Glenelg Shire Council Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday, 23 August 2011, at Glenelg Shire Municipal Offices – Council Chamber 71 Cliff Street, Portland
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 2 - Tuesday, 23 August 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
1. 55 Percy Street, Portland 6 2. Wood Pellet Mill, Heywood 7
Questions from the Gallery: 7
1. Median Strip Area of New Street between Garden Street and Henty Highway 7 2. Mutual Interest Issues Glenelg Shire Council, Mount Gambier City and Grant District Council 8
A. Notices of Motion: 9
A1. Proposed Rate Strategy 2012/2013 Financial Year 9-10
B. Deputations: 10
C. Petitions: 11
C1. Call a Halt to Development in Low Lying Coastal Areas of the Glenelg Shire 11 C2. Candidate Sites for Waste Transfer Station At Nelson 12-17
D. Committee Reports: 18
D1. Delegated Planning Committee Unsigned Minutes 19-20
E. Assembly of Councillor Records 21
E1. Assembly of Councillors Records – 15 July to 11 August 2011 (Inclusive) 22-25
F. Management Reports 26
F1. Monthly Finance Report June 2011 27-28
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 3 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Contents Page
F2. General Purpose Financial Report; Standard Statements and Performance Statement for the Year Ending 30 June 2011 29-30 F3. Draft Public Art Policy (Stage One) 31-33 F4. Proposal for Establishing Cultural Collection Advisory Committee 34-36 F5. Application to Place Plaque on Seafarers Wall 37-38 F6. Narrawong Beach Patrol 39-42 F7. Casterton Railway Precinct – Lease Arrangements 43-46 F8. Portland and Heywood Public and Community Transport Needs Analysis 47-49 F9. Range Road/Norman Road Rural Locality – Road Network Connectivity for Heavy Vehicle Access Relating to Agricultural Production and Fire Emergencies 50-55 F10. Roads to Recovery Program Advocacy 56-58 F11. Finalisation of 2011/12 Longer Term Capital Plan - Withdrawn 59-62 F12. Council Infrastructure Assets and Control of Building Sites – Protection Permits 63-65 F13. Further Work Undertaken – Rate Strategy Review Submission: Victorian Farmers Federation 66-67 F14. Change to the Boundaries of the Municipal District: Process and Considerations 68-71 F15. Appointment of Committee of Council to Hear Submissions on the Transfer of Title: Council Owned Property, 96 Julia St, Portland 72-76 F16. Membership of the Glenelg Fire Management Planning Sub Committee 77-78 F17. Lease of Bridgewater Bay Kiosk – 1661 Bridgewater Rd, Cape Bridgewater 79-81 F18. Christmas/New Year Period Closure Dates 2011/12 82-83 F19. Constitutional Recognition of Local Government 84-86 F20. Council Submission on the Review of the Victorian Planning System 87-88 F21. Proposed Structural Changes for Regional Tourism Boards 89-95
Any Other Procedural Matter: 96
Urgent Business: 96
1. 175th Anniversary of Henty Brothers moving Inland to Henty - November 2011 96
Receipt of Items Submitted for Information: 96
Index – Separate Circulations to Reports: 96-97
Closure of Meeting to Members of the Public: 98
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 4 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Contents Page
E. In Camera Reports: 98
E1. Contract No. 201048 – “Various Concrete Works (Annual Contract)” 99-103 E2. Requests for Leave of Absence 104
Opening of Meeting to Members of the Public 105
Closure of Council Meeting 105
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 5 - Tuesday, 23 August 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), Acting Group Manager Community Development (Mr Wayne Frost), Group Manager Planning and Economic Development (Mr Syd Deam), Acting Group Manager Assets and Infrastructure (Ms Sam Sharp), Governance Support Coordinator (Mrs Kylie Walford), Finance Coordinator (Ms Lauren Armistead) and Senior Administration Officer Corporate Services (Mrs Tanya Flockhart)
OPENING PRAYER:
The Mayor opened the Meeting with the Council Prayer.
INDIGENOUS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
The Mayor followed with the Indigenous Acknowledgement.
RECEIPT OF APOLOGIES:
Nil
CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES:
Crs Wilson and Stephens
That the minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 26 July 2011, as circulated, be confirmed.
CARRIED
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‟. ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 6 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST: (continued)
Nil
QUESTION TIME:
I. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN WRITING OR PREVIOUSLY TAKEN ON NOTICE:
1. 55 Percy Street, Portland
At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday 26 July 2011, Mr Owen Roberts of Narrawong asked the following question:
What is the total cost to Council to demolish and refurbish the site, including relocation of power lines and other sundry costs associated with same?
Council officers have since provided a response, as follows:
Following a public notice process, only one quotation (from a local firm) was received for the relevant works. This quotation was duly assessed and preferred Quoting Firm status was identified, such firm also holding appropriate registration with the Building Commission.
A request for further information from the preferred Quoting Firm was necessary, inclusive of Council‟s role in facilitating effective access to the rear of the site for heavy equipment. This resulted in an approximately 6% adjustment to reduce the initially quoted amount.
The finalised accepted quotation was $67,000 (GST exclusive). In addition the project involved an Asbestos Assessment Report, planning permit, building permit, asbestos-related air monitoring, clearance certificate and disconnection of utility services.
The works commenced on approximately 27 June 2011 and were nearing practical completion as of 11 August 2011.
Powercor‟s relocation of the bundled cables attached to the frontage of the building was at no cost to Council. The agreement between Powercor and relevant owners when the bundled cables were originally attached to the buildings was to the effect that in the event any alteration/removal/replacement of a building also necessitated relocation/replacement of the power cables, this would occur at no cost to the relevant owner.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 7 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN WRITING OR PREVIOUSLY TAKEN ON NOTICE: (continued)
2. Wood Pellet Mill, Heywood
At the Ordinary Council Meeting held on Tuesday 26 July 2011, the Portland Observer asked the following question:
Also in regard to the major proposed developments, why was the wood pellet mill, a $30 million project for Heywood, not listed?
Council officers provide a response, as follows:
The Pellet Mill proposal was originally put forward by Council for inclusion in the study. It was removed from the final draft of the Major Project‟s Cumulative Impacts Study by the consultants following a newspaper article in the Portland Observer.
The article stated that “management in Albany confirmed the Heywood project was unlikely to happen” and that landowner ABP have had no contact from the company to progress the project.
It appears this was not refuted by the company and the project was removed by the consultants in the last draft of the study .
II. QUESTIONS FROM THE GALLERY:
1. Median Strip Area of New Street between Garden Street and Henty Highway
The Portland Observer asked the following question:
The Council is planning to improve the median strip area of New Street between Garden Street and the Henty Highway. Is it able to provide details as to what is envisaged species of shrubs, bushes or trees will be planted there?
Acting Group Manager Assets and Infrastructure Ms Sam Sharp advised at this stage there haven‟t been any detailed plans done so no details are available.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 8 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN IN WRITING OR PREVIOUSLY TAKEN ON NOTICE: (continued)
2. Mutual Interest Issues Glenelg Shire Council, Mount Gambier City and Grant District Council
The Portland Observer asked the following question:
What issues of mutual interest are currently being pursued by the Glenelg Shire, Mount Gambier City and Grant District councils at their regular joint meetings?
Mayor Cr Bruce Cross advised the meetings are at 6 monthly intervals and are an information sharing gathering. If there are items of municipal interest they are taken on board. Currently there are continuing discussions with regard to the Green Triangle Freight Action Plan, timber harvesting and road network.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 9 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
A. NOTICES OF MOTION:
A1. NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1-2011/2012 (DWS: 1239745)
Cr. Halliday has submitted the following Notice of Motion:
Notice of Motion
In accordance with the Council‟s Governance Local Law and associated Meeting Procedure, I give notice of my intention to move the following motion at the Council meeting to be held on Tuesday, 23 August 2011:
1. That Council adopt, for public consultation, a proposed rate strategy for the 2012/2013 financial year as follows:
a) Reduce the current rebate for Primary Production Land from 30% to 25%; and
b) Reduce the rate in the dollar for Commercial/Industrial Land from 120% of the General Land rate to 100% of the General Land rate.
2. Undertake a public consultation process prior to 30 November 2011.
Signed: Cr. Halliday Dated: 23 August 2011
Cr Halliday‟s Comments
There has been concern in the community about the changes to rates this year because of the variations from a decrease of 3.33% for Primary Production Land to increases in General Land, Commercial/Industrial Land, Timber Production Land and Recreational Land of 10.5%.
Many people have spoken to me and think that this wide variation is unfair.
Rates are a property tax. The valuation of property should determine the rates payable.
I think this idea would be a fairer way of raising rates next financial year.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 10 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
MOTION
Crs Halliday and White
1. That Council adopt, for public consultation, a proposed rate strategy for the 2012/2013 financial year as follows:
a) Reduce the current rebate for Primary Production Land from 30% to 25%; and
b) Reduce the rate in the dollar for Commercial/Industrial Land from 120% of the General Land rate to 100% of the General Land rate.
2. Undertake a public consultation process prior to 30 November 2011.
AMENDMENT
Crs Halliday and White
1. That Council consider points a) and b) at the next Councillor Workshop:
a) That Council consider adopting, for public consultation, a proposed rate strategy for the 2012/2013 financial year as follows:
i) Reduce the current rebate for Primary Production Land from 30% to 25%; and
ii) Reduce the rate in the dollar for Commercial/Industrial Land from 120% of the General Land rate to 100% of the General Land rate
b) That Council consider undertaking a public consultation process prior to 30 November 2011.
The Amendment was LOST
The MOTION was LOST
DIVISION: For: Crs Halliday, White and Wilson Against: Crs Cross, Stephens, Saunders and Northcott
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 11 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
B. DEPUTATIONS:
Nil.
C. PETITIONS:
C1. CALL A HALT TO DEVELOPMENT IN LOW LYING COASTAL OF THE GLENELG SHIRE
MOTION
Crs Stephens and Saunders
That Council receive the petition and the petition organiser be advised that the petition will be dealt with at the Ordinary Council Meeting to be held on Tuesday 27 September 2011.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 12 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
C2. CANDIDATE SITES FOR WASTE TRANSFER STATION AT NELSON (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1237687, 1237822, 1237825)
Group Manager: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager – Assets & Infrastructure Author: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager – Assets & Infrastructure
Executive Summary
This report relates to a petition received at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 August 2011 relating to “the issue of a proposed site for Nelson‟s Waste Transfer Station”.
Background
1. Introduction
At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 August 2011 a petition was presented containing the following wording –
“In considering environmental, access and aesthetic issues, do you believe that the Shire‟s proposed (and certainly needed) Waste Transfer Station should be located on the current Nelson Tip site, during and after its rehabilitation, rather than to create another compromised site”?
The petition is separately circulated as Appendix A to this report, inclusive of the covering letter. The petition contains the names, addresses and signatures of 50 persons, with a high majority having Nelson Township addresses.
2. Existing Nelson Landfill Site in North Nelson Road
a) The existing Landfill site in North Nelson Road (CA45D) dates from circa early 1960s, also being a former limestone extraction pit – also refer Appendix B as separately included in this agenda.
