
The Chief Executive Officer must ensure that a written record is kept of every assembly of Councillors records (including records of those titled as committees).
Department of Community Development and Planning circular L97 advises that assembly of Councillors records “only needs to be a simple document that records
- The names of all Councillors and staff at the meeting, - A list of the matters considered, - Any conflict of interest disclosed by a Councillor, and - Whether a Councillor who disclosed a conflict left the room.
The circular also advises that: “The record is not required to be in the form of minutes. The recommended approach is to record the “matters” discussed, by listing the headings of the matters. In some cases, meetings may be considering a single matter…”
The circular further advises that: “This does not mean that the record cannot be reported to the Council in the form of minutes. In Councils where it is established practice for minutes of advisory committees to be tabled at Council meetings, the minutes will be sufficient for the purpose if they include the required information, including disclosures.”
Report
The legislative requirement became effective from the 24 September 2010.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 18 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
E1. ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORDS – 26 SEPTEMBER 2011 TO 13 OCTOBER 2011 (INCLUSIVE) (continued)
This report covers the period from the Monday 26 September 2011 to midnight on Thursday 13 October 2011. All assembly of Councillors records (including records of those titled as committees) held during this period must be included.
The following assembly of Councillors records (including records of those titled as committees) held during the period specified above have been received from the relevant Departments/Units:
Portland Bay Coastal Infrastructure Project Steering Committee 26 September 2011 (DWS: 1269293) Councillors & CEO Meeting 27 September 2011 (DWS: 1272915) Council Meeting Briefing Session 27 September 2011 (DWS: 1278040) Portland Strategic Partnership Group 28 September 2011 (DWS: 1274508) Councillors Workshop 11 October 2011 (DWS: 1278089)
(a) Legislative and legal requirements
The purpose of this report is to ensure compliance with the Local Government Act 1989. References include:
Section 76AA – Definition of “assembly of Councillors” Section 80A – Requirements for an assembly of Councillors Section 3(1) – Definition of “advisory committee”
(b) Council Plan linkage and policy context
This report links to the Council Plan, particularly key objective: (1) - responsible and responsive governance and decision making.
(c) Charter of human rights and responsibilities
This report has considered the requirements of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
(d) Budget implications
The cost of preparing the monthly reports on assembly of Councillors records (including records of those titled as committees) is another compliance cost imposed by the state government and is an indirect cost within the corporate governance unit salaries and oncost budget.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 19 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
E1. ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORDS – 26 SEPTEMBER 2011 TO 13 OCTOBER 2011 (INCLUSIVE) (continued)
The cost of preparing assembly of Councillors records (including records of those titled as committees) is an indirect cost within the salaries and oncost budget for each Department/Unit that is responsible for the specified meeting.
Conclusion
It is recommended that Council receive the report.
Officer Recommendation
That Council receive the report on Assembly of Councillors records (including records of those titled as committees) for the period Tuesday 26 September 2011 to Thursday 13 October 2011 (both dates inclusive).
Crs Northcott and White
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 20 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 21 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F1. MONTHLY FINANCE REPORT – 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1277636, 1277637 and 1277638)
Chief Executive Officer: Sharon Kelsey Author: Linda MacRae, Acting Finance Manager
Executive Summary
The Finance Report up to the 30 September 2011 has been prepared and has been separately circulated to Councillors and Group Managers with this Council Agenda.
Report
The 2011/2012 Annual Budget was adopted by Council on 28 June 2011.
This report provides information on the current status of Council‟s financial position and performance and includes the:
Executive Summary (including the Glossary of Terms) Income (Operating) Statement – by Type Balance Sheet Cash Flow Statement Capital Works Statement Capital Project Expenditure
The report has been prepared on an accrual basis to ensure accurate matching of income and expenditure, both operating and capital items, for the three month period ending 30 September 2011.
The monthly finance report provides a high level of financial reporting, including:
Adopted Budget 2011/2012. Year-to-Date (YTD) Actual 2011/2012. Year-to-Date (YTD) Committed 2011/2012. This comprises of YTD Actuals plus expenditure relating to goods or services that have been ordered (committed) but not yet received or paid.
The monthly finance report provides comment on favourable and unfavourable variations and trends identified to date.
This report now includes additional budget adjustments for brought forward projects from 2010/2011 which are fully funded from the 2010/2011 budget. The total additional brought forward amounts are capital projects of $4,043,988, and operating brought forwards of $689,150 which is offset by capital income contributions of $595,000.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 22 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F1. MONTHLY FINANCE REPORT – 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 (continued)
(a) Legislative requirements
This report is being presented in accordance with section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989 and Regulation 5 of the Local Government (Finance and Reporting) Regulations 2004. Although the Regulations require a quarterly reporting cycle, the Glenelg Shire provides a monthly finance report to enable Council and residents to monitor the Glenelg Shire‟s financial performance on a more frequent basis.
(b) Council Plan linkage and policy context
The monthly finance report links to the Council Plan, particularly key objective: (1) - responsible and responsive governance and decision making.
A component of this strategic objective is that Council will provide prudent and responsible stewardship for the community assets and resources within our care.
(c) Charter of human rights and responsibilities
The monthly finance report has considered the requirements of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
Conclusion
Councillors are invited to contact the Acting Finance Manager (Linda MacRae) if further information is required for the Council Meeting.
Officer Recommendation
That the Monthly Finance Report for the period ending 30 September 2011 be received.
Crs Stephens and Northcott
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 23 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F2. AUDIT COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON‟S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010/2011 (Separate circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1243289)
Group Manager: Trevor Hornby, Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Wayne Krause, Audit Committee Chairperson Karena Prevett, Senior Accountant
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to present the Audit Committee Chairperson‟s Annual Report for 2010/2011 to Council.
Background
The Audit Committee is an independent advisory Committee to Council. The primary objective of the Audit Committee is to assist Council in the effective conduct of its responsibilities for financial reporting, management of risk, maintaining a reliable system of internal controls and facilitating the organisation‟s corporate governance and ethical development.
The Audit Committee Charter requires the Audit Committee Chairperson to report annually to the Council.
Report
The Audit Committee‟s Annual Report is a summary of the Committee‟s operation and activities during the financial year 2010/2011 and includes the following: Audit Committee Charter;
Committee membership;
Meeting schedule;
Committee Activities (including internal audit, other audits, policy matters and other matters raised throughout the year); and
Concluding remarks.
A copy of the Chairperson‟s Annual Report for 2010/2011 has been circulated with the Council Meeting Agenda.
Consultation
The Annual Report has been provided to all members of the Audit Committee for comment prior to submission to Council. All input received has been included.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 24 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F2. AUDIT COMMITTEE CHAIRPERSON‟S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010/2011 (continued)
Budget Implications
The Council Budget for 2010/11 contained a budget allocation for the direct costs of operating and supporting the Audit Committee and the cost of conducting internal audits. All expenditure was within the set budget. The cost of staff time associated with the Audit Committee and internal audits is an indirect cost and is included in various staff salary budgets.
Conclusion
As in past years, the Audit Committee has been active in fulfilling its Charter. It is a valuable Committee that makes a significant contribution to the corporate governance, risk management, effectiveness and efficiency of the Glenelg Shire. Council is fortunate to have an Audit Committee with high calibre members.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Crs Wilson and Halliday
That Standing Orders be suspended at 7.28pm to enable the Audit Committee Chairperson Mr Wayne Krause to speak to his report.
CARRIED
RESUMPTION OF STANDING ORDERS
Crs Stephens and Wilson
That Standing Orders be resumed at 7.32pm.
CARRIED
Officer Recommendation
(a) That the Audit Committee Annual Report for 2010/2011 be received.
(b) That the Audit Committee be commended for their contribution to enhancing the corporate governance of the Glenelg Shire and for the quality of their role and work.
Crs Stephens and White
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 25 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS:1277730, 1277731, 1277732, 1277733, 1277728, 1277729)
Group Manager: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager Assets and Infrastructure Author: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager Assets and Infrastructure
Executive Summary
This report appraises the recently completed “supplementary study” relating to waste disposal options, including the future of Portland Landfill.
Background
1. Council Plan 2009-2013 and 2011/12 Budget Context
a) The Glenelg Council Plan 2009-2013 has been prepared, approved and reviewed annually pursuant to Section 125 of the Local Government Act 1989.
The Strategic Objective titled “Building Quality Places” contains various Strategies to achieve such Strategic Objective, including:
“Review municipal waste management options and directions to make informed decisions relating to the future use of the Portland Landfill site and final recommendations within the Regional Waste Management Plan.”
One of the listed Strategic Indicators to monitor the achievement of the relevant Strategic Objective is:
“Evidence based strategies and an action plan will be adopted for managing waste into the future.”
b) Council‟s adopted 2011/12 Budget includes various identified Key Strategic Activities (KSA‟s) pursuant to Section 127(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, with these required to be aligned to the “activities and initiatives to be funded in the budget” which “will contribute to achieving the strategic objectives specified in the Council Plan”.
One of the listed KSA‟s is:
“We will commence schematic design and application for approvals relating to the adopted waste disposal option for waste currently received at the Portland Landfill”.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 26 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
The relevant “Performance Measure” within the KSA is:
“Council has received a progress report relating to commencement of schematic design and application for external approvals for the adopted waste management option”.
The relevant “Performance Target” for this KSA is:
“By 30 June 2012”.
c) The report titled “F7 Review of Council Plan – 2010/11 Key Strategic Activities” made to the Council Meeting on 26 July 2011 included the following comments which are a precursor to the relevant 2011/12 KSA:
“Actual: 1. As of 31 December 2010, a study was well advanced to review Glenelg Shire‟s waste disposal options and strategic directions, but not completed – refer comments below. 2. Ground water and landfill gas audits were completed for Portland Landfill by early December 2010 and the finalised Clean Up Plan was forwarded to the Environment Protection Authority on 8 April 2011 (DWS 1150817).
Comment: 1. The current study was expanded in April 2011 in order to obtain more robust cost estimates of options and is now targeted for completion by 31 July 2011. Hence, the options and strategic directions for landfill waste disposal will necessarily take longer; particularly as the final conclusions from such study are also dependent on further discussions with EPA Statutory Services section in order to ensure that such conclusions can be regarded as “seriously entertained” in sustainable statutory/environmental/ economic terms. 2. EPA appraisal/decision is still outstanding as to consequent service (environment protection) improvement plans as of 30 June 2011. There will also be a direct nexus between such plans and the amended EPA Licence which was issued for Portland Landfill on 30 June 2010.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 27 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
2. Regulatory Framework and other Key References
(a) The Environment Protection Act 1970 (the Act) and regulations under the Act together with all policies of the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) comprise the primary regulatory framework relating to the development and operation of a municipal landfill site.
(b) Since approximately early 2009 the EPA gave notice of its intention to implement “Landfill Sector Reform” consisting of 3 key elements, ie:
EPA Licencing Reform This program includes development of new guidelines for licence management, assessment and annual performance statement. All existing landfill licences were proposed to be reformed by December 2010.
Landfill Best Practice Environmental Management (Landfill BPEM) review. This review has essentially updated/amended a previous publication 788 (October 2001) titled “Siting, Design, Operation and Rehabilitation of Landfills”. The replacement publication 788.1 (September 2010) has the same title but contains key changes relating primarily to clarification of buffer distances, tighter landfill gas emission limits, and additional specifications for alternate capping and enhanced degradation cells.
Increased Landfill Levies. On 24 March 2010 the previous Victorian Government announced a 5 year-stepped increase in landfill levies, commencing in 2010/11; also refer report D11 to the Council Meeting of 27 April 2010. This was to amount to an overall 380% increase in the Rural Municipal Levy and a 358% increase in the Rural Industrial Levy.
On 3 May 2011 the new Victorian Government announced a one year bringing forward in the stepped increase in landfill levies, commencing 2011/12; also refer report D10 “Increase in Landfill Levies – Schedule D, Environment Protection Act 1970”to the Council Meeting of 28 June 2011. Council‟s Landfill Waste Disposal Fees were adjusted to generate most of the additional amount to be paid to the State Government.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 28 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
The Landfill Sector Reform Linkages are shown on Appendix A to this report. Whilst the third aspect of such reform affects all municipalities, the first two aspects relate most directly to those municipalities who operate licensed landfills, whether “stand alone” or alternatively, as a “host” to other municipalities.
(c) In addition to the Act and the Landfill BPEM, other specific statutes and guidelines are as follows:
Environment Protection (Scheduled Premises and Exemptions) Regulations 2007.
Licence Management Guidelines (EPA publication 1322) - general information on licensing.
Annual Performance Statement Guidelines (EPA publication 1320) - this outlines annual reporting requirements.
Licence Assessment Guidelines (EPA publication 1321) - this relates to development of a risk-based monitoring program.
Landfill Licensing Guidelines (EPA publication 1323) - this details the new cell approval processes, landfill monitoring and the role of environmental auditors.
(d) As an “overarching” context to the above, in September 2010 the EPA announced its intention to review its approach to compliance and enforcement i.e. refer EPA publication 1354 (September 2010) titled “EPA‟s Compliance and Enforcement Review”.
The new “EPA Victoria – Compliance and Enforcement Policy” was released in June 2011 (Publication 1388).
Key excerpts from this publication are –
“EPA aims to be an effective regulator and an influential authority on environmental impacts that also exercises its statutory authority fairly and credibly. This policy articulates EPA‟s approach, method and priorities in ensuring compliance with our Acts and carrying out our compliance and enforcement powers.
The policy also identifies many of EPA‟s enforcement powers, how they differ depending on how severe the non-compliance is, and an explanation of how and when they will be used. EPA commits itself to this policy and the principles it establishes”.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 29 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
“Compliance” means following the law. It means obtaining the right approvals or permissions. It means conducting authorised activities in accordance with any conditions or regulatory requirements.
Compliance is the responsibility of all business, organisations, governments and individuals. Everyone has obligations under the law”.
“The EP Act gives us discretion in how we exercise our functions and address the harms and impacts it was established to prevent and control. This discretion includes how we prioritise and allocate our resources and how enforcement decisions are made and what actions are taken. EPA‟s Regulatory Model and this policy explain how we enforce the legislation, administer, and prioritise our compliance and enforcement activity. They outline the strategies we will apply when dealing with those industries and businesses we regulate”.
“EPA address non-compliance with the law and standards by objectively and assertively requiring remedy and, where appropriate, applying sanctions”.
“A core function of EPA is to determine levels of compliance with current standards and laws, and maintain a credible risk of detecting non-compliance”.
In this respect, the current (amended) licence for Portland Landfill includes the following:
“Compliance: you must comply at all times with the Act and all policies and regulations administered by the EPA. Strict penalties apply for non-compliance with any part of your licence or making a false claim on your annual performance statement. Penalties include fines of up to 2400 penalty units and/or imprisonment up to 2 years for company directors”.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 30 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
3. Portland Landfill – Brief History
(a) The 34.8ha Portland Landfill site (bounded by Cape Nelson Road - Malings Road - McNeillys Road – Derril Road) is understood to have commenced operations (adjoining Cape Nelson Road) in the 1950‟s, with extension into the middle part of the site circa early 1980‟s – refer Appendix B.
The whole of the site is zoned Public Use Zone No.6 (Local Government) except for a small triangular area in the eastern corner which is zoned Public Park and Recreation. The zoning of surrounding lands is Public Park and Recreation zone (Yarraman Park), Public Use Zone No.5 (Portland Cemetery), Rural Conservation Zone No.1 and Farming Zone.
The approx 25% eastern portion of the site is a Crown reserve with the balance of approx 75% being Council freehold land.
The early operations involved filling an original sand/sandstone quarry, however the majority of area used to date for waste disposal has been through a trench-and-fill operation.
(b) An EPA Waste Discharge Licence (No. HS776) (the Licence) was issued on 12 March 1976. The Landfill is licensed to accept domestic garbage, solid inert waste, putrescible waste not of domestic origin, a limited range of prescribed wastes (including asbestos), industrial waste and commercial waste.
The Landfill is not lined and there has been little change to the Licence in terms of design and operation of the site since an amendment in 1992, but with an amended Licence (current Licence) being issued for the site on 30 June 2010 as part of the EPA‟s Licence Reform Program. This will be subject to further comment later in this report.
(c) On 24 March 2009 Council considered a report (Item D7) titled “Proposed Supplementary Study to Review Glenelg Shire‟s Options and Strategic Directions within Updated Regional Waste Management Plan”.
This previous report related to the need for a supplementary study before a final decision could be reached “as to whether an extension of Portland Landfill is the best outcome in terms of both waste management planning and Glenelg‟s financial sustainability requirements”.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 31 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
The methodology of the proposed supplementary study was identified as needing to include the following:
Waste generation projections
Alternative landfilling options
Alternative waste transfer scenarios
Contemporary standards and requirements, particularly with respect to environmental management (eg methane recovery systems and groundwater monitoring – protection).
Greenhouse gas impacts
Financial evaluation.
4. Landfill Environmental Management Obligations relating to Past and Present Waste Disposal Activity, Independent of Future Waste Disposal Options
Part 7 onwards of this report relates to the central issue of whether Council should continue to operate Portland Landfill or alternatively, follow a different longer term waste disposal option, for waste presently received for disposal at Portland Landfill.
However, regardless of which option is chosen, best practice capping- rehabilitation and other requirements to deal with “legacy” environmental management would be required for previously filled or current landfill cells, also being in satisfaction of the current Licence.
Hence, the unavoidable cost obligation of best practice rehabilitation/environmental management is a “constant” for all future waste disposal scenarios, i.e. including the renewal/upgrading capital and operational costs associated with such rehabilitation/environmental management.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 32 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
Best practice rehabilitation and aftercare requirements are set out in Part 8 of the Landfill BPEM and consists of the following primary components:
Site after-use planning, including settlement and final surface profile design aspects.
Landfill capping works.
Aftercare management relating to:
Maintenance of landfill cap;
Maintenance and operation of leachage collection and treatment system;
Maintenance and operation of landfill gas-extractions system;
Environmental monitoring of groundwater, surface water, landfill gas, leachage and settlement.
The above components involve substantial capital and operational expenditure, including a planned and systematic approach relating to data collection/observations, then review and audit opinion with respect to performance monitoring/reporting and compliance with EPA requirements.
5. Landfill Environmental Audit Reports – Groundwater and Landfill Gas
(a) On 23 November 2009 an EPA-appointed environmental auditor was engaged (by Council‟s initiative) with respect to a “due diligence” “audit under Section 53V of the Act in relation to the risk of any possible harm or detriment to the land and groundwater caused by the activities conducted at the premises”.
The auditor‟s final report was received by Council and the EPA on 30 June 2010.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 33 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
The scope and timing of the audit was subject to minor adjustment in order to fulfil certain requirements of the EPA Clean Up Notice No 8243 issued on 3 March 2010 i.e. refer previous Councillor Update of 22 March 2010.
The Groundwater Environmental Report contains 20 recommendations (inclusive of implementation timetables), being “recommended measures to reduce and manage risk to beneficial groundwater at acceptable levels”. The recommendations involve capital expenditure to upgrade the monitoring bore network (Recommendations 1, 2, 3), with the balance of recommendations primarily relating to specific investigations, maintenance and ongoing monitoring and reporting.
(b) The scope of the brief given to the EPA-appointed auditor (as in a) above) was expanded on 4 March 2010 arising from the content of the EPA Clean Up Notice No 8243 of 3 March 2010, with the auditor being requested to “carry out an audit under Section 53V of the Environment Protection Act 1970 in relation to the risk of any possible harm or detriment to the land and air caused by the landfill gas generated as a result of activities conducted at the premises”.
The final report relating to the landfill gas audit was received by Council and the EPA on 3 December 2010.
This audit report contains 8 recommendations relating to “measures to reduce and manage risks to beneficial uses at acceptable levels (and also cognisant of the auditor‟s discussion of the principals and “drivers” for mediation”.
These recommendations also involve various non-capital project activities, together with ongoing data collection and associated monitoring and reporting requirements.
It should be noted that this audit concluded “the data on landfill gas and currents show no evidence of methane migration in the soil beyond the site boundary”. This view gave a more positive outlook compared to an assessment given in a previous consultant desktop- only study of June 2009, noting that such previous study was apparently the cited “evidence” why the EPA included such matter in the Clean Up Notice i.e. such inclusion was certainly not based on any evidence of non-compliance gained through any EPA enforcement measure.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 34 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
(c) As per Section 62A(1A) of the Act, a Clean Up Plan (as endorsed by the auditor) was forwarded by Council to the EPA on 7 March 2011, largely based on the preceding audit reports. This Clean Up Plan contains 22 identified investigation/monitoring/ameliorative actions (to be completed between 30 March 2011 – 30 March 2012) relating to groundwater and 8 identified actions (to be completed between 30 March 2011 – 30 June 2012) relating to landfill gas.
(d) As discussed later in this report, the scope of measures incorporated within the Clean Up Plan (groundwater and landfill gas) are partly within the “ordinary” scope of what would be required for both landfill operation and future rehabilitation/environmental management requirements and partly supplementary, having regard to requirements for upgraded monitoring and reporting in order to provide a higher degree of evidence with respect to the reduction and management of the relevant environmental risks.
6. Amended Landfill Licence Provisions
Unlike some larger metropolitan landfills, the previous (post-1992 amendment) Licence for the Portland Landfill was not specifically further amended to incorporate the previous Version 1 (2001) of Landfill BPEM. However, Version 2 (2010) is expressly included within the current (amended) Licence issued on 30 June 2010 i.e. through Conditions L5, L6, L7, also under the generic compliance requirements which refer to “all policies and regulations administered by the EPA”.
Therefore, the express provisions of the Licence immediately went from a “moderate” level to a “very high” level, but with no stated transition arrangement/methodology whereby those aspects of current landfill activities not satisfying Landfill BPEM would be succeeded by new/different landfill activities which satisfy Landfill BPEM (2010 version). In this respect, up to 30 June 2010, it would seem that Landfill BPEM (2001) was a non-statutory “guide” but not legally binding or incorporated within the pre-30 June 2010 Licence.
The substantive parts of the current (post-30 June 2010) Licence are included as Appendix C of this report.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 35 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
As set out in Part 2 of this report, current guidelines relating to Licence management, assessment and annual performance statement are an integral part of the structure of the current Licence. Essentially, this structure requires the holder of a licence to provide evidence of compliance with conditions through performance monitoring and reporting provisions, as compared to past practices where the licensing body would take the primary role through a range of education, advice and enforcement measures.
As briefly described in Part 2 of this report, the new “EPA Victoria – Compliance and Enforcement Policy” (June 2011) has moved to a risk- based model “in which our targeting of enforcement and our responses to incidents, compliance requirements, level of non-compliance and pollution reports will change depending on the risk or harm to health and the environment”. This policy essentially considers the degree of risk or harm to the environment in combination with the likelihood of non- compliance.
7. Waste Disposal Options Study
a) Council‟s 2009-10 Budget contained an allocation for the relevant “Waste Disposal Option Study” (the Study), but with procurement of specialist special services delayed somewhat due to the need to give precedence to the environmental audits described in Part 5 of this report, with the outcomes of such audits also being a direct input into the Study brief.
The Study commenced in July 2010 “to assist Council in addressing a number of strategic and practical questions in relation to the Portland Landfill. These questions revolved around the central issue of whether Council should continue to operate the Landfill, replace it with an alternative technology (particularly for the processing of leachage waste), or transfer the waste presently received at the site to an external landfill or other waste management facility”.
The initial/draft analysis and findings of the Study were prepared by late 2010, but with capital and operating cost estimates quoted to be in the range of ± 30% - 50%. However, because the financial analysis (in net present value terms) between the two most probable candidate options was more in the order of 7% - 14%, it was recognised that further investigations were warranted to enable better cost estimation of the more viable waste disposal options, which would then enable the financial analysis to be further refined.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 36 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
The additional investigation was commissioned in May 2011 and comprised 10 discrete items of further investigation, with particular reference to a Leachate Management Plan and Concept Design Stormwater Management Plan and Waste Transfer Station Conceptual Design.
The Study report titled “Portland Landfill – Waste Disposal Options Study” (September 2011) is included as Appendix D to this report, noting that the substantive content of the Study is not recopied in this report.
b) Based on projected population and waste stream characteristics, the Study has examined four primary future waste disposal options taking into account candidate alternative sites, alternative transfer station designs, the prospect of using rail transport, also alternative waste technologies. Capital and operating costs have been included for a 30 year modelling period (2012-2042) and calculated at 2011 undiscounted and discounted (net present value (NPV)) for each option. As a result of the further investigation, confidence limits are now in the order of ± 10% - 15%. Notwithstanding some uncertainties, allowance has been made for the introduction of a Carbon Tax from 1 July 2012. For the purposes of NPV analysis, a stepped-in carbon price of $23.00/tonne in 2012/13 (moving to $23.58/ tonne and $24.16/tonne in 2014/15) has been used, as per the Federal Government‟s announcement around mid 2011 and since introduced as new legislation before Parliament. The comparison of alternative options does not include the “constant” of rehabilitation costs for filled or current cells at Portland Landfill, i.e. which would be required for all options. The 30 year NVP analysis within Table 6 of the Study report shows that Option 1a) upgraded, continuing use of the Portland Landfill site in accordance with the Landfill BPEM) would be more advantageous than Option 2a) (closure of Portland Landfill and full transfer of all non-recyclable materials as a “guest” to the Naroghid Landfill (near Camperdown) for disposal).
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 37 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
c) Whilst Option 4 (diversion of waste to an alternative waste technologies facility) is closest in NPV financial terms to Option 1a) or Option 1b), it is noted that the NVP analysis does not take account of the cost of introducing a separate kerbside bin for organic waste, being a significant cost to the community. It is also noted that the introduction of regional alternative waste facilities (AWT) into regional Victoria would appear to rely on a large population base, particularly if there is to be viability for investment involvement through the private sector through a form of “build- own-operate-transfer” model. In this respect, it is understood that an AWT facility previously proposed to be established through involvement of the private sector under contract to the Barwon Regional Waste Management Group has now “collapsed”. In addition, there are no AWT facilities yet committed or established in Victoria at this time.
d) From Table 6 in the Study report, the following has been noted:
There would be a significant capital cost saving (18% less) to Council in raising the final surface profile of the Portland Landfill site from that presently proposed and hence increasing the average waste depth, from 6.5m to 10.0m. Although needing further investigation, it would appear that the 10.0m average waste depth may be feasible, subject to the following:
The Landfill BPEM does not mandate the separation distances from groundwater but essentially repeats a clause within the EPA Waste Management Policy (WMP) which was proclaimed in 2004. However, although the WMP provided that “all new landfill sites must deposit waste at least 2 metres above the long term undisturbed depth of groundwater, unless certain conditions apply”. However, the Portland Landfill is definitely not “new” and hence does not fall under the control of the above WMP clause. Hence, in these circumstances, the 2 metre separation requirement has not been mandated for the Portland Landfill site.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 38 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
A 10 metre average waste depth creates a final surface profile at a higher level above original natural surface hence acceptability of such landform in (aesthetic and viewshed terms) would form part of the EPA‟s consideration of the relevant design.
It can be seen that Option 1b) is more advantageous than Option 1a), relative to Option 2a) i.e. for total undiscounted costs, Option 2a) is 16.8% higher than Option 2b) and 25% higher for total discounted costs.
From a cost perspective alone, there is no benefit to Council (within Option 2a) in continuing to dispose of solid inert waste only at Portland Landfill, but transferring putrescible waste to an external facility.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 39 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
8. Study Recommendations and Comparative Risk Aspects between Candidate Waste Disposal Options
From the Study report, a comparative listing is given relating to Option 1a) and Option 2a) as follows:
Option 2a) Option 1a) Closure of landfill, establish New (upgraded) landfill activity Item transfer station, transfer all on same site, satisfying Landfill waste to an existing external BPEM landfill (Naroghid).
1. Capital cost (30 $27.244m $6.894m years, undiscounted) 2. Operating Cost $46.002m $72.973m (30 years, undiscounted) 3. NPV (30 years $24.362m $28.678m from 2012 – 2042, (i.e. $0.812m/year averaged) (i.e. $0.956m/year averaged) but at 2011 values; 7% discount rate, capital & operating) Note: Stated confidence limits of above capital/operational costs ± 10% - 15%, hence these figures should be used primarily for comparative purposes. 4a) Strengths Represents status quo and No requirement to operate a hence familiarity of option with landfill or to develop a new Landfill users and Council staff. Landfill upon completion/closure of existing Council retains ownership and Landfill. management and hence full
control over the decision- No long-term liabilities and making in relation to waste responsibilities associated with disposal. future waste disposal. Lowest cost option to Council in One of the lower cost options the short time medium and long to Council. term.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 40 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
Option 2a) Option 1a) Closure of landfill, establish New (upgraded) landfill activity Item transfer station, transfer all on same site, satisfying Landfill waste to an existing external BPEM landfill (Naroghid). 4b) Weaknesses Significant capital investment to Significant capital investment upgrade the Landfill to best to establish a new transfer practice standards. station at the same site. As organic waste continues to As organic waste continues to be landfilled, rather than divert be land filled rather than it and process, this option is diverted and processed, this lowest on the waste option is lowest on the waste management hierarchy. management hierarchy. High greenhouse gas emissions High greenhouse gas associated with landfilling of emissions associated with land organic waste. filling of organic waste and waste transport. Continues to attract high landfill levy charges as a result of low Continues to attract high diversion of organic waste. landfill levy charges as a result of low diversion of organic waste. Higher cost option (in overall undiscounted capital and operating terms i.e. $79.867m vs. $73.247m (9.0% higher) compared to Option 1a) but 16.8% higher if Option 1b) design is approved. 4c) Risk Aspects Risk of groundwater Council heavily exposed to contamination unless lining and the financial impacts of capping systems for all future increasing landfill standards cells are to best practice and levy charges and the standards. possible introduction of the Carbon Tax. Council heavily exposed to the financial impacts of increasing Waste disposal responsibilities landfill standards and levy and decision making no charges and the possible longer within the direct control introduction of the carbon of Council. Council therefore pricing. is at the mercy or influence of external landfill operators for the setting of gate charges.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 41 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
Option 2a) Option 1a) Closure of landfill, establish New (upgraded) landfill activity Item transfer station, transfer all on same site, satisfying Landfill waste to an existing external BPEM landfill. 5. Other Operating costs will need to Transfer of waste to an Comments take into account the full cost external landfill, in particular of all operational, putrescible waste, may environmental management reduce potential and administrative environmental liabilities to monitoring/reporting Council, but does not compliance requirements. It is necessarily reduce the overall estimated this represents an risk to the environment; additional recurrent cost of at arguably, the risks are least $100,000 annually relative increased as a result of the to pre 30 June 2010 Licence road transport of waste. provisions (excluding those Further, this option has a high rehabilitation and on carbon footprint. environmental management This option has a significantly costs for filled/current Landfill higher operational cost which cells which are a “constant” for will contribute to an increase all future waste disposal in particularly average options. residential rates assessments, With continuing/upgraded use noting that the waste of the Portland Landfill site, it is management service charge possible that the EPA may (however titled) is a unit cost require some form of landfill gas within the property extraction, even if only a rates/charges structure. passive system. In this respect, it currently appears that power generation is unlikely to be financially viable for Portland Landfill. For this option, there will be continuing (periodic) capital projects associated with future (upgraded) Landfill BPEM development, again excluding those capital costs associated with environmental management/Clean Up Plan etc which is a “constant” with all options.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 42 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
Option 2a) Option 1a) Closure of landfill, establish New (upgraded) landfill activity Item transfer station, transfer all on same site satisfying Landfill waste to an existing external BPEM landfill. 5. Other The prospect of a 3-5 year The prospect of a 3-5 year Comments “extension” of utilising the “extension” of utilising the (continued) existing unlined “cell” at existing unlined “cell” at Portland Landfill is not an option Portland Landfill is not an i.e. it is clear that the EPA will option i.e. it is clear that the only “tolerate” the non- EPA will only “tolerate” the compliant aspects of current non-compliant aspects of Landfill activity if there is both current Landfill activity if there high priority/clear progress with is both high priority/clear an appropriate “improvement progress with an appropriate plan”, including the monitoring “improvement plan”, of progress in moving towards including the monitoring of various accepted targets under progress in moving towards such plan. However, any various accepted targets “improvement plan” towards under such plan. Licence compliance must be based on a strategic, long term Conversely, apart from any approach, i.e. it is not tenable contractual arrangements for investment to occur towards with the “host” landfill fully compliant/upgraded operator, Council is also not Landfill arrangements unless this “locked in” to indefinite use of is validated as being the longer this option. For example, if term option. establishment of an alternative waste technology It should be noted that waste facility (either locally or in disposal operations at the close proximity became Landfill would be expanded on viable, Council would still a cell-by-cell basis (to best retain flexibility to discontinue practice standards) however Option 2a) and instead pursue this does not necessarily mean another waste disposal option that in the short or longer term, involving “alternative the opportunity to consider an technologies”. alternative option is removed. For example, if the viability of a regionally-based alternative waste technology facility improves, or legislative or community pressure to divert waste from landfill increases further, Council will still retain flexibility to close the Landfill and pursue another waste disposal option.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 43 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
9. Further “Scenario” Comments relating to Candidate Waste Disposal Options
Waste Disposal Option1a) – Waste Disposal Option 2(a) - Scenario Comments Comments a) What may No direct impact as Option 1a) Reverting to Option1a) happen if the is a standalone (single would not be possible as municipal municipality) option. Portland Landfill would (regional have been long-since “host”) landfill closed and subject to at Naroghid rehabilitation and “legacy” closes (or environmental ceases to be management. a “host”) well before the Subject to prevailing end of the directions for waste disposal relevant 30 in State-wide and regional year analysis terms, the alternative would period? be to negotiate with another potential “host” landfill provider or alternatively, to be a “guest” at an AWT facility possibly within the wider central/western Victoria “regions”. b) What are the Lower impact as the end This option is most sensitive possible “disposal site” for the majority to rising transport costs, implications of deposited waste is closest to being an approx $472,500 of global the points of waste generation. (present-day) cost “peak oil” In this respect, it should be component for 2012 occurring noted as the existing estimated tonnages. well within unlicensed landfills at the 30 year Casterton, Merino, Dartmoor, Increasing fuel costs for analysis Heywood, Nelson are transport vehicles will further period? progressively closed and increase innovation and replaced by transfer stations, markets for waste the „feeder” model is likely to minimisation and be as follows – recycling/recovery.
Casterton Transfer Station waste likely to go to Hamilton (i.e. as a “guest”) or alternatively, to a regional AWT in the very long term? Transfer stations waste from Merino, Dartmoor, Heywood, Nelson to go to Portland then into the extended use of Portland Landfill (Option 1a).
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 44 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
Waste Disposal Option1a) – Waste Disposal Option 2(a) - Scenario Comments Comments c) What are the implications of This option would most likely Refer comments at left. progressive result in lower carbon tax implementation of payments as extra emissions a fully attributable arising from long haulage carbon tax? distances to an external landfill site are avoided.
However, if a regional site is more effective in collecting and flaring landfill gas than at Portland Landfill then this may be an offset advantage towards Option 2a)? d) What are the implications of In order to assist viability of In relative terms, such mandated regional an AWT facility, closure of implications would be use of an AWT landfills in the region could minimal i.e. the newly facility well within be mandated. This would developed transfer station the 30 analysis not necessarily cause the would be continued to be period? initial Option 1a) to be less used for transport of waste advantageous than an to the AWT facility, which initial Option 2a) unless would be almost certainly much of the upfront east of Warrnambool. investment within Portland Landfill for Landfill BPEM compliance (eg leachate management, stormwater management, landfill gas collection etc) has an amortisation period which goes well beyond any closure arising from mandated use of an AWT facility.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 45 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
Waste Disposal Option1a) – Waste Disposal Option 2(a) - Scenario Comments Comments e) What are the implications of a At present, there do not It must be assumed that any further “ramping- appear to be any new “ramping up” of landfill up” of the Landfill regulatory or policy requirements will be applied BPEM requirements changes currently being evenly to all licensed and other proposed by the EPA (or the landfills, with the costs to be regulations relating Victorian Government) directly passed on to all to licensed landfills which would result in a “guest” municipalities. In within the 30 year further “tightening” of this respect, the best analysis period? landfill development or practice requirements for operating standards. lining of landfill cells etc are being fully applied at However, over a 30 year Naroghid, albeit that period it could probably be Naroghid has a clay assumed that there will be substrate with much deeper further tightening of operating groundwater levels. standards, noting that the major cost increases for establishing/ developing landfills will mean that there will be a trend towards fewer (but larger) landfills in Regional Victoria, commanding extensive population catchments. For example, Greater Bendigo City Council is now a “guest” at the Naroghid Landfill (near Camperdown), representing a haul distance of approximately 250km; (Portland is approx 168km from Naroghid).
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 46 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
Waste Disposal Option1a) – Waste Disposal Option 2(a) - Scenario Comments Comments f) What are the alternative revenue Refer Appendix E1 which The same comments apply strategies if landfill shows annual and i.e. even if transfer station gate fees based on cumulative capital and gate fees replace landfill full cost recovery operating costs for Option gate fees. become 1a). As seen, cumulative increasingly capital costs ($27.244m Appendix E2 shows annual regressive? undiscounted) are and cumulative capital and approximately 59% of operating costs for Option cumulative operating costs 2a). As seen, there is the ($46.002m undiscounted). high ($4.95m) upfront cost of the new transfer station For full cost recovery, annual before commencing operating costs must be operations with only reflected within the waste moderate capital costs management service charge thereafter. and landfill gate fees. The same principle should apply In this case, cumulative to the amortised capital costs. capital costs ($6.894m undiscounted) are approx Notwithstanding the above, 9.5% of cumulative operating consideration may need to costs ($72.9m undiscounted). be given for at least part of the amortised capital costs being recovered through a form of Shire-wide waste facility development charge in order to avoid landfill gate fees becoming excessively high and therefore regressive i.e. leading to increased dumping of waste, for which there is higher vulnerability within a large rural municipality. g) What other direct- effect climate This is speculative except Same comments as on the change that it could be expected left. remediation or that there will be progressive adaption regulatory change to requirements may “encourage” polluters to be introduced over adapt/change to different the 30 year analysis methods, in addition to the period? direct (incentive) method of taxing carbon emissions.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 47 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
10. Landfill Design, Capital Investment and Operational Requirements to Satisfy Licence Conditions
This report has related primarily to regulatory requirements and findings from the Study. However, overall implementation steps must take an integrated approach to every component relating to the upgrading, operation, environmental management and rehabilitation/aftercare at the Portland Landfill site, particularly with regard to the short and medium term i.e. 2011/12- 2014/15.
The table below sets out the 7 key aspects of Landfill planning and management activity, inclusive of preliminary estimates for both capital and operational expenditures.