The March 1983 “South-Western Area District 1 Review - Final Recommendations” by the Land Conservation Council (LCC) contained certain recommendations which referred to the Nelson Landfill site, ie:
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 13 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
C2. CANDIDATE SITES FOR WASTE TRANSFER STATION AT NELSON (continued)
Recommendation A6 (Extract)
“Addition to the Lower Glenelg National Park – Parish of Glenelg
This area adjoins the southern boundary of the park near the township of Nelson. It is an important addition, as it contains the main entrance to the park visitor centre. It supports coastal vegetation dominated by coastal wattle.
The area also contains the rubbish tip for the township of Nelson and is used for extraction of limestone. Council (sic LCC) believes the tip should be relocated on an alternative site away from the main entrance to the park”.
Recommendation A7
“That 3 ha of public land adjoining the Lower Glenelg National Park in the Parish of Glenelg be added to the park.
that the management authority, in conjunction with the Shire of Portland and other relevant departments, commence an investigation immediately into alternative sites for the Nelson tip in order that the tip be relocated as soon as possible (consideration could be given to using portion of the uncommitted land in the north-eastern corner of the township of Nelson.
that extraction of limestone from the existing tip cease no later than 1993 and the area be progressively rehabilitated.
and that the area be preserved under the National Parks Act 1995, and be managed by the National Parks Service”.
The location of the “uncommitted land” referred to in Recommendation A7 is shown in Appendix C, being an enlargement of the map in the LCC Final Recommendations report which appears to be all of the Crown land (zoned Public Park and Recreation) within CA‟s 39, 40, 41, 42A, 43A i.e. the area bounded by North Nelson Road – Huebners Road – Vause Road northern prolongation – Vause Road (east-west), Wade Street and the northern boundary of the township Zone (freehold land) – also refer Appendix B.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 14 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
C2. CANDIDATE SITES FOR WASTE TRANSFER STATION AT NELSON (continued)
b) Based on more recent comments received from the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) (legal successor to the Land Conservation Council), the proposed addition to the Lower Glenelg National Park referred to in Recommendations A6, A7 above is CA‟s 45C, 45D, being actually 22.4 hectares and currently in the Farming Zone; this means that the 3 hectare figure referred to was probably an “in-and-out” error. The Nelson Landfill site (existing Crown lease) occupies approximately 20% of such proposed “addition area”.
According to recent comments received from VEAC (8 June 2011) and from local DSE officers (13 July 2011), the status of the 1983 Final Recommendations is summarised as follows:
Recommendations A6 and A7 were approved by State Government by Order in Council dated 29 June 1984.
Section 28 of the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council Act 2001 essentially preserves the Government-approved LCC recommendations.
Neither Recommendation A6 or Recommendation A7 has been revoked or amended in any way. However, public policy processes over nearly 3 decades may have led to some change in the “values” which are placed on the characteristics and attributes of natural/environmental resources.
c) Following updated discussions held between Council and Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) officers in particularly 2008/09, allocations have been included in the adopted 2010/11 and 2011/12 Council budgets towards investigation/planning/works for a new transfer station in Nelson Township which, upon completion, would be followed by closure and rehabilitation of the existing landfill site in North Nelson Road.
From the above discussions DSE officers have indicated that the west part of CA45C (east of Parks Road/Huebner Road intersection) could be considered as a candidate location for establishment of a transfer station, particularly as such Crown land was not reserved for any public purpose and is also included in a Farming Zone.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 15 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
C2. CANDIDATE SITES FOR WASTE TRANSFER STATION AT NELSON (continued)
d) At a Community Forum held in Nelson on 23 November 2010, preliminary information was given relating to the planning and investigation process for the proposed transfer station site, also indicating that the unreserved land at Parks Road/Huebner Road (part CA45C) had been identified as a candidate site.
Since late 2010, discussions have been held (including correspondence) with the owner/resident of freehold land along Glenelg Drive (western boundary of subject property approximately 150metres east of any candidate transfer station site within the unreserved land), with the relevant resident submitting that the unreserved land is not suitable or appropriate, also that it would be preferable for the transfer station to be established in a minor portion of the existing landfill site in North Nelson Road.
The relevant resident is also submitting that such candidate transfer station site (unreserved land, CA45C) would be contrary to LCC Recommendation A6 as such Parks Road/Huebner Road site is intended to be included within the Lower Glenelg National Park. However, the relevant resident is also essentially submitting that the approved LCC Recommendations should be amended to enable a transfer station to replace the Landfill at the existing site in North Nelson Road part (CA45D), albeit either within or adjoining the extended Lower Glenelg National Park.
Council has now received a petition to this effect, with the petition organiser being the relevant resident.
3. Candidate Transfer Station Sites – Options
a) Taking, as a “given”, that Nelson continues to have a waste receival depot (i.e. transfer station replacing the Landfill), the general options in this matter are as follows:
Option 1
Council request to DSE for approx 2,000m2 of the rehabilitated approx 4.8 hectare (48,000m2) existing Landfill site at North Nelson Road (within part CA45D) to continue to be licensed/leased to Council for a transfer station site, albeit with the balance of approx 95% of existing landfill site to be rehabilitated and become an addition to the Lower Glenelg National Park. This would still entail a planning scheme amendment as CA45D is in a Farming Zone and the overall area of the transfer station will exceed 500m2.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 16 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
C2. CANDIDATE SITES FOR WASTE TRANSFER STATION AT NELSON (continued)
There are known parallels in Victoria where municipal “waste receival depots” have been permitted to continue on Crown land, albeit surrounded by a national park.
This would effectively require a State Government decision which would be a variation from the adopted recommendations from the 1983 LCC report.
If Option 1 is not entertained by State Government then Option 2 would be broadly as follows:
Option 2
Parks Road/Huebner Road site on unreserved Crown land (CA45C). It is noted that the candidacy of this land would appear to have increased, taking account of the approx 35-40 metre width of native vegetation (previously approx 12m cleared width) which has been recently removed under/adjoining a powerline which crosses the western part of such land, presumably tied to post-Black Saturday additional measures to minimise the potential for fire outbreak from overhead electric wires in particularly the State‟s designated higher fire risk townships, which includes Nelson. This also requires a planning scheme amendment.
or
A candidate site within an outer part of the Township Zone area, subject to consideration of the 100m buffer distance set out under Clause 52.10 of the Glenelg Planning Scheme, albeit not being formally applicable due to no adjoining “residential zone”. In this respect, it should be noted that establishment of a transfer station is a Section 2 (discretionary) use within such zone i.e. no planning scheme amendment required.
or
A site within the Farming Zone (freehold land) within approx 3km of Nelson Township, subject to satisfaction of a range of criteria including low visibility from adjoining roads, access, utilities etc. This would involve a planning scheme amendment and subdivision/purchase of the identified site prior to capital works to establish the transfer station site.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 17 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
C2. CANDIDATE SITES FOR WASTE TRANSFER STATION AT NELSON (continued)
b) Apart from the existing Landfill site (CA45D) and the unreserved land (CA45C), a preliminary review has concluded that there are no other eligible Crown land sites, having regard to Nelson‟s sequestered physical character i.e. bounded primarily by the Lower Glenelg National Park, the Glenelg River Estuary and coastal Crown land.
A further report is intended to be made to Council on this matter when a clear response is received from DSE (inclusive of VEAC) relating to the request under Option 1. In addition, Council owns virtually no freehold land in Nelson Township.
Officer Recommendation
That this report be received.
1. That a copy of this report be forwarded to the person who has presented the petition relating to a proposed site for a Waste Transfer Station at Nelson.
2. That a request be made to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (inclusive of the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council) (DSE) as per Option 1 in Part 3a) of this report, then followed by a further report to Council following DSE‟s response.
Crs Northcott and Saunders
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 18 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
D. COMMITTEE REPORTS:
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 19 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
D1. DELEGATED PLANNING COMMITTEE UNSIGNED MINUTES (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (For Information) (DWS: 1227267)
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 26 July 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 on the 26 July 2011 and considered the following item:
P10068 Construction Garage
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 20 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
D1. DELEGATED PLANNING COMMITTEE UNSIGNED MINUTES (continued)
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.
Budget Implications
There are no budget implications.
Conclusion
It is recommended that Council note the Delegated Planning Committee minutes for the meeting held on Tuesday 26 July 2011.
Delegated Planning Committee Recommendation
In accordance with the Instrument of Delegation – Delegated Planning Committee (26 June 2007); minutes of the committee meeting held 26 July 2011 are submitted to Council for information.
Crs Stephens and Wilson
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 21 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
E. ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLOR RECORDS:
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 22 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
E1. ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORDS – 15 JULY TO 11 AUGUST 2011 (INCLUSIVE) (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1237504, 1237507, 1237505, 1237503, 1237506, 1237604, 1237603, 1237602, 1237605, 1237809)
Group Manager: Robert Foster, Acting 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 records (including records of those titled as committees) 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).
The 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.”
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 23 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
E1. ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORDS – 15 JULY TO 11 AUGUST 2011 (INCLUSIVE) (continued)
The circular also advises that the “record of an assembly must be reported to the next practical Ordinary Council Meeting and recorded in the minutes of that meeting. This should be taken to mean the next meeting unless that is not reasonably possible. For example, when the relevant assembly meeting is only a day or so before the Council meeting.”
Report
The legislative requirement became effective from the 24 September 2010.
This report covers the period from the Friday 15 July 2011 to midnight on Thursday 11 August 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:
1) Chief Executive Officers Department
Councillors & CEO Meeting 26 July 2011 (DWS: 1237604)
2) Corporate Services Department
Councillors Workshop 9 August 2011 (DWS: 1237506) Australia Day and Citizens Awards Committee Meeting 26 July 2011 (DWS: 1237605) Council Meeting Briefing Session 27 April 2011 (DWS: 1237504) Council Meeting Briefing Session 24 May 2011 (DWS: 1237507) Council Meeting Briefing Session 28 June 2011 (DWS: 1237805) Council Meeting Briefing Session 26 July 2011 (DWS: 1237503)
3) Planning and Economic Development Department
Nil Assembly of Councillors records
4) Community Development Department
Indigenous Agreement Steering Committee 18 July 2011 (DWS: 1237602) Maritime Heritage Advisory Committee 21 July 2011 (DWS: 1237603) Glenelg Shire Council Wonderful Women Glenelg Community Reference Group Meeting 28 July 2011 (DWS: 1237809)
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 24 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
E1. ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORDS – 15 JULY TO 11 AUGUST 2011 (INCLUSIVE) (continued)
5) Assets and Infrastructure Department
Nil Assembly of Councillors records
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”
Council Plan linkage and policy context
This report links to the Council Plan, particularly key objective: (1) - responsible and responsive governance and decision making.
Charter of human rights and responsibilities
This report has considered the requirements of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.
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.
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.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 25 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
E1. ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORDS – 15 JULY TO 11 AUGUST 2011 (INCLUSIVE) (continued)
Officer Recommendation
That Council receive the report on Assembly of Councillors records (including records of those titled as committees) for the period Friday 15 July 2011 to Thursday 11 August 2011 (both dates inclusive).
Crs Northcott and Halliday
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 26 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F. MANAGEMENT REPORTS:
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 27 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F1. MONTHLY FINANCE REPORT – 30 JUNE 2011 (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1241681 and 1241678)
Chief Executive Officer: Sharon Kelsey Author: Linda MacRae, Acting Finance Manager
Executive Summary
The Finance Report for the 2010/2011 financial year has been prepared and has been separately circulated to Councillors and Group Managers with this Council Agenda.
Report
The 2010/2011 Annual Budget was adopted by Council on 28 June 2010.
This report provides information on the Council‟s financial position for the 2010/2011 financial year.
Executive Summary (including the Glossary of Terms) Income (Operating) Statement – by Type Balance Sheet Cash Flow Statement Capital Works Statement
The report has been prepared on the outcomes of the audited annual financial statements.
The finance report provides a high level of financial reporting, including:
Adopted Budget 2010/201. Forecast Budget 2010/2011. The forecast budget includes all carried forward amounts from 2009/2010 for capital and operating projects. Actual 2010/2011.
The June 2011 finance report provides comments on the Council‟s financial position for the 2010/2011 financial year.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 28 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F1. MONTHLY FINANCE REPORT – 30 JUNE 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 Finance Report for the 2010/2011 financial year be received.
Crs Northcott and Stephens
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 29 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F2. GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL REPORT; STANDARD STATEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE STATEMENT AND FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2011 (Separate circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1241777)
CEO: Sharon Kelsey, Chief Executive Officer Author: Linda MacRae, Acting Finance Manager
Executive Summary
The audit of Glenelg Shire Council‟s General Purpose Financial Report; Standard Statements and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2011 has been completed by Coffey Hunt, the Victorian Auditor General‟s (VAGO) audit contractor.
Report
The General Purpose Financial Report, Standard Statements and Performance Statement are statutory reports and were presented to the Audit Committee for consideration and discussion at its Meeting on 16 August 2011.
Section 131 of the Local Government Act 1989 requires that Council pass resolutions giving approval „in principle‟ to the draft General Purpose Financial Report; Standard Statements and Performance Statement and authorise two Councillors to certify them. Once the resolutions have been passed, the Auditor can then forward the Statements to VAGO for audit clearance and certification by the statutory date of 30 September 2011.
By giving „in principle‟ approval to these Statements, Council is acknowledging that „in principle‟ the information presented has been reviewed by it. Following certification by VAGO these Statements form part of Council‟s Annual Report which is then formally adopted by Council.
If the General Purpose Financial Report; Standard Statements and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2011 are substantially changed after being approved ‟in principle‟ by Council, the amended Statements will be returned to Council for re-approval.
The Audit Committee has recommended that Council approve „in principle‟ the draft General Purpose Financial Report; Standard Statements and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2011.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 30 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F2. GENERAL PURPOSE FINANCIAL REPORT; STANDARD STATEMENTS AND PERFORMANCE STATEMENT AND FOR THE YEAR ENDING 30 JUNE 2011 (continued)
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council approve „in principle‟ the draft General Purpose Financial Report; Standard Statements and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2011.
2. That Councillors ...... be authorised to certify the General Purpose Financial Report; Standard Statements and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2011.
MOTION
Crs Wilson and Stephens
1. That Council approve „in principle‟ the draft General Purpose Financial Report; Standard Statements and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2011.
2. That Councillors Cross and Northcott be authorised to certify the General Purpose Financial Report; Standard Statements and Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2011.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 31 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F3. DRAFT PUBLIC ART POLICY (STAGE ONE) (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1236008)
Group Manager: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development Author: Trevor Smith, Cultural Collection Officer
Executive Summary
A draft Public Art Policy (stage one) has been developed for the Shire by Cultural Connotations following a study of related Council documents and a series of public forums and community consultation. This report (see separate circulation) seeks Council‟s approval for public exhibition of the draft Public Art Policy (Stage one) for community feedback.
Background
The term „public art‟ refers to works of art in any media that have been planned and executed with the specific intention of being sited or staged in the public domain, usually outside and accessible to all. The purpose of public art is to beautify and enrich public places. Public art can take the form of sculpture, installations, fountains, memorials, murals and ephemeral works such as projections and soundscapes. Public art generally recognises, honors and celebrates cultures, history, individuals, events and locations. Public art may be permanent or temporary.
The purpose of a Public Art Policy is to guide council in the consideration, commissioning and placement of public art within the shire. It may also include a set of guidelines for artists, and other stakeholders creating public art for the Shire, and a master plan for public art in the future identifying specific locations, themes and proposed types of public art.
Report
Annette Welkamp, Director of Cultural Connotations has worked closely with the Cultural Collection Officer to develop this policy. Relevant Council strategies, policies and plans have been made available to Cultural Connotations in the development of this draft.
The draft Public Art Policy (stage one) is in two parts:
The first part is primarily background information with links to existing Glenelg Shire Council policies, strategies and plans. It provides guiding legal and ethical standards in line with current museum/collection codes and protocols in relation to public art.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 32 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F3. DRAFT PUBLIC ART POLICY (STAGE ONE) (continued)
The second part, the draft policy itself, covers definitions, selection criteria, and management processes for public art in the Shire.
Stage two of the Public Art Policy will not be undertaken until funding is available. The estimated cost for stage two is estimated to be approximately $25,000. Funding for stage two will be submitted for Council consideration for 2012-13 budget, and will also be sought from other external sources.
The proposed stage two of the Public Art Policy will include the guidelines for public art in the shire including selection process, artist brief requirements, community or developer initiated art, lifecycle considerations, public safety and maintenance, and funding options. The master plan in stage two builds on the policy and guidelines, identifying locations and potential types of public art.
Council‟s role in implementing the policy is outlined in section 6. (Management Processes) of the draft Public Art Policy. It is proposed that the Cultural Services Unit be responsible for administering selection, development and management of public art.
Other parts of Council, depending on the nature of the public art project, may be responsible for engaging site related professionals, liaison with contractors and addressing public safety and legal issues. When in place, the Public Art Policy will be administered by the Cultural Services unit, and it is proposed a public art advisory body be established (see section 7).
Council Plan Linkage and Policy Context
The need for a Public Art Policy for the Shire is identified in the Cultural Collection Strategic Plan 2009-2014, and the Cultural Strategy 2010-2015. In early 2011 Council engaged Cultural Connotations (a Melbourne-based arts consultancy) to develop stage one of the Public Art Policy. Stage two, which is dependent on future funding, will comprise the guidelines for public art in the shire and master plan for the Public Art Policy.
Consultation
Community forums were held in Portland, Casterton and Heywood. Meetings were also held with representatives of relevant community organisations, interested stakeholders, and other Council officers from other departments. The consultant also toured the open public spaces in Portland Heywood and Casterton.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 33 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F3. DRAFT PUBLIC ART POLICY (STAGE ONE) (continued)
The community was also invited to provide feedback for the development of the Public Art Policy by responding to a series of questions posted on council‟s arts website. The community forums, and invitation to provide feedback via the website, were promoted through media releases, posters flyers, and arts newsletters and mail outs.
Budget Implications
The aim of the Public Art Policy is to provide a guide for the development of future public art activities. It is not to be regarded as a mandate, but is aspirational and articulates a framework for decision making. Any related strategies or actions that require an additional budget allocation will be referred to the Council budget process for consideration.
Additional funding is required for development of Stage Two of the development of the Policy and will be referred to the 2012-13 budget process for Council consideration.
Conclusion
A Public Art Policy will establish a series of protocols that will guide Council in the consideration, commissioning, placement and management of public art within the Shire.
Officer Recommendation
That Council approves public exhibition of the draft Public Art Policy for community feedback.
Crs Saunders and Stephens
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 34 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F4. PROPOSAL FOR ESTABLISHING CULTURAL COLLECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1236707)
Group Manager: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development Author: Trevor Smith, Cultural Collection Officer
Executive Summary
This report seeks Council endorsement and approval of the:
1. Proposal and process to establish a Cultural Collection Advisory Committee
2. Draft Terms of Reference for the committee.
Background
Council adopted the Cultural Collection Strategic Plan 2009-2014 on 27 January 2010. This document guides Council in the development, management and use of the Cultural Collection. In order to implement the strategy there is a need to establish a reference group to provide Council with local advice on items or events of historical or cultural significance, and advice on objects proposed for accession or deaccession. It is therefore proposed that a Cultural Collection Advisory Committee be established.
Report
Draft Terms of Reference (see separate attachment) for the proposed committee have been developed and are presented for endorsement by Council. Expressions of Interest are invited from community members with arts and heritage interest and skills. Sound knowledge of or interest in the Shire‟s history, preferably in relation to either social, maritime or civic history; a knowledge of or interest in, Australian art including contemporary art practices and public art; and an understating of current museum practices are highly desirable.
The role and function of the Cultural Collection Advisory Committee is to provide advice to Council, through the Cultural Collection Officer, regarding items or events of historical or cultural significance; provide advice on objects proposed for accession or deaccession; and provide Council with regular reports on the development, management and use of the Cultural Collection.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 35 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F4. PROPOSAL FOR ESTABLISHING CULTURAL COLLECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (continued)
It is proposed to advertise for nominations for the Committee through the local media. Expression of Interest packs will be made available from Council Customer Service Centers, Portland Library, Portland Art Centre, History House and website. Expression of Interest packs will also be forwarded to arts and heritage organisations in the Shire.
It is proposed that Council appoints a Councillor to Chair the Committee and that a Council Officer will act as an ex-officio member of the Committee and is responsible for the recording, production and distribution of Agendas and Meeting Notes.
Budget
There are no budget implications associated with this proposal.
Conclusion
In order to implement the Cultural Collection Strategic Plan 2009-2014 there is a need to establish a reference group to provide Council with local advice on items or events of historical or cultural significance, and advice on objects proposed for accession or deaccession. It is proposed a Cultural Collection Advisory Committee be established. Draft Terms of Reference for the Cultural Collection Advisory Committee have been developed and are presented to Council for approval.
Following the Expression of Interest process, a further report will be provided to Council to endorse the Committee members and to appoint a Council representative to the Committee.
Officer Recommendation
That Council establishes a Cultural Collection Advisory Committee and endorses the draft Terms of Reference for this Committee.
MOTION
Crs Wilson and Halliday
That Council establishes a Cultural Collection Advisory Committee and endorses the amended draft Terms of Reference for this Committee.
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 36 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F4. PROPOSAL FOR ESTABLISHING CULTURAL COLLECTION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (continued)
Acting Group Manager Community Development, Mr Wayne Frost clarified amendments within the separate circulation to the report, as follows:
Under the heading „Committee Chair‟, will make provision for a proxy chair being another Councillor.
Under the heading „Number of Meetings per Annum‟ will alter meeting date to the fourth Wednesday of the month.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 37 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F5. APPLICATION TO PLACE PLAQUE ON SEAFARERS WALL
Group Manager: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development Author: Trevor Smith, Cultural Collection Officer
Executive Summary
Council has received a request from Charmaine Baird to place a memorial plaque on the Seafarer‟s Wall in memory of her late father Ronald Graham Baird. The application meets the criteria for placement of plaques on the Seafarers Wall. This report seeks Council approval for erection of the plaque.
Background
The Seafarer‟s Wall is a memorial to those who have lost their lives at sea in the vicinity of Portland. The plaques on the wall commemorate the lives of fishermen, ships‟ crews and passengers and individuals who have fallen victim to the waters around Portland.
Report
Charmaine Baird of Portland has requested permission to place a memorial plaque on the Seafarers Wall on the Ploughed Field in Portland in memory of her father Ronald Graham Baird. Mr Baird died at sea in a boating accident on 22 April 1980.
Ronald Baird worked as an abalone sheller on a boat owned and skippered by George Harold Kelly. On the morning of Tuesday 22 April 1980, Baird fell overboard when the boat was hit by a five metre wave in rough seas near Crayfish Bay, ten nautical miles east of Portland. Mr Baird received fatal head injuries when he fell into the water and was hit by the propeller.