EPA referral/ Preliminary Estimates Activity Timing approval Capital Operational required
1. Clean Up Plan a) Groundwater (2 March 2011 Not directly; $140,000 2010/11Nil – measures) – March monitoring/ $150,000 2011/12included in 2012 reporting via 2. below Condition L2 within Licence. b) Landfill Gas (8 March 2011 Not directly; $50,000 2010/11Nil – measures) – June 2012 monitoring/ $25,000 2011/12included in reporting via 2. below Condition L2 within Licence.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 48 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued) EPA referral/ Preliminary Estimates Activity Timing approval Capital Operational required 2. Upgraded Operation to Landfill BPEM as per Licence requirements a) Site-specific 1 July 2010 a) - l) __ __ Environment onwards inclusive; Improvement Plan approx a) – k) $962,000pa b) Waste inclusive __ __ from 2011/12 minimisation measures i.e. Licence
c) Waste requirements __ __ acceptance measures plus all other unavoidable d) Waste pre- __ __ operational/ treatment measures maintenance
recurrent costs (before netted against e) Waste placement income. measures (Type 2 __ __ equipment)
f) Waste cover measures – insufficient __ __ cover due to lack of material
g) Litter control __ __ measures
h) Fire Management __ __ Plan
i) Management of __ __ chemical and fuel
j) Disease vector __ __ control
k) Noxious weed __ __ control Yes __ l) Performance July 2010 Nil – included monitoring & reporting onwards in 2. above. on groundwater, landfill gas (partly combined with 1. above during 2010/11, 2011/12. Yes __ Internal m) Financial By 30 June resources Assurance Statement. annually Yes __ Internal n) Performance By 30 June resources Statement. annually Yes __ Internal o) Landfill Levy By end each resources Statement quarter
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 49 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
EPA referral/ Preliminary Estimates Activity Timing approval Capital Operational required
p) Annual Waste By 30 Yes __ Internal Deposited Survey (Pre September resources Settlement) annually
q) Notification to EPA of Immediatel Yes __ Internal any non-compliance y resources with Licence condition(s). 3. New landfill cell December Yes $60,000 __ investigation/design in 2011 – (Condition 2011/12 compliance with Landfill February L7) BPEM. 2012 $750,000 4. New landfill cell July – __ __ 2012/13 construction, including September
environmental measures 2012 (leachate collection, stormwater management, Landfill gas control/collection, air quality, site security/fencing) 6. Rehabilitation of past December Yes $450,000 Nil- landfill cell(s) subsequent 2012 – 2013/14 included in to new landfill activity, in approx 1, 2 above. accordance with September $450,000 Rehabilitation Plan 2013 2014/15
7. Rehabilitation of new 2015 Yes $450,000 Nil - landfill cell, when included in completed 1, 2 above.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 50 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F3. WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS STUDY, INCLUDING FUTURE OF PORTLAND LANDFILL (continued)
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council endorse Option 1(a) (upgraded/continuing use of the Portland Landfill site, satisfying the Landfill Best Practice Environmental Management, September 2010), as described in Part 7 and Appendix D to this report, but noting that Option 1(b) (10m average waste depth) is to be further investigated as the first preference.
2. That Council endorse the implementation steps for 1. above, being an integral part of overall planning and management activities for Portland Landfill as set out in Part 10 of this report, noting that various activities will be subject to continuing monitoring and review.
3. That an extract of Council Minutes for this item be forwarded to the Environment Protection Authority (Victoria), as the relevant statutory authority and Licenser.
Crs Halliday and Northcott
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 51 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F4. VICROADS PROJECT – HENTY HIGHWAY PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS AT FAWTHROP STREET, PORTLAND (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1277101, 1277102)
Group Manager: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager – Assets & Infrastructure Author: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager – Assets & infrastructure
Executive Summary
This report provides information relating to the concept development stage for the VicRoads project Henty Highway Pedestrian Overpass at Fawthrop Street, Portland.
Background
1. Urban Structure Context
The central and part of the southern urban areas in Portland have the following structure layout characteristics:
The east-west alignments of the Henty Highway and railway together with Fawthrop Lagoon/upstream wetlands effectively form a physical barrier between Bentinck Street and the north-south alignment of the Henty Highway (north of Wattle Hill Creek).
The only north-south pedestrian link across such physical barrier is through a constructed causeway across the wetlands at the west end of Fawthrop Lagoon. On the north side of the Henty Highway this connects to the street network at Bentinck Street, Hood Street, Glenelg Street, Blair Street and Anderson Street. On the south side of the Henty Highway this connects to the northern end of Fawthrop Street.
The pedestrian link at Fawthrop Street effectively serves residential catchments up to approximately 1.5km distant both north and south of the Henty Highway – also refer Appendix A.
The pedestrian link across the Henty Highway at Fawthrop Street is a key part of a safe access network serving the “schools precinct” in the Fawthrop Street/Trangmar Street area.
The Fawthrop Street link also has a similar access function for bicycle or mobility aid travel, particularly in preference to any alternative travel route along the Henty Highway.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 52 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F4. VICROADS PROJECT – HENTY HIGHWAY PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS AT FAWTHROP STREET, PORTLAND (continued)
2. Proposed Pedestrian Overpass
(a) As part of its platform during the 2010 Election, the State Government has made a commitment for the construction of a pedestrian overpass to link existing paths on the north side of the Henty Highway to the Fawthrop Street footpath on the south side of the Henty Highway.
As the railway reservation is contiguous with the Highway reservation, the overpass structure must have an underside clearance to accommodate the envelopes for both road and rail traffic.
In addition, ramps and landings for the overpass structure must satisfy the relevant Australian Standards for accessibility, taking into account the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act (Cwth).
Other concept development considerations relate to existing overhead or underground services, also any viewsheds which may overlook adjacent residential properties.
(b) During the first half of July 2011 VicRoads forwarded preliminary options for the pedestrian overpass, particularly in terms of ramp configurations. This was followed by a site inspection between VicRoads and Council officers.
Although VicRoads have yet to bring back a finalised concept design, it is expected this will have the following features –
The structure is likely to have a skewed approx 44m single span across the Highway carriageway and the railway.
To adhere to maximum grades, the northern ramp is likely to extend from the north side of the railway to just south of the main Wattle Creek waterway structure. However, it is likely that alternative stairs will also be provided to provide the option of most direct access to the on-ground paths which run parallel to the north side of the railway, in either direction.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 53 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F4. VICROADS PROJECT – HENTY HIGHWAY PEDESTRIAN OVERPASS AT FAWTHROP STREET, PORTLAND (continued)
In order to eliminate all at-grade pedestrian movements across the Highway and railway at the existing crossing location, the Anderson Street footpath link is to be partly relocated to the north side of the railway over a distance of approx 390metres, then to cross the railway (with a Vic Track-compliant at-grade crossing) before reconnecting with the existing path, then over the existing Wattle Creek footbridge to Anderson Street.
The southern ramp is likely to connect directly along the Fawthrop Street prolongation to meet the existing footpath, north of Laguna Court intersection.
Essentially, the restoration of pedestrian access routes will be relatively similar to what occurs when a major road link effectively “severs” an existing vehicular and pedestrian access network within an established urban area.
(c) When the preferred concept layout is finalised VicRoads will proceed to detailed design, with this also entailing continuing liaison with Council officers.
It is understood that construction will commence in 2012/13.
There will need to be further detailed liaison with VicRoads relating to accessibility arrangements during the construction phase, taking particular account of constraints arising from wetlands on the north side of the Highway and railway reservations. There will also be changes to the Crown land reservation status in Fawthrop Lagoon reserve and Fawthrop Street reservation arising from the final land footprint of the overpass structure north and south of the existing Highway reservation.
Officer Recommendation
That this report be received.
Crs White and Wilson
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 54 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F5. GREAT SOUTH COAST GROUP MEMBERSHIP (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and the Media) (DWS: 1277282 & 1277283)
Chief Executive Officer: Sharon Kelsey Author: Karen Foster, Great South Coast Executive Officer
Executive Summary
The aim of this report is to formally ratify Glenelg Shire Council‟s relationship with the Great South Coast Group.
Background
The Great South Coast Group has been an informal coalition of the Shires of Glenelg, Southern Grampians, Moyne, Corangamite, Colac Otway and the City of Warrnambool for the past several years.
This year, the group sought to formalise its alliance and establish a legal entity and, based upon legal advice, has lodged an application with ASIC to form a Company Limited by Guarantee (the Great South Coast Group Ltd).
It has also invested considerable time and effort into formalising its governance structure and processes.
The primary function of the Great South Coast Group is to deliver the Regional Strategic Plan (RSP) and to build the region‟s social, economic and environmental capacity.
The Group is an independent, apolitical organisation that takes responsibility for identifying, developing and delivering projects of regional significance. These must align with the strategic objectives of the RSP.
The RSP has been embraced by both State and Federal Governments. Indeed, our advice has been that projects must be in step with its strategies in order to be considered for Government funding.
The Great South Coast Group also seeks to advocate on behalf of the entire region with State and Federal Governments.
Our success in these activities depends upon the participation and goodwill of each of the member Councils, as well as that of a range of other people and organisations across the region.
The Great South Coast Group‟s governance has been loosely modelled on the successful G21 Regional Alliance (Greater Geelong), with careful modifications to better meet the needs of our region.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 55 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F5. GREAT SOUTH COAST GROUP MEMBERSHIP (continued)
The Great South Coast Constitution and Terms of Reference have been formally adopted by the Board. Copies of these documents have been separately circulated for your reference. These outline in more detail the values, objectives and functions of the Great South Coast Group.
Report
The Great South Coast Board
The Board is currently comprised of the Mayors and CEOs of member Councils, with one vote afforded to each Council via the Mayors.
As set out in the recently adopted Constitution, Expressions of Interest are now being sought for four non-municipal Board members. These appointments will be made according to the skills, experience and passion each individual can bring to the Board.
It is important to note that Board members are independent and are not considered to be representatives of their respective organisations. To achieve its objectives, the Board must have a good mix of proficient Directors, each of whom is able to add value to discussions and debate and bring independent judgement to decision-making processes. These people must be future- oriented and able to demonstrate vision and foresight.
The addition of non-municipal Board members will ensure a greater breadth of views is represented on the Board. The move also recognises that the bulk of Great South Coast projects can only be delivered through partnerships between a range of stakeholders.
Board meetings are held every six weeks. This year, Corangamite Mayor Matt Makin was appointed Board Chair. Corangamite CEO Andrew Mason also takes a leadership role on behalf of the CEOs.
Great South Coast Pillar Groups
Beneath the Board sit four Pillar Groups, each aligned with one of the key strategic directions outlined in the Great South Coast Regional Strategic Plan.
Interim Pillar Group Leaders have been appointed to help drive Pillar Group formation. They are:
Position for Economic Growth: Gary Bebbington, Glenelg Shire Economic Development and Tourism Manager and Portland Bay Local Port Executive Officer.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 56 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F5. GREAT SOUTH COAST GROUP MEMBERSHIP (continued)
Improve our Connections: Interim Pillar Leader: Alex Green, Corangamite Shire Director Works and Services.
Sustain our Natural Assets: Michael McCarthy, Southern Grampians Shire Director Shire Futures.
Strengthen our Communities: Vicky Mason, Warrnambool City Director Community Services.
The fifth key strategy outlined in the Regional Strategic Plan – Increase Collaboration (governance and resources, project prioritisation, measuring our results) – will be absorbed as a function of the Board and Executive Officer.
Pillar Groups will be largely self-directed and self-governing. Membership will be invited from a range of individuals drawn from all sectors of the Great South Coast community. According to the Constitution, Pillar Group members are referred to as Advisory Members – a term reflecting the active participation that will be required.
As with the Board Directors, Advisory Membership will be contingent upon the skills and expertise Advisory Members are able to bring to the organisation. Ideally, Advisory Members will be senior decision-makers with the authority to readily participate in decision-making processes.
At the discretion of Pillar Group leadership and the Board, Working Groups may be established for the life of individual projects. In this way, individuals may seek to become Advisory Members of the Great South Coast Group for a short term.
Priority Projects
As outlined above, it is envisaged that Pillar Groups will take responsibility for identifying, developing and delivering projects of benefit the Great South Coast region.
However, to help the organisation gather momentum, each member Council was invited to nominate its priority projects. A list of 87 projects was tabled and projects were ranked according to their level of preparedness, regional significance and potential for funding. The resulting lists will be examined in greater detail with the support of Pillar Group Leaders. Action plans will be developed.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 57 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F5. GREAT SOUTH COAST GROUP MEMBERSHIP (continued)
The Great South Coast Group is currently working with its G21 neighbours and State Government representatives to develop a more “scientific” set of criteria to guide project prioritisation.
Funding the Great South Coast Group
In 2010/11, each member Council committed $30,000 to fund the Great South Coast Group until June 30, 2012. Unlike the G21 model, under which Councils allocated funding on a sliding scale according to population, the Great South Coast member Councils opted to contribute equally.
This funding is to be used to fund the full-time position of Executive Officer (o2 Media – Karen Foster) and other core operations and activities required to achieve Great South Coast objectives.
Additional and supplementary funding may be obtained from State and Federal Government sources. Financial reports will be made available to Councils.
Benefits of the Regional Model
The benefits of this holistic approach to our region are clear. Working collectively, the six member Councils are able to take a more strategic approach to visioning, planning and development, all the while sharing resources and knowledge.
Importantly, the combined Councils are able to speak with one voice, ensuring concerns and issues impacting our region are heard by Government.
The regional model has been used to great effect in other parts of Australia. Most notably, the G21 Alliance has become a powerful and credible lobbying force for the benefit of the Geelong region and its surrounds.
Although still in its infancy, the Great South Coast Group is developing strong and productive relationships with its neighbours, with State and Federal Government and with a range of other industry and community stakeholders.
Its formation has also been the impetus for a range of other organisations to take a more regional approach under the Great South Coast umbrella.
The Great South Coast Group undertakes to ensure Councils are kept apprised of all developments within the Group via regular communications and reports. Further, the Executive Officer and/or Board Chair are available to meet with individual Councils upon request.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 58 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F5. GREAT SOUTH COAST GROUP MEMBERSHIP (continued)
Issues
As a region, the Great South Coast faces a myriad of challenges and also opportunities. Many of these are set out in the Regional Strategic Plan.
As an organisation, the Great South Coast Group faces its own challenges and opportunities.
Challenges:
The region is geographically large and disparate, making it difficult to adopt a universally shared perspective.
The geography also poses practical challenges in terms of meetings and sharing information and resources.
By its nature, local government tends to focus locally, rather than regionally.
We are currently grappling with the criteria we will use to define and prioritise „regional‟ projects.
There is an impost upon member Councils in terms of the staffing commitment required to ensure the Great South Coast can function.
Opportunities:
The Great South Coast Group will enable our region to take full advantage of major funding opportunities as they arise.
It will also give voice to regional issues with Federal and State Governments.
State and Federal Governments have indicated their willingness to work with and support the Great South Coast Group.
As it matures, the Group will give our region greater political „clout‟.
New opportunities will be created for local government to work more closely with industry and business and with the community, generally.
The Great South Coast Group will become an important new resource to develop, drive and deliver projects of benefit to our entire region.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 59 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F5. GREAT SOUTH COAST GROUP MEMBERSHIP (continued)
Cr Wilson left the Council Chamber at 7.47pm. Cr Wilson returned to the Council Chamber at 7.48pm.
Officer Recommendation
1. That the Glenelg Shire Council formally endorses its membership of the Great South Coast Group until June 2012.
2. That the Common Seal of the Council be affixed to the Consent to Membership document.
3. That the Glenelg Shire Council endorse the Mayor as a Director of the Great South Coast Group and approve completion of the Consent to Act as Director document.
4. That the Glenelg Shire Council considers the ongoing funding of the Great South Coast Group in its 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 budgets.
5. That the Glenelg Shire Council agrees to work closely with the Great South Coast Group, its Board, Pillar Groups and associated working groups to further the Great South Coast objectives.
Crs White and Saunders
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 60 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F6. ABORIGINAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Separate circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1276771)
Group Manager: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development Author: Denis Rose, Aboriginal Development Officer
Executive Summary
In May 2011 the Glenelg Shire Council adopted the Glenelg Aboriginal Partnership Agreement 2011 - 2020 and the Glenelg Aboriginal Partnership Plan 2011 – 2013. The Agreement and Plan were developed by the Indigenous Agreement Steering Committee over the 2010-2011 years.
One of the actions from the Glenelg Aboriginal Partnership Plan is to „establish an Aboriginal Advisory Committee (Committee name from Aboriginal language) to coordinate and monitor the implementation of the Agreement and Plan and to provide advice to Council on relevant matters (to replace Steering Committee).‟
This report seeks Council approval of the draft terms of reference and establishment of an Aboriginal Advisory Committee (Aboriginal language name pending).
Background
The Indigenous Agreement Steering Committee guided the development of the Aboriginal Partnership Agreement and Glenelg Aboriginal Partnership Plan between the Glenelg Shire Council and the Aboriginal communities in the Glenelg Shire.
The establishment of a new Aboriginal Advisory Committee is an action that was identified in the Glenelg Aboriginal Partnership Plan. The Indigenous Agreement Steering Committee held its last meeting on 18 July 2011 and discussed the draft terms of reference for this new committee. It was agreed that new committee is named in the local Aboriginal language, and suggestions are currently being sought from the Gunditj Mirring.
Report
It is proposed that the Aboriginal Advisory Committee (Aboriginal Language name pending) be responsible for providing advice to the Glenelg Shire Council on the Glenelg Aboriginal Partnership Agreement (2011 – 2020) and advice on the implementation of the Glenelg Aboriginal Partnership Plan (2011 – 2013).
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 61 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F6. ABORIGINAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (continued)
The proposed Terms of Reference for the new Committee are attached. These terms of reference should be read in conjunction with the Glenelg Shire Council Organisational Policy – “Council Advisory Committee Policy” – adopted by Council on 15 December 2009.
The Advisory Committee‟s role is to provide advice to the Council and it has no delegated decision-making power. The Advisory Committee will submit any recommendations to the Council for the Council to consider.
Membership of the Committee will consist of nine (9) members:
Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation (2) Dhauwurd Wurrung Elderly and Community Health Service (2) Winda Mara Aboriginal Corporation (2) Glenelg Shire Councillors (3)
A quorum shall consist of a majority of Advisory Committee members, with at least one Councillor Member.
Meetings will be held at least quarterly during the life of the Agreement unless the Committee deems otherwise. Meeting times and venues are to be set by the Committee except for the first meeting which will be determined by Council.
Council has the power to disband the Aboriginal Advisory Committee at any time.
Budget Implications
There are no current or future budget implications for Council.
Conclusion
The Aboriginal Advisory Committee will provide valuable advice to Council in relation to Aboriginal issues within the Shire. The Committee‟s Terms of Reference have been developed in consultation with the members of the former Indigenous Agreement Steering Committee and are presented for Council consideration and endorsement.
Following formal endorsement of the Terms of Reference and the establishment of the Aboriginal Advisory Committee a request for nomination will be undertaken for membership of the Committee.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 62 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F6. ABORIGINAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (continued)
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council establish an Advisory Committee as defined in Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1989 to advise on the implementation of the Glenelg Aboriginal Partnership Agreement and Plan and to be named in the local Aboriginal language.
2. That Council adopt the proposed Terms of Reference as detailed in the attachment.
3. That Council invite Gunditj Mirring Traditional Owners Aboriginal Corporation, Dhauwurd Wurrung Elderly and Community Health Service and Winda Mara Aboriginal Corporation to nominate their representatives for the committee.
4. That Council determines the time, date and place of the first meeting of the Committee.
Crs Stephens and Halliday
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 63 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F7. LIBRARY FINES FOR OVERDUE ITEMS AMNESTY
Group Manager: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development Author: Susan Bentley, Library & Information Services Manager
Executive Summary
Glenelg Libraries collects fees and charges associated with lost and overdue library materials as described in Council Policy documents. In order to recover library materials, resolve issues on member‟s library cards, encourage members to resume use of the library services, and to create goodwill, it is proposed to hold an amnesty on fines associated with overdue items for one month during December 2011 and January 2012.