The Maritime Heritage Advisory Committee have viewed the application and recommend the approval of the placement of the plaque on the Seafarers Wall to Council.
Budget Implications
All costs in producing the plaque and its placement on the wall are borne by the applicant. There is no cost to Council.
Conclusion
The application meets the criteria for the Seafarers Wall, and the Maritime Heritage Advisory Committee recommend that Council approve placement of the plaque on the Seafarers Wall.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 38 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F5. APPLICATION TO PLACE PLAQUE ON SEAFARERS WALL (continued)
Officer Recommendation
That Council approves the placement of the memorial plaque for Ronald Baird on the Seafarers Wall.
Crs Halliday and Saunders
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 39 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F6. NARRAWONG BEACH PATROL (Separate circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 990123/1194265)
Group Manager: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development Author: Kerry Geyer, Acting Recreation and Youth Services Coordinator
Executive Summary
An evaluation has been undertaken of the two year trial of the Narrawong Beach Patrol conducted during the periods from 26 December 2009 to 26 January 2010 and from 26 December 2010 to 26 January 2011. This report provides Council with the results of the evaluation and proposes that Council consider funding the beach patrol for the 2011-12 season.
Background
Narrawong Beach is a major holiday attraction, but opportunities for use of the beach are limited as it is open water and potentially dangerous. There are a number of rips along the beach in the Narrawong area and surf conditions can vary with moderate to high waves. Providing beach patrols encourages use of the beach and provides a safe environment for holiday makers wishing to enjoy water based activities.
Council has had a long and successful relationship with the Portland Surf Life Saving Club Inc, including supporting it in redeveloping the club and in obtaining funding to construct a new clubhouse in 2001. In response to community requests and requests from the Narrawong District Association, Council entered into an agreement with Life Saving Victoria for the provision of beach patrol services at Narrawong provided by the Portland Surf Lifesaving Club from 26 December 2009 to 26 January 2010 and then 26 December 2010 to 26 January 2011. This paid service is additional to the volunteer beach patrols provided at Bridgewater and occasionally at Portland by the Portland Surf Life Saving Club Inc.
The initial trial of the Narrawong Beach Patrol conducted during the period from 26 December 2009 to 26 January 2010 was very successful in providing a safe swimming beach and first aid services from the estimated 3,000 visitors. As a consequence, Council resolved in August 2010:
1. To fund the service for the 2010-2011 season in order to complete the two year trial process. On completion of the 2010-2011 season, an evaluation of the service and outcomes be undertaken an report provided to Council.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 40 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F6. NARRAWONG BEACH PATROL (continued)
2. That Life Saving Victoria, Portland Lifesaving Club and Council actively pursue funding opportunities to offset the service provision costs.
Report
Life Saving Victoria reports that as a result of the beach patrols conducted for the period 26 December 2010 to 26 January 2011, over 170 preventative actions were recorded at Narrawong.
People were advised of safer swimming areas and moved and advised to swim within the flagged areas. Preventative actions also included removing surf craft riders away from swimmers, advising fishing enthusiasts to move away from swimming areas and closing the beach when electrical storms threatened, sharks were detected and during rough surf conditions (reports included as separate attachments).
No rescues were recorded for the period of the patrols this season, but 27 people were treated for minor cuts and bruises and jelly fish stings.
Patrol personnel reported receiving many positive comments from inland patrons from Heywood, Casterton, Coleraine and Hamilton supporting the need and their appreciation for the patrols.
The Portland Surf life Saving Club also provides volunteer beach patrols at Bridgewater and occasionally at Portland. The Club is aware of the dangerous conditions at Narrawong and therefore support the need for beach patrols. However the Club does not have sufficient trained members to provide mid week patrols at Narrawong in addition to the existing volunteer week-end patrols.
Other Beach Patrol Services Funded by Councils in Victoria
Life Saving Victoria report that paid beach patrols funded similarly by the Victorian Government, Life Saving Victoria and local Councils are conducted at 36 beaches across 12 shires. Levels of service vary but comparable patrols at comparable rates are provided at Seaspray, Tidal River, Waratah Bay, Woolamai, Ocean Grove, 13th Beach, Bancoora, Wye River, Apollo Bay, Warrnambool and Port Fairy.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 41 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F6. NARRAWONG BEACH PATROL (continued)
Council Plan Linkage and Policy Context
Through the Council Plan, Council is committed to supporting a broad range of community sporting, arts and cultural, adult learning and social support clubs and organisations through the planning and provision of accessible facilities and targeted funding programs. Council is also committed to developing and implementing initiatives that improve the health and safety of people in our shire. Although this program could be considered as an expansion of Council services, this program is in accordance with these broad commitments.
Budget Implications
Life Saving Victoria has provided cost estimates for provision of beach patrols for the 2011-2012 season as follows:
State Life Saving Council Total Government Victoria Contribution Contribution Sponsorship Request
$1,572 $974 $18,004 $20,550
In response to the requirement to actively pursue funding opportunities to offset the service provision costs, the club advises that it is beyond the current ability of the Portland Surf Lifesaving Club to contribute any additional funds or resources to this service. They currently conduct extensive fund raising activities to enable them to provide the volunteer services at Bridgewater and occasionally at Portland.
Life Saving Victoria has gained a State Government contribution of $1,572 and arranged sponsorship of $974 towards the cost. Council officers will continue to work with Life Saving Victoria to attract increased State Government funding for this important community service. The Club has also advised that the State Government is constantly lobbied to increase the contribution to the cost of providing beach patrols that are beyond the available financial and membership resources of local life saving clubs.
The local Narrawong community also fundraises for the purchase of equipment for the Portland Lifesaving Club.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 42 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F6. NARRAWONG BEACH PATROL (continued)
There is currently no allocation within the current 2011-12 budget for the beach patrols at Narrawong. Therefore it is proposed that this amount be included in the 2011-12 budget review in December 2011, and is referred to the newly elected Council in 2012 for funding consideration for the 2012-13 and 2013-14 seasons.
Conclusion
Provision of the 2009-20010 and 2010-2011 Narrawong Beach patrol provided a safe beach for 3,000 annual visitors to Narrawong. This service has also acted as a support to retain these visitors and to contribute to the local economy.
Funding the Narrawong Beach patrols also supports the patrol program provided by the volunteers of the Portland Surf Life Saving Club Inc and local fundraising by the Narrawong community to purchase life saving equipment.
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council provides a contribution of $18,004 to the 2011/2012 Narrawong beach patrol season through the 2011 -2012 budget review.
2. That Council continues to advocate and lobby the State Government for additional funds for beach patrols in the Glenelg Shire.
3. That on completion of the 2011/2012 season an evaluation of the service and request for a three (3) year funding agreement is referred to the incoming Council in 2012.
Crs Halliday and Saunders
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
Chief Executive Officer, Sharon Kelsey clarified the information supplied by Life Saving Victoria. Their original letter received outlined Saturday hours 10am – 1pm and amended pages of letter received from Life Saving Victoria advise that the Saturday service to be provided 10am – 6pm.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 43 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F7. CASTERTON RAILWAY PRECINCT – LEASE ARRANGEMENTS
Group Manager: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development Author: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development
Executive Summary
The Casterton Rail Precinct comprising Lots 43, 45, 46 and 51 have been the subject of lease agreements with VicTrack and are important assets for the Casterton Community. This report provides information relating to the risk issues associated with Lot 43 and proposes that Council undertakes a further risk assessment, reviews the Terms of Reference of the Casterton Railway Precinct Committee and seeks a meeting with the Minister for Transport, Terry Mulder, to discuss the lease issues.
Background
The Casterton Station complex has been identified as being of State significance by Heritage Victoria. A conservation management plan was completed by the State Government in July 1996 with the purpose of establishing a programmed maintenance works strategy for the future care of the site.
A ten year lease between the Public Transport Corporation (now known as VicTrack) and the Glenelg Council was agreed and signed in November 1996 for Lots 43, 45, 46 and 51. Council established a community committee of management in December 1996 with representatives from a range of community organisations.
Over the 2005-2006 period, a range of risk issues were identified with Lot 43 (4.51 Ha) and reported to Senior Management and Council. It was believed that the lease agreement expired in 2006. The risk issues (mitigation costs estimated to be approximately $80,000 in value) were raised with VicTrack who were advised that Council would not be entering into a further lease until risk mitigation works were completed by VicTrack. The issues have not been addressed by VicTrack, despite frequent requests from Council staff resulting in an impasse.
In May 2011, a letter was forwarded to VicTrack informing them that in our view, the Lease for Lot 43 has expired in September 2006, and that we do not have a current lease for this site. Subsequent correspondence from VicTrack advises that while the „fixed term‟ component of the current lease did expire, the lease in every other respect continues as we have not provided 12 months notice of Council‟s intention to terminate the lease, and we have continued to pay the annual invoices for the rent of this area.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 44 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F7. CASTERTON RAILWAY PRECINCT – LEASE ARRANGEMENTS (continued)
Further correspondence from VicTrack advises that if Council believes that the land is no longer required for public open space, then the land needs to be vacated and returned free of all encumbrances. These include children‟s play equipment and or seating. In the event that Council returns the land, VicTrack will only provide low level maintenance of this land, and it would not be of a standard that is generally expected for park land or public open space.
Report
Over the past 10 years, the area in Lot 43 has been relatively well maintained and developed by community groups in Casterton. It is estimated that over $300,000 has been invested in the site by government and philanthropic organisations (McNabb, Feasibility Study for the Casterton Kelpie Precinct). The area includes part of the Kelpie Trail and a children‟s playground.
A range of community groups have an interest in this area and facilities, and are all represented on the Casterton Railway Precinct Advisory Committee:
Casterton Community Museum – accommodated in the Casterton Railway Station Building with historical farm equipment and machinery stored in the Goods Shed.
Casterton Garden Club – have beautified the former railway yards and turned it into a community park with rotunda and playground. The Club maintains the garden beds.
Casterton Field Naturalists – established a wildlife conservation and habitat area, incorporating the Minnie Hole, a significant water feature.
Casterton Rotary, Lions, and Apex Clubs provide funding and voluntary labour for projects in the precinct.
It is expected that there would be significant community opposition to the return of the land to VicTrack within the conditions outlined by VicTrack.
Nonetheless, the area surrounding the goods shed has a range of potential liability issues with significant exposures for Council. A risk management assessment undertaken in 2005 identifies as follows:
Platforms on the sides of the Goods Shed – collapsing with trip hazards of uneven boards, protruding and rusting nails
Unrestricted access to a range of rusted agricultural equipment
Unrestricted access to old train carriage
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 45 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F7. CASTERTON RAILWAY PRECINCT – LEASE ARRANGEMENTS (continued)
Unrestricted access to a stock pile of old timber, glass, etc.
Unstable embankment causing instability of fence
Ongoing vandalism at site
In addition, there are also concerns regarding the safety of volunteers working in this area. Although the Advisory Committee instructs and advises the volunteers, Council retains the duty of care for these volunteers and is the responsible authority should an accident occur.
In summation, there are a range of issues relating to the Casterton Railway Precinct that require attention and decisions. It is therefore suggested that the following actions are undertaken:
1. An updated risk management assessment is undertaken and a revised Risk Management Plan is developed.
2. A review is undertaken of the Casterton Railway Precinct Advisory Committee, including Terms of Reference and Council representation on the Committee.
3. Meeting is sought with the Minister for Transport, Terry Mulder, to discuss the lease issues.
Budget Implications
There is no allocation in the current budget for any mitigation works to be undertaken at the Casterton Railway Precinct.
Conclusion
The Casterton Railway Precinct is an area that is important to the residents of Casterton, however there are a range of risk issues relating to the buildings and other parts of this precinct. Over the past five (5) years, despite considerable communication with VicTrack regarding these issues, they have not been resolved. VicTrack has been advised that unless the issues are addressed, Council will not continue with the lease of the site for the community. VicTrack has subsequently advised that if the land is to be transferred back to VicTrack, the existing infrastructure needs to be removed and it will not be maintained as a public open space.
It is therefore proposed that an updated risk assessment is undertaken, a risk management plan is developed, a meeting is sought with the Minister for Transport and the role of the Railway Precinct Advisory Committee is reviewed.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 46 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F7. CASTERTON RAILWAY PRECINCT – LEASE ARRANGEMENTS (continued)
Officer Recommendation
1. That a further risk assessment is undertaken of Lot 43 of the Casterton Railway Precinct.
2. That the Terms of Reference and role of the Casterton Railway Precinct Advisory Committee are reviewed in accordance with Council‟s Advisory Committee Policy.
3. That a meeting is sought with the Minister for Transport to resolve the lease issues with Lot 43 of the Casterton Railway Precinct.
Crs Stephens and Northcott
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 47 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F8. PORTLAND AND HEYWOOD PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY TRANSPORT NEEDS ANALYSIS (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1229497)
Group Manager: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development Author: Adele Kenneally, Group Manager Community Development
Executive Summary
The Portland and Heywood Transport Needs Analysis has been undertaken by RMIT University on behalf of South West Transport Connections and was funded by the State Government. This report is provided for Council information and noting.
Background
Transport is consistently rated by rural and regional communities as one of the most significant barriers to accessing services, employment and social networks. The State Government has therefore funded 33 Transport Connections Projects across Victoria to help communities work together on projects to improve local transport. Funding has been provided to set up working groups, employ a coordinator and develop a range of transport initiatives. The South West Transport Connections Project is auspiced by Western District Health Service across the Southern Grampians and Glenelg shires.
The aim of the projects is develop innovative approaches to solving transport problems through local partnerships and the use of existing transport assets and services such as taxis, school buses, community buses and volunteers. These make it easier for people with limited access to transport to take part in community life. The aim is to make better use of existing transport resources to meet the community‟s needs. That means the projects complement existing transport options rather than competing with them.
The purpose of the Portland and Heywood Transport Needs Analysis (see separate attachment) was to identify the impact, reach and magnitude of transport issues and to recommend relevant strategies and actions to increase economic opportunities, health and well being for the Portland and Heywood communities. It is anticipated that the findings will contribute to local, regional and state-wide planning of transport services, infrastructure and assets.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 48 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F8. PORTLAND AND HEYWOOD PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY TRANSPORT NEEDS ANALYSIS (continued)
Report
In the development of this study, consultation was undertaken with relevant stakeholders (e.g. health organisations, existing service providers, businesses, etc.) and also with community organisations and individuals. The methods included surveys and semi structured interviews.
The findings can be summarised as follows:
Gaps identified in transport options both within and between town and also between smaller towns and regional centres.
Several groups in Heywood and Portland have reported that they are unable to access education, employment, early years and health services as well as engage in social activities due to infrequent and inconvenient transport options.
A range of broad recommendations have been made in the report for the South West Transport Connections Project and to relevant local and state government departments. Council‟s role in the implementation of these recommendations may include advocacy, support, and coordination. The findings will also be useful in informing Council‟s own planning processes.
Recommendations specific to Council include:
7.1 A Heywood and Portland specific social inclusion strategy is developed to ensure equity of access to services and resources for all residents.
7.2 A Heywood and Portland specific transport access model is developed to address economic disadvantage to provide residents the opportunity for full participation in community life.
As the Portland and Heywood Transport Needs Analysis is not a Council plan or strategy, it should be considered as a reference source that will be useful for assisting and informing future Council planning and decision making. It is a tool rather than a mandate for Council.
Budget Implications
As this is not a Council plan, there are no specific budget allocations aligned with this study. Any funding required for initiatives that arise from Council‟s planning processes that relate to this study will be referred to the annual budget process for Council consideration.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 49 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F8. PORTLAND AND HEYWOOD PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY TRANSPORT NEEDS ANALYSIS (continued)
Conclusion
Council has committed to working with relevant agencies and other levels of government to research, understand, and plan for the changing health and wellbeing needs of our communities (Council Plan 2009-2013). Access to public transport is also identified as an issue in Council‟s Positive Ageing Strategy and Action Plan and Youth Strategy Action Plan. The Portland and Heywood Transport Needs Analysis will assist Council in continuing to advocate for better connections to services, employment and training for our communities.
Officer Recommendation
That the Portland and Heywood Public and Community Transport Needs Analysis is noted by Council.
Crs Saunders and Wilson
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 50 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F9. RANGE ROAD/NORMAN ROAD RURAL LOCALITY – ROAD NETWORK CONNECTIVITY FOR HEAVY VEHICLE ACCESS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND FIRE EMERGENCIES (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1237491, 1237511, 1237512, 1237513, 1237515, 1237517, 1237518, 1237460, 1237499)
Group Manager: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager Assets & Infrastructure Author: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager Assets & Infrastructure
Executive Summary
This report examines the adequacy of road network connectivity for heavy vehicle access relating to agricultural production and fire emergencies within the Range Road/Normans Road rural locality.
Background
1. Land Use and Road Network – Existing Conditions
The Range Road/Norman Road rural locality (the Relevant Locality) is generally bounded by Range Road-Casterton Dartmoor Road- Glenelg River and Six Chain Road – refer Appendices A, B, C separately included in this agenda.
The Relevant Locality has an area of approximately 165sq.km (16,500ha), with land use and road network existing conditions of the following characteristics:
Approximately 30% of the area of the Relevant Locality is in various forms of Crown reserves.
Approximately 70% of the Relevant Locality is in freehold ownership, with approximately 40% of such area being in hardwood plantations, 25% in softwood plantations, with the balance of approximately 35% being in other forms of agricultural use (inclusive of native vegetation areas within freehold land) – also refer Appendix C.
Except for the approx 5.6km northern section of Six Chain Road between Portland Casterton Road – Runnymede Road all other constructed internal roads within the Relevant Locality are unsealed i.e. gravel roads to various standards, having regard to the number of properties served and traffic typically carried.
Six Chain Road has the primary north-south collector function, linking to Portland Casterton Road at Sandford.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 51 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F9. RANGE ROAD/NORMAN ROAD RURAL LOCALITY – ROAD NETWORK CONNECTIVITY FOR HEAVY VEHICLE ACCESS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND FIRE EMERGENCIES (continued)
Range Road has the primary east-west collector function, connecting to Portland Casterton Road between Merino and Digby and to Casterton Dartmoor Road at Killara.
South of Kilmoc Road, Normans Road provides primary access to the most significant grouping of (freehold) property holdings, with the majority being situated south of Dwyers Creek crossing – also refer Appendix A.
2. Rural Road Network Accessibility within the Relevant Locality
The following observations are relevant with respect to rural road network accessibility within the Relevant Locality:
a) The longest distance along local roads to an arterial road within the Relevant Locality is from the southern end of Normans Road to Portland Casterton Road i.e. approx 14.7km, of which 5.6km is sealed and 9.1km is unsealed.
b) The southern-most section of Normans Road reservation (approx 2.05km) is closed through Unused Road Licence 0301683 (expires 30 September 2011) – refer Appendix D. This means that agricultural products (including harvested timber) from Normans Road must essentially be taken north via Six Chain Road to Portland Casterton Road (at Sandford) or alternatively, taken in a virtually circular route via either the southern section of Six Chain Road or Square Wheel Road to Range Road and then either east or west to connect with Portland Casterton Road or Casterton Dartmoor Road, respectively. However, neither of such alternative connecting routes to Range Road are suitable for particularly harvest cartage vehicles unless upgraded.
The unused road licence effectively means that Norman Road is effectively an approx 5.2km cul-de-sac, with the road closure being at the southern end i.e. not conducive to fire emergency access/evacuation.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 52 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F9. RANGE ROAD/NORMAN ROAD RURAL LOCALITY – ROAD NETWORK CONNECTIVITY FOR HEAVY VEHICLE ACCESS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND FIRE EMERGENCIES (continued)
c) If the existing unused road licence at the southern end of Normans Road was cancelled (together with some upgrading of the re- opened section) the majority of freehold properties in Normans Road (south of Dwyers Creek) would most likely gain access to the sealed road network via Range Road (also refer Appendix I) i.e. the distance from the southern part of Normans Road to Portland Casterton Road via Range Road is approximately 20% less compared to Portland Casterton Road via Six Chain Road, also noting that the latter route is essentially going in the “wrong direction” if the destination for agricultural products is to the south, including the Port of Portland. Hence, the reduction in travel distance via a connection to Range Road is likely to be in the order of 20-24km, thus representing a significant transport cost saving.
d) There is a very significant tonnage of harvested timber to be transported to markets from the Relevant Locality over the next 5-8 years and it is most desirable that the agreed cartage routes to either Portland Casterton Road or Casterton Dartmoor Road avoid the 5.6km single lane sealed section of Six Chain Road south of Sandford. In this respect, in late 2010 timber cartage damage was caused to this section, which has confirmed the present inadequacy of the legislative framework to recover the full cost of restoration works in the case of particularly sealed local roads.
e) Whether or not the southern section of Normans Road can be reopened, there are currently six (6) property holdings south of Dwyers Creek (some with plantations and some with other farming uses) who depend on access via Normans Road then primarily via Six Chain Road to the arterial road system.
The existing Dwyers Creek bridge has a 5 tonne load limit (refer Appendix G) and this impediment to both agricultural production and fire emergency access has been recognised through allocations in Council‟s 2010/11 Budget (investigation/design) and 2011/12 Budget (construction) – also refer Appendix F, being the schematic drawing for the replacement structure and being subject to works on waterway approval by the Glenelg Hopkins Catchment Management Authority. It is currently scheduled that construction of the replacement waterway structure will take place primarily within the summer period of 2011/12.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 53 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F9. RANGE ROAD/NORMAN ROAD RURAL LOCALITY – ROAD NETWORK CONNECTIVITY FOR HEAVY VEHICLE ACCESS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND FIRE EMERGENCIES (continued)
f) As seen from Appendix E, for part of the currently closed section of Normans Road the natural course of Dwyers Creek virtually runs within the road reserve and (pragmatically) the actual constructed road goes into the adjoining property on the eastern side, noting that this deviation is offset by farming activity on the western side (in the same ownership) using the road reserve (including Dwyers Creek) for farming activities.
If the southern section of Normans Road is able to be reopened, it is anticipated that there could be a continuation of the access/use of the deviated (constructed) road at such location. Alternatively, a formal land exchange could be facilitated, with the new (deviation) road reserve being very similar in area to exchanged land comprising the existing road reservation.