Background
Public libraries use fine amnesties periodically to retrieve long overdue library items and encourage borrowers to resume use of library services. Glenelg Libraries used Operation CleanSweep in 2007 following the changeover of the Library Management System Spydus in order to resolve associated fine issues. Previous to that the last amnesty was after the dissolution of the Glenelg Regional Library Corporation in 2005.
The Australian Library and Information Association encourage public libraries to regularly use amnesties for fines and overdue items as a measure of goodwill to customers, to collect outstanding materials, and to promote use of library services. The effectiveness of these types of amnesties is difficult to measure, however some research has shown that libraries can win back a significant proportion of “lapsed borrowers” and the most effective method is to offer them a “freebie”.
There are currently 1552 items either lost, long overdue or missing, out of the total collection of 37500 items.
Report
With the recent upgrade of the public computer booking system MyPC, library users are now alerted to their fines and overdue items. Whilst this is a great function for library management, many users are unaware of their record. Some of these issues are unresolved from two or three years ago and are often a surprise to the library user. To encourage library use an amnesty would resolve these issues.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 64 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F7. LIBRARY FINES FOR OVERDUE ITEMS AMNESTY (continued) a) Objectives
The reasons for offering an amnesty on overdue fines at this time are:
i) to recover library materials
ii) to resolve issues associated with long overdue items
iii) to offer borrowers a clean slate
iv) to resolve issues associated with the new version of the MyPC booking system
v) to encourage borrowers to resume use of library services
vi) to relieve library members and encourage goodwill b) Council Plan Linkage and Policy Context
Charges for overdue library items are listed on the Glenelg Shire Council Fees and Charges Schedule. Fines for overdue items can be waived for reasons approved by the Library & Information Services Manager. For example, if illness prevents the return of books until past the due date.
The current policy Glenelg Libraries Loans Policy states:
“The Glenelg Shire Council issues overdue notices, and charges fines, to encourage prompt return of library material by patrons, thereby making items available for access and loan by other members of the community.”
“An overdue fine or charge is calculated by the library computer system. Fines are calculated per item per week to a maximum amount per library card / member. Overdue fines are set by Council on an annual basis and are detailed in the Glenelg Shire Council Budget documentation.” c) Consultation and/or communication processes implemented or proposed
Communication of this amnesty will be made to library members and the general public through the normal Glenelg Shire Council media process.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 65 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F7. LIBRARY FINES FOR OVERDUE ITEMS AMNESTY (continued) d) Budget Implications
The depreciated value of the 1552 outstanding items is $3,200. The amount collected in overdue fines for 2010-2011 was $6054. The amount submitted in the 2011-2012 Library Budget for this item is $3000 for the year. It is expected that the collection of fines associated with lost and overdue items will continue as usual outside of the one month amnesty period.
Conclusion
The proposed amnesty would be promoted in the December issue of the Community News, and begin with its proposed distribution on the 15 December 2011, and be a “gift” to our customers. The amnesty would run for one month finishing on 15 January 2012.
It is anticipated that library members will accept this opportunity to resolve outstanding issues with lost or long overdue items and resume the use of library services. Library staff can be confident that every effort is being made to encourage library use in the Shire and that library resources are available on a fair and equitable basis for all library members.
Mr Hornby left the Council Chamber at 8.00pm. Mr Hornby returned to the Council Chamber at 8.02pm.
Officer Recommendation
That Council approves a library fine amnesty for the period 15 December 2011 to 15 January 2012.
Crs Wilson and Stephens
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 66 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F8. CONDAH HOTSPUR UPPER ROAD (CHUR) UPGRADE – GREEN TRIANGLE REGION PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE – PROPOSED ROUND TWO APPLICATION, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA FUND (RDAF) (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1277110)
Group Manager: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager – Assets & Infrastructure Author: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager – Assets & infrastructure
Executive Summary
This report relates to a proposed Round Two application under the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) for “Condah Hotspur Upper Road Upgrade – Green Triangle Region Priority Infrastructure”.
Background
1. Introduction
(a) At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 26 April 2011 Council considered a detailed report titled “Green Triangle Region Freight Action Plan – Local Roads Program – Highest Priorities within Glenelg Shire”. Council resolved as follows:
1. That Council note:
a. That Condah Hotspur Upper Road/Ratcliffes Road forms part of a major woodflow arterial route between plantation harvest sites in 2 States (over a radius of approx 170km) and a key pre-export processing facility, also being the most impacted local road within the twelve municipal districts comprising the Green Triangle Region.
b. That the Green Triangle Region Freight Action Plan Implementation Monitoring Group recognises that upgrading of Condah Hotspur Upper Road/Ratcliffes Road is the highest priority under the Green Triangle Region Local Roads Program, referred to in Recommendation 19 of the Green Triangle Region Freight Action Plan (April 2009).
c. That implementation of the Green Triangle Region Freight Action Plan is one of the four priorities identified by the Barwon South West Regional Development Australia Committee in its pre-Budget submission to the Australian Government for 2011/12.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 67 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F8. CONDAH HOTSPUR UPPER ROAD (CHUR) UPGRADE – GREEN TRIANGLE REGION PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE – PROPOSED ROUND TWO APPLICATION, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA FUND (RDAF) (continued)
2. That Council submit a first funding round application under the Regional Australia Development Fund (RDAF) for the upgrading of Condah Hotspur Upper Road/Ratcliffes Road (balance distance of 14.05km, inclusive of the widening of Crawford River Bridge), as set out in Part 5(a) of this report.
3. That Council continue to make applications for Better Roads Victoria funding from VicRoads (including any successor funding program) in order to complete by approximately by 2013 the balance distance of 5.4km for the upgrading of Casterton Dartmoor Road, as set out in Part 5(b) of this report.
(b) The RDAF Round One application for CHUR was submitted on 12 May 2011. A one page “overview” of the application is included as Appendix A to this report.
Council‟s CHUR application subsequently received the highest ranking of RDAF applications among the Great South Coast councils and the second-highest RDAF application within the wider Barwon South West Region through processes of the Barwon South West (BSW) Regional Development Australia Committee.
2. RDAF Round One Outcomes
(a) The Guidelines for RDAF Round One stated that announcements relating to funded projects would occur during July 2011 however the announcement date occurred on 7 September 2011, with a specific follow-up letter relating to Council‟s CHUR application being received on 20 September 2011.
(b) An overview of RDAF Round One outcomes (from information received) is as follows:
Initial announced allocation was $100million, $149.57million actually approved.
More than 550 applications across Australia, 35 projects received funding (6.3% successful, hence 93.7% unsuccessful).
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 68 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F8. CONDAH HOTSPUR UPPER ROAD (CHUR) UPGRADE – GREEN TRIANGLE REGION PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE – PROPOSED ROUND TWO APPLICATION, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA FUND (RDAF) (continued)
Note:
No information was received as to the number of applications which did not meet the eligibility criteria and therefore were deemed not to be “eligible applications” for assessment against the selection criteria by the RDAF Independent Advisory Panel.
Only 26 (47%) out of 55 RDA regions received at least one successful project. Seven RDA regions received 2 successful projects. Only one (BSW) received 3 successful projects.
Victoria received 24% of National Round One funding ($36.05million). However, BSW received $21.05million (58% of Victoria‟s allocation), with three Victorian regions receiving funding – Loddon Mallee, Barwon South West, Southern Grampians. Hence 2 non-metropolitan Victorian regions did not receive any funding in this Round (Hume, Gippsland).
Five (14%) of the 35 approved projects were broadly of an air/land transport nature.
19 (54%) out of the 35 were broadly in the category of cultural/community/recreational building facilities.
Greater Geelong Local Government Area (LGA) was the only which received more than one successful application. On a National basis, Greater Geelong LGA received the highest RDAF allocation ($20m, 2 projects); Greater Bendigo LGA was next at $12.3m.
Nationally, the RDAF funding ratio for Round One has been given at 36% i.e. a relatively high leverage ratio of 64% for non- RDAF funding.
Of the 35 successful projects, 25% showed a RDAF funding ratio exceeding 75% i.e. 77%, 79%, 80%, 83%, 87.5%, 88%, 90%, 96%, 100%,
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 69 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F8. CONDAH HOTSPUR UPPER ROAD (CHUR) UPGRADE – GREEN TRIANGLE REGION PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE – PROPOSED ROUND TWO APPLICATION, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA FUND (RDAF) (continued)
In this respect, 45% of the 35 successful projects were of less than $5million value i.e. where a non-RDAF contribution was not mandatory.
(c) Direct notification relating to Council‟s Round One RDAF application can be summarised from the following excerpts:
“On this occasion your application was not successful”.
“Although not funded your project met the eligibility criteria and was considered by the RDAF Advisory Panel”.
“The panel noted that:
Due the competitiveness of Round One, your application was not strong as the selection criteria as other applicants”.
“To assist you in preparing for Round Two, the Department is available to provide more detailed feedback on your application”.
“Your application can be revised and resubmitted in future rounds, including Round Two of the program, which will open later this year.
To assist you in preparing for Round Two, the Department is available to provide more detailed feedback on your application”.
“Round Two of the RDAF Program will be valued at $150million and applications will open in November this year
Further details around criteria and supporting documentation will be available in November”.
“The Round One process is being reviewed to identify opportunities to enhance and streamline the future RDAF process”.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 70 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F8. CONDAH HOTSPUR UPPER ROAD (CHUR) UPGRADE – GREEN TRIANGLE REGION PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE – PROPOSED ROUND TWO APPLICATION, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA FUND (RDAF) (continued)
A registration of interest “in having a further discussion with the Department” relating to Council‟s Round One application has been submitted but with such discussion not having been held at the time of preparing this report.
Notes:
From informal feedback received, it would appear that some of the other applications from the Great South Coast received notification to the effect that such applications were either “incomplete” or did not meet the eligibility criteria.
Councillor Updates were forwarded on 7, 8 September 2011 providing initial information relating to the outcomes of the RDAF Round One process.
3. Proposed CHUR Application for RDAF Round Two
(a) The following threshold comments are considered relevant:
The Round Two applications will close approximately 6 months after the closure of the Round One applications hence there has been no material change in circumstances relating to the strategic justification for this regional priority infrastructure project, nor with the intended scope of the project, the project estimate and method of planning and delivery.
There is only an approx 2 month gap between applicant- specific notification relating to the Round One application (20 September 2011) and the closure of applications for Round Two.
It is relatively commonplace for success in attracting external, competitively-based funding assistance to result from successive funding applications, albeit that it may be appropriate to refine certain aspects between applications.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 71 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F8. CONDAH HOTSPUR UPPER ROAD (CHUR) UPGRADE – GREEN TRIANGLE REGION PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE – PROPOSED ROUND TWO APPLICATION, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA FUND (RDAF) (continued)
(b) Assuming Round Two applications close in late November/early December 2011 (and taking account of the Round One process), it is expected that Round Two announcements may occur around late March/early April 2012, which would then mean that on-ground construction works for CHUR would not commence until mid/late October 2012, with project completion being around February/March 2014 i.e. approximately 8 months within 2012/13 and approximately 8 months within 2013/14. This effective prolongation gives the opportunity for the “partner” contributions towards the project to be adjusted from 15% to 25%, with a commensurate 10% decrease in the Commonwealth grant application to be sought under Round Two.
The proposed amended breakdown is as follows –
i) 75% RDAF – Round Two $3.7125m $3.7125m
ii) Partner contributions
7.5% private industry contribution $0.37125m (unchanged)
17.5% Council contribution $0.86625m ($200,000 current 2011/12 allocation, $300,000 in 2012/13, $366,250 in 2013/14, with the latter two allocations being partly from annual Federal/State by- formula local roads assistance grants).
Total Project Estimate $4.95m Note:
The above means that there would be a $495,000 (133%) increase in Council‟s contribution between Round One and Round Two applications. In this respect, for any Round One applications exceeding $5m in value, a 50% minimum partner contribution was required, but with no prescribed partner contribution being specified for projects of less than $5m value.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 72 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F8. CONDAH HOTSPUR UPPER ROAD (CHUR) UPGRADE – GREEN TRIANGLE REGION PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE – PROPOSED ROUND TWO APPLICATION, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUSTRALIA FUND (RDAF) (continued)
Officer Recommendation
That “Condah Hotspur Upper Road Upgrade – Green Triangle Region Infrastructure” be re-submitted for Council‟s application under the Regional Australia Development Fund – Round Two, but on the basis of an adjusted project funding mix as set out in Part 3(b) of this report.
Crs Stephens and Saunders
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 73 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F9. INTEGRATED GROWTH PLAN (IGP) FOR PORTLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE (Separate circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1269783)
Group Manager: Syd Deam, Group Manager Planning and Economic Development Author: Lyn Meyrick, Senior Administration Officer Planning and Economic Development
Executive Summary
The purpose of this paper is to present the terms of reference for the proposed Integrated Growth Plan (IGP) for Portland Advisory Committee and to request Council establish the Committee and appoint a Chairperson from the following Councillors, Cr Gilbert Wilson or Cr Robert Halliday.
Background
On 24 May 2011, Council adopted the Portland Integrated Growth Plan that was developed by the consultants Planisphere in consultation with a reference group of community members chaired by Cr. Karen Stephens and a working group comprising DPCD, DSE, RDV and the Group Manager Planning & Economic Development.
As outlined in the Plan – one of the Short Term actions was to establish an IGP Implementation Committee that will drive the early, catalyst actions of the IGP and set the direction for the short to medium term project actions.
Report
The Terms of Reference for the new IGP for Portland Advisory Committee are as follows:
The Glenelg Shire IGP for Portland Advisory Committee is a representative group established to advise Council on the implementation of actions identified in the Portland Integrated Growth Plan. Its members will have significant knowledge and/or interest in the Portland Central Business district.
The function of the IGPAC is to provide information and advice to Council on:
The implementation of actions identified in the Portland Integrated Growth Plan adopted by Council on 24 May 2011.
Prioritisation of implementation actions
Assist with community consultation
Advise on marketing
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 74 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F9. INTEGRATED GROWTH PLAN (IGP) FOR PORTLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE (continued)
The IGPAC will report regularly to Council and its reports will include written recommendations for Council‟s consideration.
These terms of reference should be read in conjunction with the Glenelg Shire Council Organisational Policy – “Council Advisory Committee Policy” – adopted by Council on 15 December 2009.
Term of the Committee
The initial term of the IGP for Portland Advisory Committee will commence on the date of appointment by Council and conclude at the end of the term of the current Council (30 November 2012). Thereafter, each term of office for the IGPAC will be for the 12 months commencing on 1 December each year and concluding on the following 30 November.
Membership
Membership will include up to ten (10) members drawn from:
Two (2) members of the Glenelg Shire Council (Councillors) one of whom will act in the Chairperson role.
Council officers will also be invited to participate as ex-officio members in the IGPAC. These officers will include:
The Group Manager, Planning & Economic Development, or nominee
Two (3) council officers one (1) from Assets & Infrastructure, one (1) from Economic Development/Grants and (1) from Community Development/Access & Inclusion.
From time to time other Council officers with specialist skills and knowledge will be invited to attend the Committee‟s meetings to provide specific advice or information.
Up to four (4) members of community/business with appropriate skills and/or interest, obtained through an expression of interest process.
Committee‟s Responsibilities
The Committee is an advisory committee to Council.
The Committee does not have the power to direct any council officer to undertake any work but may make recommendations to Council to assist in its decision-making process.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 75 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F9. INTEGRATED GROWTH PLAN (IGP) FOR PORTLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE (continued)
Community/business members will be selected by Council. Selection will be based on nominations from interested members of the Glenelg Shire community/businesses, following an advertised expression of interest process. Appointment of initial members will be for a term concurrent with the current Council term (November 2012).
In the case of casual vacancies, where the number of vacancies at a particular time is greater than the quorum number, then Council will be given the opportunity to appoint new members for any or all of the positions. The term of office for any new member will expire at the original date set down for the retiring member.
Councillor representatives will be appointed and/or reappointed as soon as practicable after Council elections and on an annual basis at the Special (Statutory) Council Meeting.
Members may be granted Leave of Absence and replaced by secondment for the period of the agreement of the Chairperson.
A member shall cease to hold office if he or she is absent from four (4) consecutive meetings without a leave of absence, with the agreement of the Chairperson.
Council has the power to disband the Advisory Committee at any time.
The Committee shall report regularly to Council following each of its meetings by submitting a record of each meeting and any recommendations to Council.
Quorum
Quorum will be half committee members plus one.
Frequency of meetings
The IGPAC is to meet at a minimum frequency of quarterly during its first year of operation and thereafter at a frequency to be determined by the Committee itself, but no less than twice a year.
Place of meetings
Subject to venue availability, meetings will be held at the Glenelg Shire Council Portland offices.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 76 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F9. INTEGRATED GROWTH PLAN (IGP) FOR PORTLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE (continued)
Review
A review of the Committee‟s role will be undertaken at the end of each calendar year.
Agreement to abide by Council‟s policies
Members of the Advisory Committee must comply with the Glenelg Shire Council policies, in particular the Policy for Advisory Committees as updated from time to time.
Selection Criteria
The following criteria should be used when selecting a community/business member for the IGP for Portland Advisory Committee:
1. Knowledge and expertise in management, including an understanding of the issues associated with budgetary and resourcing constraints.
2. Understanding of the role of local government.
3. Understanding of Council Plan objectives and strategies.
4. Knowledge and interest in the Portland Central Business District.
Conclusion
The IGP for Portland Advisory Committee will provide valuable advice to council on ways to identify funding opportunities,
Following formal endorsement of the Terms of Reference an expression of interest process will be undertaken for membership of the Committee. An information kit will be developed and advertisements placed in the local media, on the Council website and through other relevant channels.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 77 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F9. INTEGRATED GROWTH PLAN (IGP) FOR PORTLAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE (continued)
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council establish an Advisory Committee as defined in Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1989 to be named “The Integrated Growth Plan for Portland Advisory Committee”.
2. That Council adopt the Terms of Reference as detailed in the attachment.
3. That Cr ...... be appointed as the Chairperson.
4. That expressions of interest be called for membership of the IGP for Portland Advisory Committee and that a report is provided to Council to appoint the membership.
MOTION
Crs White and Halliday
1. That Council establish an Advisory Committee as defined in Section 3 of the Local Government Act 1989 to be named “The Integrated Growth Plan for Portland Advisory Committee”.
2. That Council adopt the Terms of Reference as detailed in the attachment.
3. That Cr Wilson be appointed as the Chairperson.
4. That expressions of interest be called for membership of the IGP for Portland Advisory Committee and that a report is provided to Council to appoint the membership.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 78 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F10. AMEND SCHEDULE ONE – DELEGATED PLANNING COMMITTEE CHARTER (Separate circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1269760)
Group Manager: Sydney Deam, Group Manager Planning and Economic Development Author: Lyn Meyrick, Senior Administration Officer Planning and Economic Development
Executive Summary
This report is to recommend the signing and execution of the Instrument of Delegation – Delegated Planning Committee amendments required to Schedule One – Delegated Planning Committee Charter to comply with S86 Special committees of the Council and S87 Special committee.
Background
Following the Glenelg Planning Review a resolution of Council was passed 27 July 2004 appointing members of staff to a Delegated Planning Committee and adopting the Delegation Policy and Decision Guidelines for Instrument of Delegation.
Following a notice of motion at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 January 2005 a resolution of Council was passed 22 February 2005 appointing five Councillors to the Delegated Planning Committee and revising the Instrument of Delegation.
Various updates have been made to the Charter since that time.
A review of the Charter has again been undertaken to ensure compliance with the Local Government Act 1989.