3. Property Owner Comments Received
On 14 April and 1 June 2011 Council received letters from property owners 2,4 (by reference to Appendix D), with the content of these letters paraphrased as follows:
The “major safety hazard” to users of Normans Road in the event of a fire in the area, due to the two locked gates at each end of the southern-most section of Normans Road - also refer Appendix E, H.
The substantial additional costs with cartage (both now and in the future) due to the inability to access Range Road from the southern end of Normans Road.
In particular, the reopening of access at the southern end of Normans Road would avoid damage to the northern end of Normans Road, Kilmoc Road, Square Wheel Road and Six Chain Road.
Representations that Council allocate funding for a replacement waterway structure at Dwyers Creek, due to the existing 5 tonne limit preventing normal transport of livestock to and from properties south of Dwyers Creek together with restricting other transport access associated with agriculture production such as bringing in pasture fertiliser etc.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 54 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F9. RANGE ROAD/NORMAN ROAD RURAL LOCALITY – ROAD NETWORK CONNECTIVITY FOR HEAVY VEHICLE ACCESS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND FIRE EMERGENCIES (continued)
4. Proposed Steps
Taking account of preceding information and discussion in this report, the following steps are proposed:
a) Council to send a letter to the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) foreshadowing that Council has reviewed road network connectivity for heavy vehicle access relating to agricultural production and fire emergencies in the Range Road/Norman Road rural locality and has reached the conclusion that the southern 2.05km section of Normans Road reservation is now required for road access and use.
b) Subject to DSE agreeing to effectively cancelling (or not renewing) the existing unused road licence relating to the southern approx 2.05km section of Normans Road, that road upgrading requirements (suitable for timber cartage) be assessed.
c) That further liaison take place with owners of properties having hardwood and softwood plantations over that section of Norman Road between the current closure point to north of Dwyers Creek, with a view to obtaining agreement for such owners to contribute not less than two-thirds of the cost of the necessary upgrading works within that section of Normans Road which is currently subject to the unused road licence, also noting that such overall benefiting owner contribution takes cognisance of Council prospectively not seeking any contributions from benefiting owners towards the replacement of the Dwyers Creek waterway structure. Such contributions would provide these owners with surety that the agreed cartage routes (from the lodged Timber Harvesting Plan process) would be on the basis of direct access along Normans Road to Range Road.
d) Subject to (a), (b), (c) above, Council to then reach a decision as to whether it is in a position to open up road access at the southern end of Normans Road, inclusive of the necessary upgrading required for particularly timber cartage purposes.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 55 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F9. RANGE ROAD/NORMAN ROAD RURAL LOCALITY – ROAD NETWORK CONNECTIVITY FOR HEAVY VEHICLE ACCESS RELATING TO AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND FIRE EMERGENCIES (continued)
Officer Recommendation
That Council endorse the steps set out in Part 4 of this report in order to improve road network connectivity for heavy vehicle access relating to agricultural production and for emergencies within the Range Road/Norman Road rural locality.
Crs Northcott and Stephens
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 56 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F10. ROADS TO RECOVERY PROGRAM ADVOCACY (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1237224)
Group Manager: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager – Assets & Infrastructure Author: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager – Assets & Infrastructure
Executive Summary
This report relates to support for the Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) campaign for relative permanency of the Roads to Recovery Program (R2R).
Background
1. Introduction
a) Up to 2000/01 Australian Government recurrent, formula-based financial assistance towards local road funding was solely through the Local Roads Grant (LRG) category under the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995, with the distribution to each municipality being determined by the relevant State Grants Commission.
The R2R funding program commenced in 2000/01, with municipal allocations being in alignment with the relevant Grants Commission formula. In quantum terms, the R2R grant has been typically around 70%-80% of the LRG, albeit that this has shifted due to changes with the grant distribution formula over time.
The R2R program has been in three “tranches”, ie:
R2R1 2001/02 – 2004/05
R2R2 2005/06 – 2009/10
R2R3 2010/11 – 2014/15
The R2R payments received by Glenelg Shire Council total approximately $14.62m over the period 1 July 2001 – 9 August 2011.
b) Notwithstanding that the above tranches relate to 14 continuous years of funding, the Australian Government‟s announcement of each tranche has been subject to a disclaimer that such funding program should not necessarily be regarded as “ongoing” i.e. any possible continuation to be considered near the end of each tranche.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 57 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F10. ROADS TO RECOVERY PROGRAM ADVOCACY (continued)
The current “one tranche at a time” approach with R2R is arguably not representative of mature financial arrangements between governments, particularly having regard to the findings of a report prepared by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Administration “Rates and Taxes: a Fair Share for Responsible Local Government”, also known as the “cost shifting” (or Hawker) report (November 2003).
A media release at that time by the then Federal Member for Wannon, The Hon. David Hawker MP stated:
“One of the most crucial recommendations involves all levels of government coming together to develop an inter-governmental agreement that identifies the roles and responsibilities of local government in delivering State and Federal programs and the allocation of funds and resources to fulfill these responsibilities”.
2. Australian Local Government Association R2R Campaign
In early August 2011 a letter was received from ALGA – refer Appendix A, separately circulated with this agenda.
The content of the ALGA letter is self explanatory and invites support from councils for a campaign aimed at securing a greater measure of “permanency” for R2R post-2015, taking into account the significance of this matter in commitments to be sought from the parties in the lead-up to the next Federal Election in 2013 (latest).
R2R funding is a critical source of grant income within Council‟s own strategic financial planning, particularly having regard to the warrants for increased investment in maintenance, renewal and rehabilitation of the rural road network when taking into account the increasing freight task over the next decade and beyond.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 58 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F10. ROADS TO RECOVERY PROGRAM ADVOCACY (continued)
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council calls on the Federal Government to:
a) Recognise the successful delivery of the Roads to Recovery Program by Local Government since 2000;
b) Continue the Roads to Recovery Program on a permanent basis to assist Local Government meet its responsibilities of providing access for its communities;
c) Continue the Roads to Recovery Program with the current administrative arrangements; and
d) Provide an increased level of funding under a future Roads to Recovery Program that recognises the National shortfall of funding on local roads of $1.2 billion annually.
2. That letters be forwarded to the Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Leader of the Opposition (Cwth) and Opposition Transport Spokesperson relating to advocacy for 1. above.
3. That a copy of this report be forwarded to the Member for Wannon, seeking supporting representations relating to 1. above.
4. That a copy of this report also be forwarded to the Municipal Association of Victoria and Australian Local Government Association.
Crs Stephens and Northcott
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 59 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F11. FINALISATION OF 2011/12 LONGER TERM CAPITAL PLAN (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1237597, 1237635, 1237640)
Group Manager: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager Assets & Infrastructure Author: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager Assets & Infrastructure
Executive Summary
This report relates to the finalisation of the 2011/12 Longer Term Capital Plan (LTCP) following Council‟s adoption of the 2011/12 Budget and 2011/12 Strategic Resource Plan, also in-principle adoption of the 2011/12 Strategic Financial Plan and taking into account new arrangements for many Regional Victoria funding programs, as released since early June 2011.
Background
1. Introduction
The recent relevant “background” in this matter is summarised as follows:
2011/12 Budget Process
Councillors A Briefing Paper was presented relating to the Workshop initial process for preparation/updating of the 18 January 2011 2011/12 LTCP, based on a 10 year timeframe (“Version 1”) with this being a “starting point” to move to “Version 2” prior to the Special Councillors (Budget) Workshop No. 2, scheduled for 5 April 2011. Ordinary Council A report was presented relating to the process Meeting 24 January of the Longer Term Capital Plan (2011/12 – 2011 2020/21), with Council resolving as follows –
“That Council prepare a draft Longer Term Capital Plan (2011/12 – 2020/21) as a fundamental input for Council‟s strategic financial/capital planning, also to assist preparation of the draft 2011/12 Budget, including an appropriate multi-year funding approach for a significant proportion of candidate capital projects”.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 60 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F11. FINALISATION OF 2011/12 LONGER TERM CAPITAL PLAN (continued)
Part 18, Finalisation of 2011/12 Longer Term Capital Plan
28 January - Overall period for internal review/updating of 11 March 2011 previously registered candidate capital projects together with inviting any Councillor candidate proposals i.e. to assist preparation of the draft LTCP (Version 2) – refer email of 11 February and Councillor Update of 28 February 2011.
18 March 2011 An item on this Workshop Agenda was titled Council Planning “2011/12 Capital Works Process”. A 9 page Workshop workshop paper was presented relating to the review /updating of the 2011/12 LTCP together with a summary of the “model” process for annual capital planning – refer Appendix A.
22 March, 5, 19 The draft 2011/12 Capital Program formed part of April 2011 the Workshops No‟s 2, 3, with a “Version 3” draft of Special the 2011/12 (10 year) LTCP being presented, albeit Councillors with Years 2-10 being relatively indicative pending (Budget) further resolution of Year 1, within the proposed Workshops No.‟s 2011/12 Budget. 1,2,3 The 2011/12 Capital Program (Year 1) subsequently went to “Version 6” by the “Proposed Budget” Council Meeting of 10 May 2011, however no further refinement/updating of Years 2-10 of the 2011/12 LTCP took place during the budget process.
10 May – 28 June Public notice period then adoption of the 2011/12 2011 Budget and 2011/12 Strategic Resource Plan (SRP) (being a component of the Council Plan 2009- 2013).
Post Budget
28 June 2011 Council in-principle adoption of the Strategic Ordinary Council Financial Plan 2011/12 – 2020/21 (SFP). Meeting Part 3.4.3 of the updated SFP is on the basis of Council own-source funding of capital projects ranging between $7.141m - $8.993m between 2012/13 (Year 2) and 2020/21 (Year 10) (after applying various cost inflators for contract, materials and labour expenses).
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 61 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F11. FINALISATION OF 2011/12 LONGER TERM CAPITAL PLAN (continued)
2 June – 18 July Specific details received relating to various 2011 new/restructured Regional Victoria capital funding programs.
Appendix B is an overview summary and preliminary appraisal of the new/restructured capital funding programs of key relevance, taking into account that there are other (continuing) formula-based or merit-based/competitive funding programs which are not listed within Appendix B.
Appendix C is a template of the proposed integration of candidate capital projects within the 2011/12 LTCP and the new/restructured capital funding programs.
2. Updated Draft 2011/12 LTCP
a) As seen from Appendix B, an endorsed LTCP is a prerequisite for Council to submit an application for the by-formula RGF-LGIP, with the desirability that this can take place during September 2011 as the overall allocation is for the four year period, commencing 2011/12. Even if there is below-average expenditure in 2011/12 for RGF-LGIP projects, it is essential that investigations/design/approvals commence in 2011/12 in many instances, to provide surety of construction delivery in 2012/13.
For the RGF-PLFP merit-based applications, it is essential that at least a two year minimum “package” is put forward for the purposes of review/advice by the RDA Committee i.e. the new process is not conducive of once-off applications being put forward from time to time for either of the Local Government components of the Regional Growth Fund.
(An updated draft 2011/12 LTCP is currently being prepared, with a view to separate circulation to Councillors of an addendum to this report by Friday 19 August 2011).
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 62 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F11. FINALISATION OF 2011/12 LONGER TERM CAPITAL PLAN (continued)
MOTION
Cr Stephens and Saunders
That the report “F11. Finalisation of 2011/12 Longer Term Capital Plan” be withdrawn from the current Agenda.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 63 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F12. COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS AND CONTROL OF BUILDING SITES – PROTECTION PERMITS (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1237173, 1237179)
Group Manager: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager – Assets & Infrastructure Author: Lindsay Merritt, Group Manager – Assets & Infrastructure
Executive Summary
This report relates to the introduction of the Asset Protection Permits (APP) process in relation to damage which may be caused by or due to building construction on abutting or nearby properties.
Background
1. Introduction
The APP process is contained in the Glenelg Shire Council General Local Law 2008, Part 5 – Protection of Council Assets and Control of Building Sites (commenced 20 March 2008) – refer Appendix A. The APP‟s will replace the existing Building Site Access Permit for “Works Within the Road Reserve” issued under Schedule 7 of the Road Management 2004 and the Road Management (Works and Infrastructure) Regulations 2005.
2. Discussion
a) APP‟s have been introduced “for the protection of public infrastructure assets vested in Council, and for the safety of persons, adjacent to, opposite, or passing a building site.” Council infrastructure assets include anything outside the property including, but not limited to, footpaths, nature strips, stormwater drains and pits, kerb and channel, road pavement, trees, signs etc.
A non-refundable APP of $100 (as already adopted by Council within the 2011/12 Fees and Charges Schedule on 10 May 2011) will be required prior to the issue of a building permit or the commencement of any building works. The Builder may obtain an APP, however the Owner should ensure that an APP is in place prior to commencement of any building work – also refer Appendix B.
It is the Owner or Builder‟s responsibility to ensure that Council infrastructure assets are protected and not damaged as a result of building works on the site. The Owner or Builder should advise Council if there is damage to Council infrastructure assets prior to commencing any building work. An APP will also largely eliminate the Owner‟s possible exposure against paying for any pre-existing damage to Council‟s road infrastructure assets i.e. damage that existed prior to the commencement of any building works.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 64 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F12. COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS AND CONTROL OF BUILDING SITES – PROTECTION PERMITS (continued)
b) A refundable Security Bond of $750 is proposed for projects having a value of $20,000 or more (refer Local Law clause 5.1 (6)) and/or projects involving the construction or removal of fencing on a boundary to a public place, demolition, building removal, excavation or construction of swimming pools. This Security Bond amount is just below the typical mid-range bond in comparable regional municipalities, following a benchmarking exercise i.e. typically likely to cover moderate damage only e.g. up to two footpath panels (3.6m2) @ approximately $210 per m2 reinstatement cost.
There may be special circumstances where the Security Bond is increased having regard to the following considerations:
The extent of the works
The potential to cause damage
Site conditions
The proposed development
c) The APP and Security Bond will encourage the Owner or Builder to implement good site management techniques and protect the environment. This should result in reduced damage to Council infrastructure or other assets.
However, any damage caused as a result of the building works must be reinstated by the Owner or Builder to Council specifications, or a Notice to Comply will be issued by a Council Authorised Officer. If the works are not complete within a specified time an infringement notice and fine will be issued. Part or all of the Security Bond will be used to pay for the repairs, without any further notice. If the cost of reinstatement exceeds the value of Security Bond held, the Owner will be invoiced for the additional cost.
The proposed operative date for introduction of the APP process is 12 September 2011.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 65 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F12. COUNCIL INFRASTRUCTURE ASSETS AND CONTROL OF BUILDING SITES – PROTECTION PERMITS (continued)
Officer Recommendation
1. That the refundable Security Bond relating to Asset Protection Permits referred to in Clause 5.1(6) of the General Local Law 2008 be set at $750 for 2011/12 and be included within the Glenelg Shire Council 2011/12 Fees and Charges Schedule.
2. That information relating to the Asset Protection Permits process be sent to all relevant private building surveyors, builders, architects and building designers before the proposed operative date of 12 September 2011.
3. That information relating to the Asset Protection Permits process also be included on Council‟s website and be available at all Customer Service Centres.
Crs White and Northcott
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 66 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F13. FURTHER WORK UNDERTAKEN – RATE STRATEGY REVIEW SUBMISSION: VICTORIAN FARMERS FEDERATION (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1231652)
Group Manager: Robert Foster, Acting Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Debra Clark, Corporate Projects Coordinator
Executive Summary
This report identifies the basis behind the farming enterprises claim raised by the Victorian Farmers Federation in its submission on the Rate Strategy Review.
Background
The Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) made a submission to Council on the 28 April 2011 regarding the Rate Strategy Review.
A statement within the body of the submission was “ABS data shows there are approximately 500 farming enterprises in the Shire that will place the average rate burden at $8,470. This is more than 10 times that of the average residential assessment”.
Council considered all submissions at the Special Council meeting held on Tuesday 3 May 2011 and the decision from that meeting was:
“That Council undertake further work on rate modelling, analyse that work, and make a decision on a final rate model by 30 November 2011, for introduction in the 2012-2013 rating year”.
Subsequent discussions between CEO, Sharon Kelsey and Councillors confirmed that the further work to be undertaken was limited to clarifying the farming enterprises issue raised in the VFF‟s submission. Identification of the basis behind the VFF claim was the only additional work to be completed.
Report
The basis on which the claim by the VFF was made has now been determined.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics, Catalogue No. 2068.0 – 2066 Census Tables: Industry of Employment by Owner Managers by Number of Employees lists a total of 519 under the category „Agriculture, forestry and fishing‟ for unincorporated enterprises.
A copy of the Australian Bureau of Statistics report is attached.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 67 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F13. FURTHER WORK UNDERTAKEN – RATE STRATEGY REVIEW SUBMISSION: VICTORIAN FARMERS FEDERATION (continued)
Conclusion
This work finalises the requirements of Council in this regard. If any further analysis is required, the Council will need to identify the scope of that analysis.
Officer Recommendation
That the report be received and noted.
Crs Northcott and Stephens
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 68 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F14. CHANGE TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT: PROCESS AND CONSIDERATIONS (Separate circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media) (DWS: 1231625)
Group Manager: Robert Foster, Acting Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Debra Clark, Corporate Projects Coordinator
Executive Summary
This report provides information on the legal process and other factors to be deliberated if Council considers change to the boundaries of its municipal district.
Background
At the Council meeting held on 28 June 2011 the following motion was carried:
“That a report be submitted to Council identifying the relevant legal and other considerations, and processes, that Council would need to consider if it proposed a change to the boundaries of the municipal district.”
Report
The statutory process to be undertaken for a change to the boundaries of the municipal district is detailed in section 220 of the Local Government Act 1989 (LGA). A copy of section 220 is attached.
Sub-sections (A) to (D) specify that the Minister may establish a local government panel of up to five (5) people to conduct a review of any matter relating to local government restructuring, and the Minister may appoint one of the members of the panel to be the chairperson.
A member of a local government panel holds office on the terms and conditions determined by the Minister. Subject to any direction of the Minister, a local government panel may regulate its own proceedings.
Sub-section (F) prescribes that a notice detailing the terms of reference of the review must be published in a newspaper generally circulating in the relevant municipal district, if the Minister establishes a local government panel to conduct a review of any matter relating to local government restructuring.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 69 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F14. CHANGE TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT: PROCESS AND CONSIDERATIONS (continued)
„Restructuring Orders‟ sub-section (P) provides that the Minister must not recommend to the Governor in Council that an Order in Council be made in relation to local government restructuring unless the Minister has established a local government panel to conduct a review of the matter and has considered the report of the panel on the matter.
Sub-section (Q) specifies that the Governor in Council may on the recommendation of the Minister make an Order in Council to do any one or more of the following:
alter the boundaries of a municipal district by adding or removing an area to or from an existing municipal district or an outlying district;
constitute a new municipal district by amalgamating existing municipal districts;
declare an existing boundary of a municipal district;
re-constitute an existing Council;
constitute a new Council;
abolish an existing Council;
constitute a Council as a Shire, Rural City or City;
give a name to, or alter the name of, a Council;
divide a municipal district into wards;
re-constitute a municipal district as an un-subdivided municipal district;
alter the boundaries of the wards of a municipal district by adding or removing an area to or from an existing ward;
alter the number of wards into which a municipal district is divided;
give a name to, or alter the name of, a ward of a municipal district;
alter the number of Councillors assigned to a Councillor each ward;
provide for the interim administration of a new or re-constituted Council until an election is held.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 70 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F14. CHANGE TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT: PROCESS AND CONSIDERATIONS (continued)
Sub-section (T) provides information on minor boundary changes.
Since the compulsory amalgamation of Victorian local governments under the Kennett Government in the mid 1990s there have only been three occasions when the Minister has established a local government panel to conduct a review on local government restructuring.
1. The first of these related to the Shire of Delatite which had been created on the 18 November 1994 through the amalgamation of the City of Benalla and significant parts of the Shire of Benalla (the „two Benallas‟), the Shire of Mansfield, and a proportion of the Shire of Violet Town (the Warrenbayne district).
This merger was unpopular as, prior to amalgamation, the former Councils of Mansfield, Benalla City and Benalla Shire clearly favoured mergers that excluded Mansfield. The option of standing alone was the preference of the Mansfield Council. Unrest continued after amalgamation.
In 1999 the Council successfully lobbied the newly appointed coalition State government for the opportunity to present a case for splitting the Shire. Following ongoing community consultation, the Council eventually split.
2. On 15 June 2000 the Minister appointed a local government panel to conduct a review of the feasibility and viability of the Hume City Council becoming two separate municipalities. It was apparent that the proposal to proceed would be dependent on the ongoing financial sustainability of a new Shire of Sunbury.
As the review panel‟s report to the Minister considered that the creation of a new Shire of Sunbury would impose a significant financial burden on Sunbury residents and ratepayers, the proposal for a de-merger was lost.
3. Until 1 July 2008, the Melbourne suburb of Kensington was split between the Local Government areas of the City of Moonee Valley and the City of Melbourne, but is now fully under the administration of City of Melbourne. A poll of residents and traders in Kensington early in 2006 determined that 90% of the 604 who returned a questionnaire, wanted a reunited Kensington under the City of Melbourne. Those who were already in Melbourne City wanted to stay; those who were in Moonee Valley wanted to rejoin Melbourne City. These figures led to a change in the municipal districts.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 71 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F14. CHANGE TO THE BOUNDARIES OF THE MUNICIPAL DISTRICT: PROCESS AND CONSIDERATIONS (continued)
Mr Paul Rozario, Governance and Legislation Adviser at the Municipal Association of Victoria, and Mr Tim Presnell from the Office of Local Government advised that there have been a number of other proposals for change to municipal boundaries put to the Minister. None of these other proposals have resulted in the establishment of a local government review panel. Based on the evidence to date, the establishment of a local government panel to review any matter relating to local government restructuring would require a Council to submit a strong and substantive case detailing at least:
proven exceptional circumstances;
evidence that the critical mass of residents wished for change;
analysis of service provision and rating differences;
the support of any neighbouring Council affected by the change;
evidence that the change would not disadvantage Glenelg or a neighbouring Council;
verification that the proposal was not based solely on political agitation.
Conclusion
This report and the attached copy of section 220 of the Local Government Act 1989 provide information on the process and considerations for Council if it wants to alter the municipal boundary.
Officer Recommendation
That the report be received and noted.
Crs Wilson and Northcott
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 72 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F15. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL TO HEAR SUBMISSIONS ON THE TRANSFER OF TITLE: COUNCIL OWNED PROPERTY, 96 JULIA ST, PORTLAND
Group Manager: Robert Foster, Acting Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Debra Clark, Corporate Projects Coordinator
Executive Summary
Council approval is sought for the appointment of a Committee of Council to hear any submissions received on the transfer of title of the Council owned property situated at 96 Julia Street, Portland.