Report
The following changes are proposed:
1. Change to the wording of meeting frequency to comply with the Local Government Act 1989 S87(5) (6) Special committees meetings which state as follows:
S87 (5) A meeting of a special committee must be held at a time and place determined by the special committee.
S87 (6) If the special committee has not appointed a time and place for a meeting under subsection (5), the Chairperson, or if the Chairperson is incapable of doing so, the Council, must fix the time and place of the next meeting.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 79 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F10. AMEND SCHEDULE ONE – DELEGATED PLANNING COMMITTEE CHARTER (continued)
As the Delegated Planning Committee meetings are only called, as required, then in all cases subsection (6) will apply and the Senior Administration Officer will liaise with the Chairperson to set the date, therefore the wording should change to:
The committee will meet when required at a time determined by the Chairperson.
2. The inclusion of the wording Term of the Committee is necessary to comply with the Local Government Act 1989 S86 (6) Special committees of Council
The following wording will be Included:
The appointment will conclude at the end of the term of the current Council (27 October 2012). Thereafter, the Council must review any delegations to the special committee in force under this section within the period of 12 months after a general election.
3. To comply with the Local Government Act 1989 S86 (6) under Membership – The Chairperson is to be appointed by the Council each year, include the wording at the Statutory Council Meeting.
Include an additional paragraph The Council may at any time remove a member from a special committee.
(a) Legal/Statutory
Local Government Act 1989 compliance.
(b) Funding/Budget implications
There are no budget implications.
Conclusion
The changes will comply with S86 Special committees of the Council and S87 Special committee
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 80 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F10. AMEND SCHEDULE ONE – DELEGATED PLANNING COMMITTEE CHARTER (continued)
Officer Recommendation
That the attached Instrument of Delegation be executed under the Common Seal of the Council.
Crs White and Halliday
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 81 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F11. ADOPTION OF THE GLENELG SHIRE COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010/2011 (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media)
Group Manager: Trevor Hornby, Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Tanya Flockhart, Senior Administration Officer Corporate Services
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to present the Glenelg Shire Council Annual Report for 2010/2011 including the audited financial statements and performance statement to Council for adoption.
Background a) Introduction
In addition to being a legislative requirement, the Annual Report is an important part of Council‟s commitment to open government and accountability. The Annual Report is an important reporting mechanism to residents, government and stakeholders.
The Annual Report is a key corporate document which outlines the projects and services delivered in accordance with the Council Plan, Annual Plan, Strategies and Budget during the period 1 July 2010 and the 30 June 2011. Council‟s audited Financial Statements and Performance Statements are also included in the Annual Report.
Similar to other private and government sector organisations, the Annual Report does not include information on every achievement, project or service provided by the Council. However, it includes a diverse range of highlights and achievements. b) Statutory requirements
In accordance with the Local Government Act 1989 (the Act), the Annual Report for the 2010/2011 financial year has been prepared and was submitted to the Victorian Local Government Minister by 30 September 2011 as required by the Act.
The Act and associated statutory regulations outline the key information that must be included and the process that must be adhered to in the development, authorisation and publication of the Annual Report.
As required by Section 134 of the Act, Council must meet and discuss the Annual Report and associated Financial Statements after the Annual Report is submitted to the Minister following a public notice period.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 82 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F11. ADOPTION OF THE GLENELG SHIRE COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010/2011 (continued)
Report a) Council Plan linkage and policy context
The Annual Report incorporates all four strategic objectives and their respective performance indicators as listed in the Council Plan.
The Annual Report also reports on a number of Council strategies and policies. b) Consultation and/or communication processes
In accordance with Section 134 of the Act, public notice of Council‟s intention to formally consider and adopt the 2010/2011 Annual Report and associated Financial Statements at the October Ordinary Council Meeting appeared in the Portland Observer on Friday 7 October 2011 and the Casterton News on Wednesday 5 October 2011.
As required by Section 131(12) of the Act, Council also gave public notice in the above mentioned newspaper editions that the audited Financial Statements and the audited Performance Statement were also available for public inspection.
The Annual Report will be distributed to a variety of public and private sector organisations and individuals who have requested that their names be placed on the mailing list. The mailing list is reviewed each year.
The Annual Report is available on the Council‟s Internet site at www.glenelg.vic.gov.au. A copy of the Annual Report can also be obtained via Glenelg Shire Customer Service Centres. A media release will also be issued following the Council meeting. c) Budget implications
The direct cost of printing the annual report has been included in the 2011/2012 Council Budget. The budget is $16,200 for direct costs including graphic design, printing and advertising. The actual direct cost of printing the annual report including graphic design and printing of 150 colour copies is $9,463.96, well less than the budget allowed.
Indirect costs include staff time across the organisation and significant staff time in the Corporate Governance Unit.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 83 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F11. ADOPTION OF THE GLENELG SHIRE COUNCIL ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010/2011 (continued)
Conclusion
As all legislative requirements relating to the Annual Report have been completed, it is recommended that Council adopt the 2010/2011 Annual Report.
Officer Recommendation
That the Glenelg Shire Council Annual Report for 2010/2011, including the audited Financial Statements and Performance Statement, be adopted.
Crs Wilson and Stephens
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 84 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F12. PROPOSED SPECIAL CHARGE SCHEME - BLAIR STREET (PART), PORTLAND (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1278045, 1278044)
Group Manager: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager, Assets and Infrastructure Author: Cheryl Kelly, Special Projects Officer
Executive Summary
This report relates to the proposed construction of kerb and channel in Blair Street between Otway Street and Oswald Street Portland under a Special Charge Scheme.
Background
1. Introduction
Glenelg Shire Council‟s current policy is that construction of any unmade urban streets partly or wholly serving a local area access purpose should be undertaken through a Special Charge Scheme under the provisions within the Local Government Act 1989.
Council has previously received a request (via resident multi-signature letter) for construction of kerb and channel and associated drainage works in Blair Street, Portland between Otway Street and Oswald Street.
2. Pre-Scheme Consultation Processes
(a) Questionnaire and Information Session
Council staff commenced the consultation process for Blair Street on 3 May 2011, in accordance with Council‟s “Administrative Procedures for Establishment of Special Charge Schemes” (the Procedures). This commenced with letters including an “Abutting Owner Questionnaire” to affected property owners, followed up with reminder letters and telephone calls.
The results of the questionnaire are detailed below.
In Favour Not in Favour No Response Total Votes 15 4 2 21 Percentage 71.5% 19% 9.5% 100%
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 85 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F12. PROPOSED SPECIAL CHARGE SCHEME - BLAIR STREET (PART), PORTLAND (continued)
As above, the current (expressed) level of support for implementing a Special Charge Scheme for the construction of kerb and channel in Blair Street between Otway Street and Oswald Street is 71.5%. This is above the 60% requirement for a Scheme to proceed in as detailed in the Procedures.
Property owner comments/queries on questionnaires in relation to the construction generally related to:
Scheme rationale, design, cost, complexity and proposed timing of works.
Historical issues relating to funding allocation for original street construction.
Area amenity including perceived „hoon‟ problem.
An information session for property owners was held on 4 October 2011 to report on the results of the questionnaire and provide further information about the construction and the next steps in the process.
(b) Implications of non-construction
The implications of not proceeding with the Special Charge Scheme include:
Continuing lesser standard of residential amenity in visual and functional terms, relative to present-day standards for new residential areas.
Loss of momentum in gaining Scheme approval from the majority of property owners.
Increased costs relating to eventual construction.
(c) Public Notice and Property Owner Notification
In declaring its intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme, Council is required to give public notice and notify affected property owners in writing – refer template in Appendix B.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 86 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F12. PROPOSED SPECIAL CHARGE SCHEME - BLAIR STREET (PART), PORTLAND (continued)
3. Budget Implications
Funds for this work were made available in the 2009/10 Capital Budget and have been carried forward to 2011/12.
Conclusion
The results of the questionnaire and subsequent information session demonstrates favourable support from a majority of affected property owners, for the construction of kerb, channel and associated drainage works in Blair Street (Otway Street to Oswald Street) via a Special Charge Scheme.
Affected property owners have been consulted and kept informed about the next steps in the process of the proposed construction.
The next stage in the process is for Council to give notice of its intention to declare a Special Charge Scheme for Blair Street. This allows any affected person to make a submission or objection before Council considers a decision relating to potential declaration.
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council, pursuant to Section 163 of the Local Government Act 1989 gives public notice of its intention to declare a special charge (the proposed Scheme) for construction of kerb and channel and associated work relating to the following sections of Blair Street, Portland:
Western side; between Otway Street – Oswald Street;
Eastern side; between Otway Street – Fern Street.
2. That Council determine that the proposed Scheme is to incorporate a benefit ratio calculated in accordance with the Sections 163(2C), 163(2D) Ministerial Guidelines, gazetted on 23 October 2004, with the maximum amount from persons intended to be liable to pay the special charge to be apportioned in accordance with Council‟s “Guidelines for Apportionment of Costs for Road and Drainage Construction”.
Crs White and Wilson
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 87 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F13. CASTERTON TOWN HALL – DISABILITY ACCESS TO FIRST FLOOR COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SPACES
Group Manager: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager Assets and Infrastructure Author: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager Assets and Infrastructure
Executive Summary
This report relates to a proposed new capital project for 2011/12, having regard to a post-Budget offer of an external funding assistance.
Background
1. Introduction
(a) Casterton Town Hall (CTH) is a multi-use civic/community facility i.e. Council Customer Services, VicRoads Customer Services, Community Bank Agency, Public Library, Auditorium for public assembly/social/display purposes, Council/community meeting/activity rooms, also for the display of various items from Council‟s cultural collection.
(b) CTH is situated within the Casterton Township heritage overlay (HO163). Consistent with the Statement of Significance (refer below), CTH is in the hub of the town centre and makes a strong economic and social contribution to Casterton‟s “main street” character and vitality, including business and social multiplier effects.
(c) Key excerpts from the Statement of Significance within the “Casterton Town Hall Conservation Management Plan (September 2008)” are as follows:
The Casterton Town Hall is of aesthetic, architectural, historical, technical/research and social value to the Glenelg Shire.
The Casterton Town Hall is aesthetically significant to the Glenelg Shire as an example of a 1930 civic building designed in a hybrid style displaying characteristics of Moderne design and the emerging Modern style.
The Casterton Town Hall is of historical significance to the Glenelg Shire. It is the second purpose built town hall of the former Shire of Glenelg and was built at a time when the town and surrounding district was expanding. The Casterton Town Hall is one of several public and private buildings that were built during the inter-war period that reflect this growth.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 88 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F13. CASTERTON TOWN HALL – DISABILITY ACCESS TO FIRST FLOOR COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SPACES (continued)
The Casterton Town Hall is of social significance. The siting of the complex in Henty Street, at the centre of the town‟s commercial district, has made it a landmark in the township. The Casterton Town Hall is of social value as a place that is known, used and valued by the residents of Glenelg Shire who use the complex for Council services and as a venue for dances, sporting activities, film screenings, performances and dinners, and to the employees of the Glenelg Shire who use and value the building as a place of employment.
(d) Part 6 (Conservation Policies) of the CTH Conservation Management Plan also included the following:
6.7 Future Development
Further adaption of the fabric of the Casterton Town Hall is appropriate as long as it retains and conserves elements of primary and contributory significance, and that its history as a municipal building continues to be recognized and can be interpreted. Reconstruction of elements for which there is no physical or documentary evidence is not recommended. Any future development should retain any remaining original or early decorative detail, both externally and internally, and not introduce any replica detail, fixtures or fittings. Decorative paint schemes should be based, where possible, on physical or documentary evidence.
Any future development should not significantly alter the main spaces of the buildings, which include the ground and first floor foyers, Hall, Supper Room, former Council Chamber and President‟s Room. These spaces should not be partitioned into smaller areas and the original planning of the complex should remain evident.
6.8 Use
Any new use for either the entire complex, or any part of it, should not be introduced if it requires substantial change and/or loss of significant fabric. The hall has been used for meetings, functions and performances since its completion in 1937. The hall should remain as one single space and one of the two major municipal halls within Glenelg Shire. If financially feasible, the use of the hall at certain times as a cinema should be permitted.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 89 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F13. CASTERTON TOWN HALL – DISABILITY ACCESS TO FIRST FLOOR COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SPACES (continued)
The Council Chamber is no longer used for Council meetings. The space should remain as one single-space and could continue to function in its current role as a meeting room. The room contains a significant number of historical items related to the history of the Shire of Glenelg and consideration should also be given to using the room as a museum of the district and the former shire. The President‟s Room and Supper Room should remain as single-spaces and community facilities. Other spaces, including the library and Glenelg Shire Customer Service Centre could be adapted for other uses as long as it does not involve the removal of significant fabric or significant alteration to the planning of the building.
(e) The date of 6 December 2012 will mark the 75th Anniversary of the official opening ceremony of CTH by the then State Governor Lord Huntingfield. Other major works completed around this time were also officially opened including the concrete bridge over the Glenelg River at the east end of Henty Street, additions to the public hospital and the Electra building.
2. Disability Access to First Floor Community and Civic Spaces
(a) For many years any spaces and facilities within new buildings (or for significantly altered/extended existing buildings) which are used/visited by the public are required to satisfy Building Regulations/(Building Code of Australia requirements for disability access.
For this reason, the provisions of the “Glenelg Shire Council Buildings Assets Management Plan” (BAMP) adopted by Council on 28 February 2006 places a high priority (via a risk assessment approach) on a backlog program of satisfying present-day statutory requirements for disability access and Essential Safety Measures for particularly Council‟s “Level 1” public assembly buildings i.e. CTH and Portland Civic Hall.
Since then, other relevant matters have been:
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 90 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F13. CASTERTON TOWN HALL – DISABILITY ACCESS TO FIRST FLOOR COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SPACES (continued)
2006 Disability Access Audit completed for a high majority of Council public buildings i.e. to identify and prioritise particularly backlog priorities to satisfy present-day disability access requirements, also taking account of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwth).
2008 Part 6.4 of the CTH Conservation Management Plan included the following relevant comments –
“During the physical survey of the Casterton Town Hall it was noted there is no disabled access to the upper level of the complex. Disabled access should be provided, but within the minimum amount of intervention to original/early fabric. Any disabled lift should be located off the ground floor foyer, but not built within this space, which should be retained in its 1937 configuration”.
February 2008 Preliminary (proprietary product) pricing information obtained for the supply and installation of a disability access lift for CTH.
Further internal referrals have since occurred to the effect that it is unlikely that an internal-only access lift is likely to require a planning permit. In addition, it appears that the outer perimeter of the lift shaft is not required to be fire rated.
27 October 2009 Council adopted the “Glenelg Shire Council Disability Action Plan 2009-2012”. “Action 4” within this Plan states:-
“We will work towards ensuring that Council- owned premises are accessible to people with a disability.
Ensure that people with disabilities have access to community forums upstairs in Casterton Town Hall”. When – Years 2-3.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 91 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F13. CASTERTON TOWN HALL – DISABILITY ACCESS TO FIRST FLOOR COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SPACES (continued)
2009/10, 2010/11 Council has promoted private business awareness and initiatives for inclusive access, particularly by provision of “infrastructure within the community that will positively impact the lives and wellbeing of all” with particularly reference to the annual “Inclusive Business Awards”. In addition Council has advocated for improvement of disability access in the public place, directly outside CTH i.e. within Henty Street reservation.
Apart from the above, there is a solid social and economic case to ensure that the first floor community and civic spaces have optimum potential for beneficial programmed and casual use. This can only be fully achieved with no barriers to access for all persons.
3. Post-Budget Offer of External Grant
(a) The following explains relevant timelines and processes in this matter:
7 February 2011 Closing date for in-house registration of candidate capital projects for the purposes of the draft 2011/12 Longer Term Capital Plan and draft 2011/12 Budget. Consistent with the sequence of steps set out under Part 2 of this report, the CTH Disability Access Lift (CTHDAL) project was registered prior to this date, but without reference to any application for external funding assistance (as no application had been prepared or submitted at that time). The prospective absence of any external funding would have influenced the project ranking “score” under the adopted evaluation methodology for ranking of candidate capital projects, such process commencing from approx 8 February 2011. As per the framework established from Council‟s Asset Management Policy and Asset Management Strategy, the initial ranking process of a very large number of candidate capital projects (exceeding 1,000 no.) was tasked to a cross-organisational working group.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 92 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F13. CASTERTON TOWN HALL – DISABILITY ACCESS TO FIRST FLOOR COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SPACES (continued)
23 February 2011 Information received from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (Cwth) (FHCSIA), inviting applications under the Accessible Communities funding round. An application was submitted by 28 February 2011.
5, 8 April 2011 The draft 2011/12 Longer Term Capital Plan was presented at Special Councillors (Budget) Workshop.
However a combination of unintended administrative “gaps” occurred (particularly with respect to the requirement for updating/resubmission of a candidate capital project registration arising any material change in circumstances) which meant that the candidate CTHDAL project was not re-ranked (after 28 February 2011), which had the consequence of such candidate project remaining “below the red line” within the Year “1” Capital Program within the proposed 2011/12 Budget as formally considered by Council on 10 May 2011. The 2011/12 Budget was adopted by Council on 28 June 2011, without any change to the 2011/12 Capital Program.
Notwithstanding the above, the default past practice has been that a capital project which is dependent on the outcome of a funding application under an external competitively- based program is not committed to an adopted budget until there is clear knowledge as to the outcome of such application, particularly as this can introduce a differing level of funding offer than was sought, or other conditions which may be problematical.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 93 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F13. CASTERTON TOWN HALL – DISABILITY ACCESS TO FIRST FLOOR COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SPACES (continued)
In such cases, separate reports have been made to Council (and decisions reached) for what are effectively post-Budget grants i.e. grant offers which have been received after the finalisation of a proposed budget, whether or not part or whole of the capital expenditure is required (under the grant agreement) to take place within the current (new) financial year.
17 June 2011 Offer of funding assistance received from FHCSIA relating to the CTHDAL project, essentially being post-Budget, as such candidate capital project was not listed within the proposed Budget for public submission opportunity purposes. This was the subject of a Councillor Update on 20 June 2011, also advising that FHCSIA would be contacting Council shortly regarding the funding agreement.
For the CTH DAL project, the grant offer is $66,500, based on a Council contribution of not less than $66,500 i.e. 50% minimum.
22, 29 June 2011 Articles appeared in the Portland Observer and Casterton News relating to the funding offer for the CTHDAL project, also having regard a preceding media release from the Member for Wannon.
1 July 2011 Funding agreement received from FHCSIA, requesting prompt reply, having regard to the proposed “activity start date for the overall project commencing within July 2011”.
14 July 2011 Signed copies of the signed funding agreement returned to FHCSIA.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 94 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F13. CASTERTON TOWN HALL – DISABILITY ACCESS TO FIRST FLOOR COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SPACES (continued)
4. Delivery Steps for Prospective Project
(a) The FHCSIA funding offer is on the basis of a project completion date of 30 June 2012, which means that there will need to be a relatively concentrated set of project steps, ie:
Preparation of detailed project delivery steps (completed).
In-house research/investigation relating to candidate siting within the building, together with identification of the most appropriate method of professional services and construction work procurement (completed).
Professional services procurement then completion of schematic design and detailed design/documentation (currently in preparation).
Public tenders process and prospective awarding of a contract.
Construction works (insitu), including all fitments/finishes for resumption of full operational use for the affected parts of the building.
(b) As with any project which involves an alteration within an existing building, there needs to be a conservative approach with respect to final actual costs, having regard to a number of variables/unknowns, some of which can only be “pinned down” during construction. For this reason, it is considered that current pre- design confidence limits should be in the order of +50%/-10% i.e. conservatively taking into account that Council‟s contribution could be prospectively go to around 67% ($133,000), as compared to 50% ($66,500).
(c) As Council is aware, finalisation of a contractor rectification obligation from a project completed some years ago has brought in what is a post-budget capital income item (for which there was no surety prior to preparation of the current Budget). The quantum of such income is sufficient to fully cover the upper-limit of Council‟s contribution to the CTHDAL project, thus meaning that inclusion of this project will not impact on other capital projects within the adopted 2011/12 Budget.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 95 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F13. CASTERTON TOWN HALL – DISABILITY ACCESS TO FIRST FLOOR COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SPACES (continued)
It should also be noted that the inclusion of such new capital project in 2011/12 does not trigger either of the two criteria which must both be met under Section 128(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 relating to a requirement to prepare a revised budget.
Officer Recommendation
1. That the Casterton Town Hall Disability Access Lift project as described in Parts 3, 4 of this report be approved as an adjustment to the 2011/12 Capital Program.
2. That Council approve a 2011/12 Budget transfer of $133,000 from the capital income account to the Casterton Town Hall – Disability Access Lift project.
Crs Northcott and Stephens
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
Mr Hornby left the Council Chamber at 8.35pm Mr Hornby returned to the Council Chamber at 8.37pm.
Mr Merritt left the Council Chamber at 8.37pm.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 96 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F14. HERITAGE LOAN/GRANT SCHEME APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION (Separate circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1267169)
Group Manager: Sydney Deam Group Manager Planning and Economic Development Author: Lyn Meyrick, Senior Administration Officer Planning and Economic Development
Executive Summary
This report is to recommend the approval of a Heritage Grant from the Heritage Loan/Grant Scheme Round 2 for Megan Stokes to the value of $2,600.
Background
The Heritage Loan/Grant Scheme Fund (the „Fund‟) was originally set up from a National Estate Program Grant in 1984 from the Ministry for Planning and Environment Victoria. Funds have been contributed by Council and Heritage Victoria for the purpose of assisting the conservation and preservation of properties and places in the Shire. Funds can be made available as a loan at a concessional interest rate or as a grant. Grants can only be provided from the interest accruing to the principal and from council contributions (ie approximately $4,000 per annum from the interest).
Report
A call for applications for the Glenelg Shire Council Heritage Loan/Grant Scheme was advertised in the Portland Observer 09/09/2011 & 16/09/2011, Casterton News 07/09/2011 & 14/09/2011 and placed on the Glenelg Shire website.
The following application was received:
1. Megan Stokes, 38 Hurd Street, Portland (listed in the Glenelg Planning Scheme as HO29 local significance) applied for a grant of $2,600.00 towards the cost of construction of the front fence, reconstruct verandah and replace the front door and windows.
The Heritage Advisory Committee (HAC) has not met to review the Heritage/Loan Grant Scheme application as at present the vacant positions on the committee are being re-advertised as no applications were received in the original advertising period.
The application has been assessed against the relevant Fund eligibility criteria and cultural heritage significance.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 97 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F14. HERITAGE LOAN/GRANT SCHEME APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION (continued)
The delegated officer (Syd Deam) and committee Chairperson (Cr Bruce Cross) recommend that the application by Mega Stokes be approved. a) Policy context
The current policy dated 22 January 2010, sets out the means by which the Fund is managed, administered and promoted. b) Legal/Statutory
Heritage Victoria advises the original grant was provided as a revolving fund to be administered by Council. c) Funding/Budget implications (Current and recurrent)
Has no direct impact on Council finances, however if the fund was depleted there may be community expectation that Council would allocate additional funds to it as was done in the past. d) Council plan/strategies
We will establish a culture of sustainability through management of the environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage resources of our Shire. We will encourage and support the building of quality places throughout the Shire whilst valuing and respecting our cultural and natural heritage.
Officer Recommendation
That Council approves a heritage grant of $2,600 to Megan Stokes.
MOTION
Crs Halliday and White
That Council approves a heritage grant of $2,600 to Megan Stokes on completion of the works to the satisfaction of council officers.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 98 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F15. COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT C71 REZONE THE LAKE CONDAH MISSION FROM FARMING ZONE TO SPECIAL USE ZONE 6
Group Manager: Sydney Deam, Group Manager Planning and Economic Development Author: Murray Herron, Strategic Planner
Executive Summary
Lake Condah Mission is requesting a letter of support from Glenelg Shire Council for a proposed amendment using the provisions of Section 20(4) of the Planning & Environment Act 1987.
Background
Lake Condah Mission are requesting the Minister for Planning, acting as the planning authority pursuant to Section 20 (4) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 (the Act), for a planning scheme amendment relating to Lot 1, TP800037 248 Condah Estate Road, Heywood.
The current Farming Zone prohibits a number of uses which are necessary to facilitate the development of a Business Centre and Keeping Place for the Lake Condah Mission.
Report
The amendment proposes to rezone land from Farming Zone (FZ) to a Special Use Zone 6 (SUZ6) that will allow for the integrated management, protection and use of a heritage place and buildings of cultural significance for interpretation education, community, recreational and tourism purposes.
The introduction of the proposed Special Use Zone will allow a more streamlined approach towards achieving the outcomes intended for the site and in particular it will translate the recommendations contained within the Report for the Lake Condah Mission Site, Master Plan December 2009.
The amendment is being prepared by an external consultant. The request for supporting this amendment has come from DPCD. The Minister for Planning will not act on the proposed amendment until Glenelg Shire Council via letter indicates its support of the proposed amendment. a) Budget Implications
There are no budget implications. The amendment has been prepared by Lake Condah Mission consultants and has been paid for by them.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 99 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F15. COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR AMENDMENT C71 REZONE THE LAKE CONDAH MISSION FROM FARMING ZONE TO SPECIAL USE ZONE 6 (continued)
Conclusion
The recommendation is for Council to write a letter to the Minister for Planning indicating its support of the proposed amendment.
Officer Recommendation
That Council write a letter to the Minister for Planning, Hon Matthew Guy MLC supporting the Lake Condah Mission proposed Planning Scheme Amendment.
Crs Saunders and Stephens
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 100 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F16. COMMUNITY SERVICES – STATISTICAL REPORT
Group Manager: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development Author: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development
Executive Summary
Council provides a range of services and activities to support and enhance community wellbeing. These services include: arts and culture, child and family, library and information, and home and community care. This report provides Council with a statistical snapshot of these services over the past 3 years.
Report
Council is committed to quality service provision to the citizens of the Glenelg Shire, and is committed to continually monitoring and evaluating service performance to ensure that services meet desired standards for cost, relevance and responsiveness. This statistical report is designed to assist Council in ensuring that these services are effective and efficient by providing information about the usage trends over the past 3 years and some benchmarking data (e.g. library services).
Art and Culture
Performances:
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 No. of touring productions 30 33 30 No. of performances 36 42 * 36 No. of performances in Casterton 2 3 5 No. of performances in Heywood 2 2 2 Other towns in the Shire 1 1 - Total attendances 3,349 3,894 3,678 Average attendance per performance 47.2 48 50.4
Note 1: * The slight increase in the overall number performances in 2009- 2010 was a result of presenting four performances of „The Wreck of the Admella‟. This project, which was initiated and managed by Council, was in addition to the normal touring program.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 101 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F16. COMMUNITY SERVICES – STATISTICAL REPORT (continued)
Note 2: The total number of performances listed for each year includes the number of performances programmed for Casterton, Heywood and other towns in the Shire.
Exhibitions:
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 No. of Exhibitions 13 15 12 Estimated total 2,956 3,344 3,010 attendance
Note 1: All exhibitions presented by the Glenelg Shire Arts Program are displayed in the Portland Arts Centre Note 2: The variation in the number of exhibitions each year reflects the fact that sometimes two separate exhibitions are run concurrently in the separate gallery spaces in the Portland Arts Centre. This is wholly dependent on the nature of the exhibitions included in the program, and on the number of works a particular artist is able to provide.
Cultural Collection
The Glenelg Council cultural collection is estimated at 8500 objects. The collection is in the process of being fully catalogued.
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011
Acquisitions 114 138 1,244
The significant increase in 2010-2011is due to the introduction of acquisition budget, plus important donations, including from the Iain and Anne Grant Collection (c. 530 items) and collection of negatives and photographs (c. 300 items) from Cor Melis
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 102 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F16. COMMUNITY SERVICES – STATISTICAL REPORT (continued)
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 Exhibitions 3 3 3 Our Shire, Our 175 Art Prize Grant Past (Portland Arts Collection (Casterton Centre) (Casterton Town Hall) Snapshot Town Hall) Works on (Portland Arts Destination Paper Centre) (Portland (Portland Arts Rocket Shed MDC) Centre) (Portland) Guiding Lights 1859 (Portland (Portland MDC) MDC)
Displays/updates 1 2 3 Admella Lifeboat/Adm Couta Boat Rescue ella (Portland Display (Portland MDC) (Portland MDC) Mary MDC) MacKillop Grant (History House) Collection (History House) Portland City 25 Years (History House)
Conservation 3 1 1 Portland Henty Plough Casterton Lifeboat (Conservation) painting (Cleaning) (Conservation) Admella Plaque (Conservation) 3 Mayoral Portraits (Rematting)
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 103 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F16. COMMUNITY SERVICES – STATISTICAL REPORT (continued)
Child and Family Services
The construction of the Portland Child and Family Complex was completed in 2010, and services were transferred to the Complex over the period July – December 2010. The following statistics relate to the suite of child and family services provided by Council.
Services 2010 - 11 2010 - 09 2009 - 08 Comments Service is fully Long Day Care PCFC MP / HH MP / HH accredited children using the service 238 108 124 families receiving child care 183 134 152 Occasional Care children using the service 11 6 na 2009 Heywood and Dartmoor Kindergarten 2011 2010 2009 only
No. of children receiving kindergarten including 3 and (Heywood, Dartmoor and 4 year old Kalbarri) 120 97 43 groups After School Care Children using the service 27 13 0 Families receiving child care 21 10 0 Service is fully Family Day Care accredited Children using the service 66 82 83 Families receiving child care 55 55 56 Heywood / In Venue sites 2 2 2 Casterton
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 104 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F16. COMMUNITY SERVICES – STATISTICAL REPORT (continued)
Services 2010 - 11 2010 - 09 2009 - 08 Comments In Home Care Children using the service 19 2 5 Families receiving child care 6 1 2 Maternal Child and Health Active enrolment (children) 819 702 822 No. of consults 1959 1951 2436 Immunisation (opportunistic) 975 836 917 Enhanced Home Visiting these families are identified as vulnerable or outreach / no access to No. of families 66 64 53 service No. of families receiving additional support 25 21 unknown Received Nursery Equipment 3 0 This program is delivered in partnership with Warrnambool Inclusion Support City Council Number of services support Glenelg / South Grampians 12 11 11 children have disability / Eligible children receiving cultural funding 19 17 21 background
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 105 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F16. COMMUNITY SERVICES – STATISTICAL REPORT (continued)
Comment:
The number of families and children utilising the Family Day Care service has declined as a result of the reduction in the number of carers. The changes in government regulations and the need for new carers to hold a qualification have made it difficult to recruit and retain Family Day Care providers.
Home and Community Care
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Clients: 1193 Clients: 1124 Clients: 1148
% of % of % of Total target Total target Total target hours of Annual achie hours of Annual achie hours of Annual achie Service service target ved service target ved service target ved
Home Care 12130.5 12665 96 12821.5 12665 101 12525.8 13004 96 Personal Care 3270 3785 86 3652.75 3785 97 3283.75 4101 80 Respite Care 2402 2652 91 2660.75 2652 100 2725.5 2652 103 Meals on Wheels 28638 38164 75 22362 38164 59 17737 24806 72 Property Mainten ance 4449.25 3765 118 3944 3765 105 4364 4230 103 Planned Activity Group - Core 7521 13501 56 6171 13501 74 6618 7520 88 Planned Activity Group - High 5916.5 2666 222 4985 2666 79 5220 5688 92 Totals 64327.3 77198 83 56597 77198 75 52474.1 62001 85
Comment:
The number of meals on Wheels clients has declined significantly since 2008 – 2009. This is not a phenomenon that is particular to Glenelg. Most neighbouring Councils also are experiencing similar declines and it is also common across the State. If this trend continues, then the targets will be renegotiated with the Department of Health.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 106 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F16. COMMUNITY SERVICES – STATISTICAL REPORT (continued)
After consultation with clients, changes were made to the Planned Activity Group programs resulting in an increase in program participation.
Library and Information Services
2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 Membership 10206 9713 10593 Membership as % of pop. 49 46 50 Library visits 146196 134458 144634 Website visits 20136 30497 28043 Loans 129664 135668 131156 Computer use 24320 25110 26056 Participants in programs 2606 1716 2175 GO!Now participants 9 11 12
Comment:
GO! Now is the website hosting program offered to local community groups.
The other library programs provided are aimed to introduce people to the library environment, resources and services and these include: internet classes; Book Chat; children‟s story-time; rhyme-time; Roving Reference; School Holiday activities; Public Art exhibitions; Summer Reading programs; and author visits
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 107 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F16. COMMUNITY SERVICES – STATISTICAL REPORT (continued)
Library Key Performance Indicators
Glenelg Libraries VIC. (6210m²) State average 2008- 2009- 2010- 2008- 2009- 2010- Indicators 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Membership as % of 49 46 50 48 48 na population Visits per capita 7 6.3 6.8 5.2 5.2 na Loans per visit 0.8 1 1.1 1.7 1.9 na
Internet usage per 10000 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.2 3.6 na Cost per loan $7.80 $7.20 $6.79 $4.00 $3.70 na Cost per capita $43.54 $45.47 $42.15 $36.10 $38.90 na
Gannawarra East Gippsland Swan Hill (3732m²) (20931m²) (37415m²) 2008- 2009- 2010- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2008- 2009- 2010- 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011
34 35 na 37 39 na 44 37 na 8.3 8 Na 5.3 5.6 Na 5.6 4.7 Na
0.8 0.8 Na 1.2 1.2 Na 0.5 1.3 Na
0.4 0.4 Na 3 2.6 Na 1.1 0.3 Na $6.90 $8.40 Na $5.20 $6.50 Na $17.30 $7.60 Na $46.90 $41.20 Na $33.50 $31.90 Na $22.60 $21.70 Na
Comment:
These figures are based on the statistics from the Public Libraries of Victoria Annual Survey. Figures for the 2010-2011 year are not yet available.
Glenelg Libraries figures compare favourably across all Key Performance Indicators in comparison to other country libraries. Gannawarra is about half the size of Glenelg in terms of population; East Gippsland is double the size of Glenelg; and Swan Hill is about the same.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 108 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F16. COMMUNITY SERVICES – STATISTICAL REPORT (continued)
Conclusion
Community services are continually monitored and evaluated to ensure that they are efficient and effective and meet community need. These statistics are an important part of this process and are presented to Council for noting.
Mr Deam left the Council Chamber at 8.44pm. Mr Deam returned to the Council Chamber at 8.44pm.
Mr Merritt returned to the Council Chamber at 8.45pm
Officer Recommendation
That Council note the Community Services Statistical Report.
Crs Stephens and Halliday
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 109 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (Separate circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1278602, 1259047)
Group Manager: Trevor Hornby, Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Kenneth Ross, Emergency Management (Fire Coordinator)
Executive Summary
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) has requested feedback on their draft submission to the Victorian Government‟s „Emergency Management Green Paper: Towards a more resilient and safer Victoria‟, by the 7 November 2011.
Background
There are significant changes to Victoria‟s emergency management arrangements proposed in the „Green Paper‟ and some of them relate specifically to the role of councils. The MAV‟s response is based on recent experiences of councils and the advice received from councils through the recent MAV-led workshops on the future role of local government in emergency management. The MAV has listed the most relevant options from the Green Paper relating to councils and are now requesting input from Victorian Councils.
Report
The options selected by the MAV and the responses are as follows:
Option 9:
Introduce a graded scale of emergency declaration (including provisions for relief and recovery funding)
Response:
The specifics of whether emergencies are declared, and the triggers which inform declaration decisions, are of less concern to councils than the triggers for relief and recovery support.
There would be some value in the grading of emergencies and consequently the structure of management at the State level, but this would have minimal impact on municipalities, provided the necessary support arrangements are unencumbered by such changes.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 110 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
There is significant support within the sector for greater certainty around relief and recovery assistance provided by councils and partner agencies. Currently the services and activities for which councils can be reimbursed differ from event to event, and there are often delays in communicating the eligible provisions, meaning there can be no budgetary certainty for councils.
For councils already under financial stress, the lack of certainty can hinder recovery activity.
Councils seek an urgent review of the Victorian Natural Disaster Financial Arrangements (NDFA), the scheme through which councils can claim natural disaster-related expenses.
The NDFA is administered through the Department of Treasury and Finance. The State Government then claims a portion of these reimbursement payments from the Commonwealth Government, through the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements.
The current NDFA policy was established in the 1970s. Since then the expected role of councils in emergency management has increased significantly, particularly in the relief and recovery phases.
The policy has a strong emphasis on clean-up, including the use of equipment and outdoor crews and work undertaken to support response agencies (which is 100 per cent reimbursed), and essential physical infrastructure replacement and reinstatement (which is calculated on a threshold basis with a maximum council contribution of $35,000). Essential infrastructure generally covers the repair of roads and bridges, reserves and associated community facilities. Public buildings destroyed are dealt with on a case-by-case basis but are not usually funded through this policy.
There is no reimbursement available for costs associated with providing support to community members during or after an emergency. Nor is there recognition of the costs of establishing and operating multi-agency Municipal Emergency Coordination Centres (MECCs) and relief centres.
In recent major events, the policy has been extended on an ad hoc basis by the Treasurer to cover elements of relief and recovery, and the costs of administrating MECCs. While the extension of the policy for these events has been welcome, the elements of relief and recovery that are covered change from event to event, and decisions relating to coverage are made up to weeks after the event, meaning there is no budget certainty for councils.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 111 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
Councils with limited resources have reported that this uncertainty has resulted in restraint in the provision of immediate relief and recovery services. A 2008 Options paper published by the Office of the Emergency Services Commissioner acknowledged that for most recent major events, the extension of the policy has meant that the assistance provided by the State has far exceeded the articulated policy, indicating that the current expenditure categories in the NDFA are inadequate for the needs and demands on councils created by major natural disaster events.
There is a need to provide sufficient certainty for councils to enable them to plan for and respond promptly to emergencies without concern about budgetary issues. There must also be changes made to the State arrangements so that they are more in line with the focus on supporting community recovery in state and national policy.
Option 12:
There are currently some roles and responsibilities in the Emergency Management Act 1986 and Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV) that would benefit from review to ensure that they appropriately reflect agency capacity and community expectations
Response:
The MAV and councils support the need for a review. The number of services or tasks in the EMMV for which councils are responsible is growing year on year, without due consideration of whether councils have the capacity or are in the best position to deliver on these responsibilities.
Unlike broad based emergency service organisations, councils have a limited surge capacity. At the regional and state level there is no single agency representing councils in an operational sense that adequately deals with meeting council capacity needs during and after an emergency. The closest arrangement is the protocol for inter-council resource sharing, to which 60 councils are signatories. While the protocol has proven an effective way to quickly organise council-to-council support, arrangements are usually on a short term basis and finding the right people can be a challenge. At the request of councils, and using the protocol to set the rules of engagement, the MAV has at times played a coordinating role by matching council requests for assistance with offers from other councils, however the MAV is not well equipped to play such a role.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 112 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
The MAV and councils also have general observations about the capacity of emergency service organisations and other agencies with responsibilities in legislation and policy. The EMMV lists 18 agencies as control agencies for various hazards despite the fact that most of these agencies – probably with the exception of the police, fire services and defence forces – do not have the surge capacity to effectively operate at the state, regional and local level and to control large scale events.
The responsibilities of control agencies should be reviewed to determine whether it is appropriate to allocate responsibility for „control „to agencies that don„t have the ability to adequately resource all three levels. These agencies may be more suited to a tactical role in large events or as a technical expert, leaving overall control of the emergency to an adequately resourced Emergency Service Organisation (ESO).
There is also a need to assess capability, and whether those agencies currently responsible for services or actions are the most appropriate to do so, taking into account skill sets and expertise. Currently there are some responsibilities assigned to councils for which they are neither experts nor have the resources. These include establishing fire shelter options such as NSPs and community refuges, sourcing resources to support response agencies and producing hazard-specific plans.
The MAV and councils are particularly concerned about the funding model for Victoria State Emergency Service (VICSES) units and the ability of VICSES to act as the control agency for large scale flood events such as those in 2010- 11. Councils very much value and appreciate the work VICSES units do across the state but firmly believe the funding arrangements currently in place are neither sustainable nor beneficial for VICSES.
As VICSES units have matured in their service delivery role, so should the business model of VICSES and management of its units. The current situation whereby funding of the provision, maintenance and insurance of VICSES unit accommodation, vehicles and equipment, varies from municipality to municipality, unit to unit is hardly fitting for an agency charged with such critical emergency management responsibilities. It treats the volunteers of VICSES units in a different way to volunteers from other emergency service organisations, particularly fire and ambulance.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 113 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
In light of its very important role as an emergency management control agency, ongoing resourcing and support for VICSES units needs to move from a historical place-based context to a risk-based state-wide model. Local government would support an approach whereby VICSES undertake a risk- based assessment of where VICSES units should be located and adopt a state-wide risk-based funding model for the units. VICSES needs to transition to a model comparable to that of other emergency services such as the CFA and Victoria Police. Ultimately local government want to see the Service transition to a model that will best enable them to operate effectively in line with their prescribed duties under legislation and emergency management plans. It is the view of local government that the current model is holding the development of VICSES back, and that a transition to an independent risk-based model can be achieved over time.
Option 13:
Undertake a review of the current legislation to determine if consolidating all emergency management-related legislation and ESOs under the one act would reduce „silos‟ and streamline arrangements.
Response:
The MAV supports this option. The Association recently reviewed Victorian legislation to get a comprehensive view of local government„s emergency management responsibilities. There were approximately 25 Acts or key policy documents (such as the EMMV and building regulations) which either list a local government emergency management responsibility; include provisions for requiring an action to be undertaken by councils in an emergency; or require councils to undertake a task in all circumstances, meaning councils need to continue to deliver the service whether affected by an emergency or not. Some obligations stem from legislation that is not traditionally considered to be emergency management related, such as the Planning and Environment Act, the Water Act and the Public Health and Wellbeing Act.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 114 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
The current legislation is, in general, prescriptive regarding process and accountability, meaning there is a fear of liability and less of a willingness to collaborate and share planning, processes and decisions. This is evident in the Integrated Fire Management Planning process, through which structures and processes are being put in place so that agencies plan in a more strategic, consistent and integrated way to reduce risk of fire. Despite these principles, there remains a view that at the municipal level, the Municipal Fire Management Plan is a council plan, and councils alone are audited (in the area of the state covered by the CFA Act).
The MAV would like to see the development of overarching legislation that facilitates integration and a shared approach to planning, including an „acting in good faith„ approach to accountability and potential liability, through the provision of indemnity or immunity for all parties working in the community„s interest to reduce risk and increase community safety. A number of options would need to be considered to best place this legislation; there are benefits to be gained from placing any accountability for local government in the Local Government Act, along with the other duties of municipalities. This could help in ensuring emergency management is considered core business of municipalities. It is imperative that legislative changes avoid the current prescriptive and transactional nature of current legislation, but rather describe general roles and principles to facilitate engagement and participation.
Option 22:
Review and update legislation and staffing models to make emergency management arrangement more in line with municipal councils‟ capacities.
Response:
The MAV and councils were pleased to see acknowledgement in the Green Paper that the role of councils in emergency management has grown beyond most councils„ capability and capacity, and that it is out of step with the expectations of the community. Recent events have also exposed differences in council capacity and emergency preparedness.
Councils believe that obligations listed in the EM and CFA Acts are unnecessarily transactional and no longer align with the skills, networks, knowledge and resources of a modern municipality.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 115 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
A number of additional responsibilities have their origin in other pieces of legislation such as the Planning and Environment Act, Electricity Safety Act, Health and Wellbeing Act, and the Water Act. In addition, regular changes to the EMMV mean that council responsibilities are increasingly complex and ever changing. Roles and responsibilities often compete for priority, and when considered in total, exceed a majority of councils‟ capacity and capability.
It is also significant that while the EMMV states that councils are the lead agency for relief and recovery at the local level, this role does not appear in legislation.
The MAV and councils welcomed the funding of 25 dedicated emergency management (fire) coordinators shared between 34 councils in response to the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission final report. There are significant benefits to be gained by extending this program to other Victorian councils and by making the role more generalised rather than being limited to bushfire risk.
Despite most councils recognising the importance of emergency management, councils are still funded in much the same way they were 100 years ago when they were really only responsible for local infrastructure - largely through rates. There is no additional revenue stream that supports councils with high risk profiles. When it comes to emergency management it is difficult to compete for investment in an area that prepares for what might happen rather than the more tangible services such as meals on wheels and kindergartens.
As part of the MAV„s Improving Emergency Management in Local Government Program, a draft position paper on the future role and responsibilities for local government has been developed and is currently being finalised. The paper is attached at attachment 1 and a final version of the paper will be forwarded once the MAV Board has endorsed the position.
Councils agree they have a critical role to play in emergency management and supporting community safety as they are in the unique position of being the constant for communities throughout the emergency management continuum.
The MAV and councils would like to see the current legislated role of municipalities in emergency management reviewed to better align with the skills, resources and strengths that are common across the sector. These include information provision, community strengthening and engagement, facilitation of planning and partnerships, and risk mitigation.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 116 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
There is a need to move away from the view of councils as the primary providers of resources during an event, so that council resources are more readily available for early initiation of recovery services and the continuity of essential community services.
In this way emergency management will no longer be viewed as an add-on to local government„s role but integrated into core business meaning that councils and their communities are better prepared for emergencies.
Option 23:
Enact legislation for the Victorian Government to step in and support municipal councils where they do not have capacity to meet their emergency management needs.
Response:
With resources allocated by a state umbrella body, recovery and reconstruction should be led at the local level by councils as councils understand the unique needs of the community and can coordinate flexible recovery programs accordingly.
In the course of normal business, councils have a critical role in local policy development, service planning, infrastructure design and maintenance, project management of capital works programs, communication and facilitation of community-based projects. This should be no different in recovery and reconstruction.
In the event of a large-scale emergency, it is possible that a proportion of a council„s staff may be personally impacted and unavailable to attend their workplace in the short term. This could reduce a council„s capacity to provide immediate relief and recovery services.
Other factors which may reduce a council„s capacity during these early stages include:
the impact of the event on the council„s offices and facilities
the impact of the event on the council„s business continuity – in delivering services to both affected and unaffected communities
the council„s commitments during emergency response and/or
the need to conduct/verify urgent impact assessments and remediation
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 117 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
Planning at the regional and state level should be structured in a way that is supportive of these arrangements and should include the provision of surge capacity to support recovery at the regional and local levels.
Victoria„s risk profile and the varying capacity of Victorian councils mean that there have been and will be examples of councils being overwhelmed by an emergency. The most significant recent example of this was Murrindindi Shire after the 2009 bushfires when 40 per cent of the shire was burnt, effectively splitting it in two, and many of the staff and councillors were personally affected. The MAV supports the development of arrangements that provide greater certainty at both levels of government, and the community, of what happens when a council is overwhelmed by an emergency. These arrangements must recognize existing governance structures and leadership roles within the community – whether they are the elected councillors or less formal community leaders.
Rather than the State stepping in to effectively take over the council emergency management functions, the MAV would like to see arrangements put in place to ensure that the State Government can quickly provide councils with financial support and additional human resources to assist with „gap„ identification/ assessment and administrative support (particularly with grant applications or claims under the NDFA). The local government sector can provide short term resource sharing support, but this is only a stop-gap solution in most cases.
In large-scale events, there may be a need for an extraordinary governance structure to oversee the expenditure of State and Commonwealth financial support (or donations) and additional resources. The tipping point will vary from council to council, and specific triggers may need to be established as part of this arrangement. The MAV recommends that a working group be established that includes local government representation to support the development of these triggers and arrangements.
Any such arrangements should be made with a holistic view of the role of councils, and recognition of the statutory powers, duties or functions of a council conferred under the Local Government Act or any other Act, not simply through an emergency management lens.
Therefore the MAV does not support amendments to the Emergency Management Act providing for the State to „step in„.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 118 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
Under Local Government Charter in part 1A of the Local Government Act, councils have a statutory obligation to fulfil the following role and objectives:
3C Objectives of a Council
(1) The primary objective of a Council is to endeavour to achieve the best outcomes for the local community having regard to the long term and cumulative effects of decisions.
(2) In seeking to achieve its primary objective, a Council must have regard to the following facilitating objectives:
(a) to promote the social, economic and environmental viability and sustainability of the municipal district; (b) to ensure that resources are used efficiently and effectively and services are provided in accordance with the Best Value Principles to best meet the needs of the local community;
(c) to improve the overall quality of life of people in the local community;
(d) to promote appropriate business and employment opportunities;
(e) to ensure that services and facilities provided by the Council are accessible and equitable;
(f) to ensure the equitable imposition of rates and charges;
(g) to ensure transparency and accountability in Council decision making.
3D What is the role of a Council?
(1) A Council is elected to provide leadership for the good governance of the municipal district and the local community.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 119 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
(2) The role of a Council includes:
(a) acting as a representative government by taking into account the diverse needs of the local community in decision making;
(b) providing leadership by establishing strategic objectives and monitoring their achievement;
(c) maintaining the viability of the Council by ensuring that resources are managed in a responsible and accountable manner;
(d) advocating the interests of the local community to other communities and governments;
(e) acting as a responsible partner in government by taking into account the needs of other communities;
(f) fostering community cohesion and encouraging active participation in civic life.
It is clear from the above that it is not appropriate for emergency management to be the only relevant factor when decisions are made. There must be recognition that councils provide for the whole municipal fabric – and solutions must be found by working with the same fabric, not patched with something foreign.
In 2009 in Murrindindi Shire, the mechanism used to support the emergency management function of the council, and to manage the significant government financial support, was a „special committee„, established by the Council pursuant to section 86 of the Local Government Act. The committee„s purpose was to ensure alignment of bushfire recovery and reconstruction activities with the activities of Victorian Bushfires Reconstruction & Recovery Authority (VBRRA), state departments and the council.
Special committees can comprise councillors, council staff, other persons or any combination of all three. In Murrindindi Shire, the committee of six was chaired by a VBRRA secondee, and comprised two state government officials and three councillors.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 120 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
Under the LG Act, a Council cannot delegate to a special committee the following powers:
to declare a rate or charge;
to borrow money;
to enter into contracts for an amount exceeding an amount previously determined by the Council;
to incur any expenditure exceeding an amount previously determined by the Council;
any prescribed power.
Translated, this means special committees are not able to spend unbudgeted money or make decisions that affect future budgets. For budget or contractual matters the committee should make recommendations to Council.
The experience of Murrindindi Shire after the 2009 fires was that some budgetary decisions about bushfire recovery and reconstruction activities came through the committee, and others were made through direct interaction between community recovery committees and the State Government, with the council being consulted in the final stages. As a result, the Council has acquired legacy assets of $52.8 million (of which $30.6 million are included on the council„s balance sheet and $22.2 million are non- council assets) and associated costs which the council calculates at $1.184 million per annum in operating and maintenance costs and approximately $0.6 million in depreciation.
While the establishment of a committee under s86 is a preferable option to an arrangement whereby the State steps in to manage the emergency and/or other functions of the council, there must be measures put in place to ensure that plans or decisions about funding that will affect a council„s sustainability are managed and made by council.
Option 24:
Undertake planning at the sub-regional level where municipal councils do not have the capacity to maintain appropriate emergency planning.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 121 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
Response:
The MAV strongly supports establishing and broadening a sub-regional approach to emergency management planning. In planning and managing emergencies, many agencies work across municipal borders, so the artificial allocation of resources to the municipal footprint in MEMPs presents an unrealistic coordination and service delivery arrangement.
Put simply, the municipal geographical footprint may not be the best model for local emergency management planning.
Future local emergency management planning should be decoupled from the municipal footprint, and a more flexible, capacity and risk-driven model adopted.
In this way, local capacity is pooled and agencies are not required to support multiple municipal structures. Regional emergency management planning would be supported at the local level by a number of local emergency management plans.
In parts of Victoria, emergency management planning is beginning to trend towards this approach although there are currently no guidelines for arrangements, and as such, there is some variance in the way sub-regional municipal clusters organise their shared emergency management planning.
Section 18 in Part 4 of the Emergency Management Act makes a specific provision for municipalities to cooperate in relation to emergency management. It allows councils to ―plan and act jointly but states that ―each of the municipal councils is separately responsible for discharging the responsibilities imposed on a municipal council by or under this Part‖.
Further, Section 19 allows municipalities to ―appoint one of the municipal councils to be the principal municipal council in relation to emergency management. One example of municipalities sharing resources and formally collaborating is the Wimmera cluster of councils comprising Horsham Rural City Council, Hindmarsh Shire, Yarriambiack Shire and West Wimmera Shire.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 122 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
The municipalities have formed a Wimmera Emergency Management Steering Group which aims to ―promote, facilitate and advocate for continuous improvement in Emergency Management‖ across the four councils. The Steering Group has agreed Terms of Reference that outline the cluster„s aims, objectives and tasks. It has also established smaller working groups that aim to ―actively participate in the implementation of standardised processes for the sharing of common, resources and planning activities across the shires‖. However, despite the efficiencies in planning, there is still a requirement for four separate plans to be adopted by four councils and for the VICSES to undertake four separate audits. So while the time commitment for partner agencies is reduced, there is little reduction of the commitment required by council staff, and the ultimate accountability of each Council for the plans remains unchanged.
A second example of shared planning is the fire management planning occurring between the City of Greater Geelong and the Borough of Queenscliffe. In 2009 they established a joint Municipal Fire Management Planning (MFMP) Committee, as a joint subcommittee of their Municipal Emergency Management Panning Committees.
This MFMP Committee has representatives from both municipalities and shares responsibility for the development and execution of the two councils„ individual Municipal Fire Prevention Plans (MFPP) required under the CFA Act and the Municipal Fire Management Plans (MFMP). Each MFMP plan will be recommended to the respective MEMPCs as sub plans of the respective MEMPs.
Despite the advantages of a shared planning committee, both councils are still required to:
have separate MFPP as per the CFA Act – each are audited independently;
pay for the cost of producing their plans & and advertising associated with fire prevention;
have individual MFMPs (these are yet to be adopted by each council and are currently being drafted); and
have their own Municipal Fire Prevention Officer.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 123 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
Feedback from councils suggests that in order for formalised sub-regional planning to function effectively, there would need to be clear governance and administrative arrangements in place to reduce the current reliance on goodwill and pre-existing relationships between municipalities at the executive and officer levels, and their partner agencies.
Equitable financial arrangements, agreed sharing of resources and the varying priority placed on emergency management by executive officers are just a few examples of potential impediments at a municipal level.
In addition, the effect of a shared planning model on the indemnity provision in section 76 of the Local Government Act is yet to be satisfactorily explored. Pursuant to s.76, a Council must indemnify and keep indemnified each Councillor, member of a Council committee, member of Council staff and any person exercising any function or power on behalf of a Council against all actions or claims in respect of any act or thing done or omitted to be done in good faith. This provision offers protection to individual members of MEMPCs.
There needs to be consideration of whether or not there are limits to this provision if committee members are making recommendations that have implications for more than one municipality and acting on behalf of more than one council.
As discussed earlier in this submission, a further hurdle that needs to be addressed is the common agency view that MEMPs are council plans, despite the Ministerial Guidelines in part 6 of the EMMV clearly stating the shared responsibilities of committee members. Any new sub-regional planning model would need to have a strong focus on integrated, all agency planning.
As part of the MAV Improving Emergency Management in Local Government program, a Shared Services Project has been designed to develop formalised programs, processes and tools that enable shared planning and resourcing for emergency management activities across municipalities at the state, region or sub-region level. This project seeks to build on the formal and informal arrangements that exist between municipalities for the purpose of emergency management resource sharing, program development, business continuity and other risk management measures.
Through this project, the MAV is currently undertaking an environmental scan of municipal emergency management arrangements, with a view to identifying best-practice models and sharing them with the municipal EM sector.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 124 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
Option 26:
Give the Emergency Services Commissioner could be given authority to review municipal level planning.
Response:
Currently, VICSES audits municipal plans under section 21(a) of the Emergency Management Act 1986 and the CFA is responsible for auditing municipal fire prevention planning. The MAV agrees that the audit should be undertaken by an agency that has not contributed to the plan, and does not have any responsibilities under the plan.
The local government sector would also like to see steps taken to make sure any new audit process reflects the fact that MEMPs are the product of a multi-agency committee not just a council plan. Currently assessment of all risks, and accountability for the MEMP and any hazard specific sub-plans, falls to the council, rather than the members of the committee who contributed to the plan, and the agencies with a role to play in executing the plan. If we can move toward integrated planning at all levels, with shared ownership of, and accountability for, plans there should be a reduction in the siloed approach to emergency management recognised in the 2010-11 Review of Flood Warnings and Response interim report and Green Paper. Under this approach, councils may still have a lead role to play in facilitating „all hazards‟ planning at the local, municipal and sub-regional levels. They have strategic planning skills and fewer vested interests in specific hazards or aspects of emergency management than other agencies – but this does not mean that local or municipal emergency management plans are „council„ plans. They are plans for the local, municipal or sub-regional footprint and many agencies will be responsible for contribution to and execution of relevant sections.
While councils can facilitate generic emergency planning, they do not have the information, resources or expertise to lead planning for specific hazards. Councils can contribute to these plans as many other agencies will and can be accountable for relevant sections, but they should not be the „owners‟ of these plans – as they are currently understood to be the owners of Municipal Fire Prevention and Fire Management Plans.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 125 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F17. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT GREEN PAPER: TOWARDS A MORE DISASTER RESILIENT AND SAFER VICTORIA (continued)
Conclusion
The MAV strongly supports the principals in part six of the Green Paper. Those principals being:
Community resilience
All hazards approach
All agencies
Three tiers of planning operations.
Mr Merritt left the Council Chamber at 8.46pm. Mr Merritt returned to the Council Chamber at 8.49pm.
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council supports MAV‟s response to the seven specific options.
2. That Council provides feedback to the full submission of MAV, where time and resources allow.
Crs Northcott and White
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 126 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F18. THE FUTURE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DRAFT POSITION PAPER RESPONSE (Separate circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1273949, 1280542, 1259047)
Group Manager: Trevor Hornby, Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Kenneth Ross, Emergency Management (Fire Coordinator)
Executive Summary
The Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) has requested feedback to their draft response, titled „The role of local government in emergency management‟ to the Victorian Government‟s Emergency Management Green Paper „Towards a More Disaster Resilient and Safer Victoria‟, by the 7 November 2011.
Background
The Victorian Government is reforming the State‟s crisis and emergency management arrangements to create a more disaster resilient and safer Victoria. To determine the most effective arrangements for Victoria, a range of issues need to be resolved. A number of these issues are discussed in the attached “Green Paper”. Government is interested in receiving submissions about matters that may affect Victoria‟s ability to prepare for, mitigate, respond to and recover from emergency events.
The MAV have developed a draft position paper after consultation, in six workshops, with various council representatives. They are now asking for feedback from the Glenelg Shire Council in relation to this draft. Comment must be provided by the 7 November 2011. They request that the feedback be submitted in the template provided. The template contains the following headings:
1. Background
2. Position Statement
3. Role Statements
a. Lead
b. Support
c. Out of Scope
This template generally follows the MAVs draft position paper.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 127 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F18. THE FUTURE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DRAFT POSITION PAPER RESPONSE (continued)
Report
1. Background
Under the Background heading, MAV has stated”
”In recent years the role of councils in emergency management, prescribed by the State Government or expected by agencies and the community, has grown out of step with the capacity, expertise and resources of municipalities.”
Key responsibilities stem from the Emergency Management Act (1986), which stipulates that councils will:
operate a municipal emergency management committee
adopt a municipal emergency management plan prepared by the committee, and
appoint a Municipal Emergency Resource Officer (MERO) who will coordinate municipal resources to support response agencies in an emergency.
For councils wholly or partly covered by the Country Fire Authority, the CFA Act has similar process-based requirements for council to appoint a Municipal Fire Prevention Officer, appoint a committee and adopt a Municipal Fire Prevention Plan. More recently, the Emergency Management Act 1986 (EM Act) and the Country Fire Authority Act 1958 (CFA Act) have been amended to also require councils to designate Neighbourhood Safer Places for use in bushfires as a place of last resort.
Councils believe that obligations listed in the EM and CFA Acts are unnecessarily prescriptive and no longer align with the skills, networks, knowledge and resources of a contemporary municipality.
A number of additional responsibilities have their origin in other legislation such as the Planning and Environment Act 1987, Electricity Safety Act 1998, Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, and the Water Act 1989. In addition, regular changes to the Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV) mean that council responsibilities are increasing complex and ever changing. Roles and responsibilities often compete for priority, and when considered in total, are well beyond the majority of councils‟ capacity and capability.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 128 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F18. THE FUTURE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DRAFT POSITION PAPER RESPONSE (continued)
Across the local government sector, and across many government and emergency management agencies, there is no consistent view about the role of councils in emergency management except that the current situation is unsustainable.
In August and September 2011, six workshops were held for approximately 150 participants to obtain a local government view about the future role and key responsibilities. Participants included elected representatives, CEOs, directors, and full and part time emergency management practitioners including MEROs and Municipal Recovery Managers (MRMs). Through three facilitated group activities participants were asked to draft:
a statement about the future role of councils in emergency management – one or two sentences that describe the scope of local government‟s role in emergency management
role statements that aligned to the policy position – including what councils would lead, what they would support and what activities and services should be outside the scope of local government‟s emergency management role; and
descriptions of how the responsibilities could be fulfilled, including internal staffing arrangements, incident management structures, and arrangements with neighbouring councils and agencies at regional and state levels.”
2. Position Statement
Under the heading, Position statement, the MAV reflected the outcomes from these workshops and stated:
“Councils have a unique understanding of the needs and characteristics of their local communities, environment and economy. They are well placed to facilitate decisions about making their community safer.
In partnership with government and other agencies, councils have a responsibility to understand and mitigate risks. They have a key role to play in communicating general information about risk and emergencies, and engaging with their communities to support resilience.
Councils have a proactive role to play in supporting their community through prevention, preparedness and, emergency relief and recovery.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 129 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F18. THE FUTURE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DRAFT POSITION PAPER RESPONSE (continued)
Councils facilitate partnerships and planning at the local level and have a limited role in supporting emergency response.”
3. Role Description
Under the heading, Role description the MAV stated the following,
3.1 “Leadership responsibilities:
a) Facilitate strategic “all hazard” planning at the local level in partnership with other agencies.
Councils have strategic planning skills. They have fewer vested interests in specific hazards or aspects of emergency management than other agencies. This does not mean that local or municipal emergency management plans are „council‟ plans. They are plans for the local, municipal or sub- regional footprint and many agencies will be responsible for contribution to and execution of relevant sections.
b) Coordinate local recovery
Councils understand the unique needs and concerns of their communities and can coordinate flexible recovery programs accordingly. Most councils already run community and economic development programs and have established relationships with many of the service providers that support people through recovery. As public land managers, planning authorities and owners and managers of community infrastructure, councils are in a good position to lead environmental recovery (except forest, national park or protected public land). Recovery services need to be delivered in partnership with other agencies and service providers and will often require support from the other levels of government.
c) Provide and coordinate relief services
Councils already coordinate emergency relief services and feel that they are the most appropriate organisations to do so, in partnership with other agencies and community service agencies.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 130 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F18. THE FUTURE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DRAFT POSITION PAPER RESPONSE (continued)
d) Facilitate communication and information from agencies and service providers to the community. This includes information provision and dissemination on behalf of other agencies before, during and after an event, but excludes issuing warnings.
Councils have existing networks through which to communicate; accessible information points and communication channels; local knowledge enabling them to validate and/ or tailor information so that it‟s relevant and credible; and the ability to provide continuity in messaging through all aspects of emergency management including preparedness.
e) Establish structures to ensure community engagement in emergency management and advocate on behalf of communities
Councils are well positioned to consult with their communities on emergency management matters, develop structures for community involvement in emergency management and integrate resilience building strategies into regular council community engagement. Through this process councils can represent community interests to other agencies and government, and reduce the piecemeal approach to community engagement.
f) Assist community resilience by continuing to deliver core community services, including managing and restoring local infrastructure during and after emergencies.
g) Ensuring continuity or quick reinstatement of local government services must be a priority in an emergency. This should be recognised and councils should be supported in this by other agencies and government.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 131 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F18. THE FUTURE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DRAFT POSITION PAPER RESPONSE (continued)
h) Undertake risk management, including the maintenance of local infrastructure
Maintaining council roads, roadsides, drains, water storage and other infrastructure according to council management plans are all important mitigation measures. Other significant mitigation measures are applied through strategic land use planning decisions (under state planning provisions) and implementation of building regulations. Councils have a lead role in community education about local risk, in partnership with agencies with hazard-specific expertise.
i) Foster partnership and network development
Developing and strengthening local networks and strategic partnerships is core business for councils and can be used to support communities and emergency arrangements.
3.2 Supporting role:
a) Support risk identification processes
Councils, in partnership with other agencies, have a role to play in identifying risks at the local level and working with the other agencies and the community to develop risk reduction strategies. At the local level there should be no requirement to repeat assessments that are identified by specialist agencies at the regional or state level except where the scale and detail of the assessments justifies that work.
b) Support hazard-specific planning
While councils can facilitate generic emergency planning, they do not have the information, resources or expertise to lead planning for specific hazards. Councils can contribute to these plans as many other agencies will and can be accountable for relevant sections, but they should not be the „owners‟ of these plans.
c) Influence emergency management planning at the regional level
Councils can support regional emergency management planning by providing local knowledge.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 132 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F18. THE FUTURE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DRAFT POSITION PAPER RESPONSE (continued)
d) Provide municipal resources where available
Councils will make resources owned or controlled by them available to support emergency management where agency resources are exhausted, but will not coordinate other resources for an emergency nor source non-council owned or controlled resources.
e) Provide information and advice to support incident management
Property databases, local knowledge and historical records can all be used to support incident management. This requires council integration into emergency management teams and a standard local government presence in incident control centres (ICCs).
f) Support other councils in partnership
Using an established protocol for resource-sharing or memorandum of understanding many councils will provide people, equipment and other resources to other councils when requested and within the council‟s capacity.
4. Out of Scope
Under the Out of Scope heading and possibly the most important area the MAV draft stated:
4.1 “Coordinate resource provision
Following widespread divestment in equipment through council amalgamations and competitive tendering requirements, councils are no longer the main source of response-aiding equipment within a municipality.
4.2 Run a Municipal Emergency Coordination Centre (MECC)
The primary purpose of running a MECC is to coordinate resources for response, which is no longer viewed as a key council responsibility. Running a MECC often means council resources are unavailable for other activity such as:
maintaining critical business services and systems
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 133 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F18. THE FUTURE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DRAFT POSITION PAPER RESPONSE (continued)
restoring infrastructure
supporting response agencies, and
initiating recovery services
In recent events, logistics to support emergency response have been run out of both MECCs and ICCs, meaning agencies see less value in attending MECCs and often send liaison officers with little experience. The regularly poor level of departmental and emergency service liaison has meant that key council‟s emergency management staff in the MECC‟s have little knowledge of the emergency and impacts and are unable to effectively plan for recovery or provide information to the community. The MAV and councils propose that logistics to support emergency response should be run out of the ICC or equivalent.
4.3 Be responsible for hazard-specific plans
As above, these should be the responsibility of the control agency (or equivalent specialist agency).
4.4 Control/ combating agency
Councils do not have the training or expertise.
4.5 Management of shelters such as fire refuges and organising evacuations
Councils do not have the capacity or expertise. Municipalities do not have the financial and staffing resources to fund the building, maintenance and operation of community fire refuges or to organize evacuations.
5. Conclusion
Councils have a critical role to play in emergency management and supporting community safety as they are in the unique position of being the constant for communities throughout the emergency management continuum.
Recent events have shown that there is a need to move away from the view of councils as the primary providers of resources during an event, so that council resources are more readily available for early initiation of recovery services and the continuity of essential community services.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 134 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F18. THE FUTURE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DRAFT POSITION PAPER RESPONSE (continued)
Events have also exposed differences in council capacity and emergency preparedness.
The MAV and councils propose that the current legislated role of councils in emergency management be reviewed to better align with the skills, resources and strengths that are common across the sector. These include information provision, community strengthening and engagement, facilitation of planning and partnerships, and risk mitigation. In this way emergency management will no longer be viewed as an add-on to local government‟s role but integrated into core business meaning that councils and their communities are better prepared for emergencies.”
Recent discussions with regional police command has indicated that as a general rule police will not ask for the MECC to be activated and that in most circumstances they would prefer a council liaison officer at the Incident Control Centre.
The indication by MAV that the MECC is likely to be staffed by liaison personnel with little experience appears to be correct if not under stated.
In an emergency police will organise themselves along similar lines to the CFA:
Stage one they will be operating from the scene
Stage two they will be operating from the police station
Stage three they will be operating from Warrnambool
Stage four they will be operating from Melbourne
Police command stated that there will be limited communication with a MECC and during recent flood emergency, it was found that a MECC was making decisions that should have been made from the Incident Control Centre. This is one of the reasons they are now placing the activation of the MECC as a minor consideration in the initial stages of an emergency or incident.
Under the Australian Inter-service Incident Management System (AIIMS) procedure the main stakeholders in an emergency will be operating from an Incident Control Centre.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 135 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F18. THE FUTURE ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DRAFT POSITION PAPER RESPONSE (continued)
There is very little the MECC can respond to and could be handled by one or two council representatives acting in a liaison capacity.
There is significant strong responsibility for councils in relation to relief and recovery in an emergency and this can begin prior, during and after an emergency or event. The Department of Human Services is in charge of recovery and have already outlined roles and responsibilities for councils.
MECCs have a much lesser role than in previous emergency situations. The Emergency Management Manual Victoria (EMMV) is based on recommendations of thirty years previous and no longer reflect the true situation. The State objective of the Government‟s emergency management Green Paper is to design a contemporary Emergency Management Manual Victoria to enable Victoria to better respond to emergencies.
Mrs Walford left the Council Chamber at 8.51pm. Mrs Walford returned to the Council Chamber at 8.53pm.
Officer Recommendation
That Council support in full the MAV‟s draft submission, titled „The future role of local government in emergency management‟, on the Victorian Government‟s emergency management Green Paper „Towards a more disaster resilient and safer Victoria‟.
Crs Stephens and Northcott
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 136 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
MOTION
Crs Stephens and Wilson
That Council consider F19 – Designation of three Neighbourhood Safer Places – Places of Last Resort as an item of late business in accordance with clauses 4.5.2 & 4.5.3 of the Glenelg Shire Council Meeting Procedure adopted 27 April 2011.
CARRIED
F19. DESIGNATION OF THREE NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFER PLACES – PLACES OF LAST RESORT - DARTMOOR, DIGBY AND HEYWOOD (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1280891, 1280907, 1280932)
Group Manager: Trevor Hornby, Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Kenneth Ross, Emergency Management (Fire) Coordinator
Executive Summary
The Country Fire Authority has completed assessments for three Neighbourhood Safer Places – Places of Last Resort: Dartmoor, Digby and Heywood. In accordance with legislative requirements, Council can now proceed to designate the areas specified in Dartmoor, Digby and Heywood as Neighbourhood Safer Places – Places of Last Resort (NSP).
Background
The following areas have been selected in consultation with Glenelg Shire Council staff and the Country Fire Authority (CFA) and have recently been determined as compliant by the CFA:
Dartmoor- Recreation Reserve, Ascot Street, Dartmoor
Digby- Hall and Tennis Court Car Park, Buckingham Street, Digby
Heywood- Central Business District, Edgar Street (including service road) between Cameron Street and Lindsay Street, Heywood
Report
Each of the three areas have recently been reassessed as compliant by the CFA as areas for a Neighbourhood Safer Place – Place of Last Resort.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 137 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F19. LATE REPORT - DESIGNATION OF THREE NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFER PLACES – PLACES OF LAST RESORT - DARTMOOR, DIGBY AND HEYWOOD (continued) a) Dartmoor – Recreation Reserve Ascot Street, Dartmoor.
This area is owned by the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) and is maintained by The Dartmoor Recreation Reserve Committee of Management (Dartmoor CoM). The Dartmoor Committee of Management gave permission for the area to be used as a NSP last fire season and there is no indication to the contrary for this 2011/2012 fire season.
b) Digby – Hall and Tennis Court Car Park, Buckingham Street, Digby.
This area is owned by the DSE and is maintained by the Digby Hall and Recreation Reserve (Digby Committee of Management). Officers have contacted Mrs. June Holmes, the Secretary of the Digby Committee of Management and she has advised that she sees no problems with permission being granted for the area to be used as a NSP. Confirmation has been requested in writing c) Heywood - CBD, Edgar Street (including service road) between Cameron Street and Lindsay Street, Heywood.
This area is to the north end of the Heywood township and is under the control of the Glenelg Shire Council. It was the second location due to the Heywood Recreational Reserve assessed as non compliant for NSP purposes by the CFA.
Conclusion
The designation of these three areas will take the total number of NSP‟s within Glenelg Shire to four for this coming fire season with another two at Merino and Nelson likely to be established subject to consent from the relevant organisations and CFA compliance assessments.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 138 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
F19. LATE REPORT - DESIGNATION OF THREE NEIGHBOURHOOD SAFER PLACES – PLACES OF LAST RESORT - DARTMOOR, DIGBY AND HEYWOOD (continued)
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council designate the following three areas as Neighbourhood Safer Places - Places of Last Resort:
a) Dartmoor – Recreation Reserve, Ascot Street, Dartmoor
b) Digby – Hall and Tennis Court Car Park (car park only), Buckingham Street, Digby
c) Heywood – Central Business District, Edgar Street (including service road) between Cameron Street and Lindsay Street, Heywood
2. That a community education program be undertaken on the designation of Neighbourhood Safer Places, including the Council‟s Community News and Media Releases.
Crs Stephens and Northcott
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 139 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
ANY OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTER:
URGENT BUSINESS:
1. Portland Harbour Project
MOTION
Crs Halliday and Wilson
That Council determine that this item be designated as urgent business, within the Confidential section of the Council Meeting, in accordance with clause 5.68 of the Glenelg Shire Council Meeting Procedure adopted 27 April 2011.
CARRIED
RECEIPT OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR INFORMATION:
INDEX – SEPARATE CIRCULATIONS TO REPORTS
Separate Circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media
C1. Petition to Halt Development in Low Lying Coastal Areas of the Glenelg Shire D1. Delegated Planning Committee Minutes E1. Assembly of Councillors Records – 27 April 2011 to 15 September 2011 (inclusive) F1. Monthly Finance Report – 31 August 2011 F10. Adoption of Portland Bay Local Port Annual Report for 2010/2011 F13. Amendment C52 (Parts 1 & 2) – Coastal Spaces Landscape Assessment Study Implementation Project: Recommendations Resulting from Panel Report F14. 2011/12 Longer Term Capital Plan F15. Regional Growth Fund – Local Government Infrastructure Program F19. Late Report - Designation of Three Neighbourhood Safer Places – Places of Last Resort - Dartmoor, Digby and Heywood
Separate Circulation to Councillors and Group Managers
A1. CONFIDENTIAL Notice of Motion No. 2-2011/2012, Community Grant Program Allocations – First Round F2. Volunteer Advisory Committee F3. CONFIDENTIAL 2011-2012 Community Grants Program Allocations – First Round F6. Fire Services Property Levy Options Paper F7. Glenelg Municipal Fire Management Plan 2011-2014 F8. Proposed Introduction of Stock Agent Charge at Casterton Saleyards F9. Glenelg Shire Council Annual Report 2010-2011 – Authorisation for Submission to the Minister for Local Government
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 140 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
INDEX – SEPARATE CIRCULATIONS TO REPORTS (continued)
Separate Circulation to Councillors and Group Managers (continued)
F12. Internal Audit – Review of Audit Committee Charter G1. Receipt of the Audit Committee Minutes – Tuesday 16 August 2011 G3. Portland Harbour Project
Separate Circulation to Councillors
F11. Delegations and Authorisations Review No. Three (3) – 2010-2011
„IN CAMERA‟ Separate Circulation to Councillors and Group Managers
Nil
Recommendation
The documents separately circulated to Councillors, Group Managers and Media, as listed above, be received.
Crs Wilson and Stephens
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
CLOSURE OF MEETING TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC:
Recommendation
That the Council Meeting be closed to members of the public pursuant to Section 89 of the Local Government Act 1989, to enable consideration of the following reports:
G1. Contract No. 201102 – Construction of Extensions to Portland Airport Terminal and Maintenance Hangar
G2. Portland Landfill – Locality Context
G3. Requests for Leave of Absence – Security of Councillor‟s property – Section 89 (2)(h) of the Local Government Act 1989 - Any other matter which the Council considers would prejudice the Council or any person
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 141 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
CLOSURE OF MEETING TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: (continued)
MOTION
Crs Saunders and Wilson
That the Council Meeting be closed to members of the public pursuant to Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, to enable consideration of the following reports:
G1. Contract No. 201102 – Construction of Extensions to Portland Airport Terminal and Maintenance Hangar
G2. Portland Landfill – Locality Context
G3. Portland Harbour Project
G4. Requests for Leave of Absence
CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING:
MOTION
Crs Wilson and Saunders
That the meeting be adjourned at 8.56pm.
CARRIED
DIVISION:
For: Crs Wilson, Stephens, Halliday, Saunders and Northcott
Against: Crs White and Cross
RESUMPTION OF MEETING:
MOTION
Crs White and Stephens
That the meeting be resumed at 9.04pm.
CARRIED
Crs Wilson and Halliday returned to the Council Chamber at 9.05pm.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 142 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
G. „IN CAMERA‟ REPORTS:
OPENING OF COUNCIL MEETING TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC:
Crs Wilson and Stephens
That the Council Meeting be opened to members of the public at 9.35pm.
CARRIED
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MAYOR DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 9.35pm.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT PAGES 1 – 142 ARE CONFIRMED AND ARE A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD.
CR BRUCE CROSS MAYOR
MUNICIPAL OFFICES PORTLAND
22 November 2011