Background
At the Council meeting held on 28 June 2011 a report was submitted seeking Council approval of the transfer of ownership of land situated at Lot 3 PS424907, 96 Julia Street, Portland to the Dhauwurd-Wurrong Elderly & Community Health Services Inc (DWECH), at no cost to Council.
The recommendation approved by Council was: “that Council give public notice, pursuant to Section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989, of its intention to enter into an agreement for the transfer of the land referred to as Lot 3 of PS424907 (96 Julia Street Portland), at no cost to Council.”
Report
Public notice of Council‟s intention to enter into an agreement for the transfer of the land was published in both the Portland Observer and Casterton News on Wednesday 3 August 2011. Any person wishing to make a written submission on the proposed property transfer must do so before 5pm on Wednesday 31 August 2011.
In accordance with section 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 (LGA) the appointment of a Committee of Council to hear submissions is required.
Accordingly, Council‟s approval is sought for the establishment of a Committee as follows:
Name of Committee of Council:
“Committee to hear submissions on proposed ownership transfer of 96 Julia Street, Portland” (the Committee)
Purpose The purpose of this Committee is to hear and consider any submissions received on the proposed transfer of title, and to report findings to Council.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 73 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F15. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL TO HEAR SUBMISSIONS ON THE TRANSFER OF TITLE: COUNCIL OWNED PROPERTY, 96 JULIA ST, PORTLAND (continued)
Objectives
The following are the objectives for the Committee:
To hear and give consideration to any submissions received.
To investigate and report on findings to Council.
To make an informed recommendation to Council.
To provide advice of the outcome to any person who made a submission, and the reasons for that decision.
Membership
Mayor – Chairperson Four (4) appointed Councillors
Role of Committee
Responsibility of the Committee:
To hear and consider submissions in accordance with section 223 of LGA.
To provide an opportunity for any person who has made a submission (or their representative) to be heard in support of their submission, if they so desire.
To provide reasonable notice of the day, time and place of the meeting to each person making a request to be heard.
To make reasonable enquiries or investigations before reporting to Council with a recommendation.
To act fairly and without bias.
To consider any submissions within 28 days of receipt in line with the “Local Government Best Practice Guideline for the Sale, Exchange and Transfer of Land”, DPCD March 2008.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 74 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F15. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL TO HEAR SUBMISSIONS ON THE TRANSFER OF TITLE: COUNCIL OWNED PROPERTY, 96 JULIA ST, PORTLAND (continued)
Delegations
The Committee is delegated all necessary powers as conferred by sections 86(3) to 86(7) of the Local Government Act 1989:
To give full consideration to any submissions received on the transfer of land at 96 Julia Street, Portland.
To make a recommendation to Council.
Conduct of the Committee
Term of Appointment to be 23 August 2011 to 27 September 2011.
Meeting to be held on Wednesday 6 September 2011, commencing at 2pm in the Committee Room.
Meeting will be chaired by the Mayor.
Accountability
The Committee will be responsible for timely, orderly and appropriate consideration of submissions received.
Meetings are to be held within the general provisions of the Council Meeting Procedure.
Members of the Committee will treat submissions as confidential.
The Committee‟s recommendation will be presented to Council on Tuesday 27 September 2011.
Officer Recommendation:
1. That Council in accordance with Sections 86 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 approve the appointment of a Committee of Council to hear any submissions received on the transfer of title of the Council owned property situated at 96 Julia Street Portland, to the Dhauwurd-Wurrong Elderly & Community Health Services Inc.
2. The objectives, role, conduct and accountability of the Committee be as specified in this report.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 75 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F15. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL TO HEAR SUBMISSIONS ON THE TRANSFER OF TITLE: COUNCIL OWNED PROPERTY, 96 JULIA ST, PORTLAND (continued)
3. Membership of the Committee shall be:
a. Mayor
b. Councillor
c. Councillor
d. Councillor
e. Councillor
4. The Mayor shall be Chairperson of the Committee.
5. The Committee shall hold its first meeting on 6 September 2011, commencing at 2pm in the Committee Room.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 76 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F15. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL TO HEAR SUBMISSIONS ON THE TRANSFER OF TITLE: COUNCIL OWNED PROPERTY, 96 JULIA ST, PORTLAND (continued)
MOTION
Crs Northcott and White
1. That Council in accordance with Sections 86 and 223 of the Local Government Act 1989 approve the appointment of a Committee of Council to hear any submissions received on the transfer of title of the Council owned property situated at 96 Julia Street Portland, to the Dhauwurd-Wurrong Elderly & Community Health Services Inc.
2. The objectives, role, conduct and accountability of the Committee be as specified in this report.
3. Membership of the Committee shall be:
a. Mayor
b. Councillor Wilson
c. Councillor Saunders
d. Councillor Stephens
e. Councillor Halliday
4. The Mayor shall be Chairperson of the Committee.
5. The Committee shall hold its first meeting on Tuesday 6 September 2011, commencing at 2pm in the Committee Room.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 77 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F16. MEMBERSHIP OF THE GLENELG FIRE MANAGEMENT PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE
Group Manager: Rob Foster, Acting Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Debra Clark, Corporate Projects Coordinator
Executive Summary
The Glenelg Municipal Fire Management Planning Sub Committee (Glenelg MFMPSC) is seeking the appointment of a Councillor as an additional Committee member.
Background
At the Council meeting held on Thursday 25 June 2009, Council, pursuant to Section 21 (3) of the Emergency Management Act 1986 appointed a sub- committee to the Glenelg Municipal Emergency Management Planning Committee (“Glenelg MEMPC”) to be titled Glenelg Municipal Fire Management Planning Sub-Committee (“Glenelg MFMPSC”).
The constitution of the Glenelg MFMPSC provides that the membership can be altered:
2(d) Other members who may be appointed by Council in the future, taking into account recommendations received from the Glenelg MFMPSC.”
Report
On 18 April 2011, the Chairperson of the Glenelg MFMPSC, Mr Peter Novotny, wrote to Council recommending that a Councillor be appointed as an additional member to the Glenelg MFMPSC. This letter indicated that the Committee had passed such a resolution at its meeting held on 13 April 2011.
The appointment has been delayed because the minutes of that Committee meeting did not document the resolution to seek an additional Committee member.
It has since been established that the minutes are incorrect and that a resolution to seek an additional Committee member was passed at the meeting held on 13 April 2011.
Conclusion
The members of the Glenelg MFMPSC have formally recommended that Council appoint a Councillor as an additional member to the Committee.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 78 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F16. MEMBERSHIP OF THE GLENELG FIRE MANAGEMENT PLANNING SUB COMMITTEE (continued)
Officer Recommendation
That in accordance with the Council resolution of 25 June 2009, Ordinary Council Meeting report D5. New State Government Policy Relating to Fire Management Planning and Changes to Municipal Level Arrangements (Part 2d):
“Other members who may be appointed by Council in the future, taking into account recommendations received from the Glenelg MFMPSC.”
Council appoint Councillor
MOTION
Crs Wilson and Stephens
That in accordance with the Council resolution of 25 June 2009, Ordinary Council Meeting report D5. New State Government Policy Relating to Fire Management Planning and Changes to Municipal Level Arrangements (Part 2d):
“Other members who may be appointed by Council in the future, taking into account recommendations received from the Glenelg MFMPSC.”
Council appoint Councillor Northcott to be an additional member on the Glenelg Municipal Fire Management Planning Sub Committee.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 79 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F17. LEASE OF BRIDGEWATER BAY KIOSK – 1661 BRIDGEWATER RD, CAPE BRIDGEWATER (Separate circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1237241, 1237242)
Group Manager: Rob Foster, Acting Group Manager Corporate Services Author: Rob Foster, Acting Group Manager Corporate Services
Executive Summary
The purpose for this report is to recommend to Council that it support, in principle, a new lease with the existing tenant SL & DA Pty Ltd at 1661 Bridgewater Rd Cape Bridgewater for the Bridgewater Bay Kiosk.
Background
The Bridgewater Bay Kiosk is located on Crown land. Council is appointed as the committee of management (land manager) for that land under provisions of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 (the Act). A committee of management may grant a lease for Crown land, subject to obtaining the approval of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change (the Minister) to grant the lease.
On 1 April 1994 a 21 year lease (the usual term under the Act) for the Bridgewater Kiosk site was granted. The lease requires rent reviews every three years. On the 10 December 2008 the lease was transferred to SL & DA Pty Ltd.
In November 2010 a rent review undertaken by a certified valuer resulted in a substantial rent increase from $5503.08 per annum to $20,020.00 per annum. The current tenant objected to that rent increase. Following negotiations, a new rental amount of $16,500.00 per annum was agreed based on the valuation determined by the tenant‟s certified valuer.
The critical issue for the current tenant which was raised during the lease payment negotiations, was the lack of security of tenure, given that the lease term expires in 4 years (31 March 2015).
Report
The current tenant wants to develop the kiosk site but is reluctant to do so without certainty of tenure. A condition of the negotiated agreement on rental was that Council consider supporting the negotiation of a new lease to the incumbent tenant (a Renewal).
The “Leasing Policy for Crown land in Victoria 2010” (the Policy) provides guidance on and the requirements for granting leases (new or Renewal).
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 80 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F17. LEASE OF BRIDGEWATER BAY KIOSK – 1661 BRIDGEWATER RD, CAPE BRIDGEWATER (continued)
The Policy provides for granting leases through one of two methods:
A competitive selection process
direct negotiations.
These methods apply to both new leases and lease Renewals. The Policy provides that the Minister may consider a proposal to grant a new lease to an incumbent tenant, but subject to the same considerations as a new lease.
To ensure consistency and transparency in leasing, a two stage process applies to the granting of leases:
1. All lease proposals require the Approval in Principle (AiP) of the Minister to lease before a land manager agrees or commits to lease Crown land.
2. All leases require the Minister‟s approval of lease terms and conditions.
The current tenant has requested that Council support a proposal to grant a new lease to the company. A new lease to an incumbent tenant will be not considered until at least 50% of the term of the lease has expired. In this case the conditions have been satisfied (17 years of the 21 years lease have expired). Consequently Council, as the land manager, can support this request.
The proposal to grant a new lease to the incumbent tenant has been discussed within the Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE). The DSE has advised that it is currently developing guidelines for the process of considering new leases to incumbent tenants. These guidelines many not be completed in time to apply to the current request. Consequently, DSE has advised the steps required to consider the request to grant a new lease to the incumbent tenant. This advice is contained in Attachment 1.
These steps will need to be discussed with the current tenant. However, based on previous negotiations with this tenant, it is merely seeking Council‟s agreement to support, in principle, the tenants proposal to grant a new lease to the tenant as the incumbent tenant.
The current tenant is proposing a plan for a future capital works program to develop and improve the site, appears to be appropriately managing the site, and is seeking a greater degree of security of tenure before proceeding further. Consequently it appears appropriate that Council as the land manager, agree in principle, to support the proposal to grant a new lease to the incumbent tenant.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 81 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F17. LEASE OF BRIDGEWATER BAY KIOSK – 1661 BRIDGEWATER RD, CAPE BRIDGEWATER (continued)
It should be noted that such a decision does NOT guarantee that a new lease will be granted to the incumbent tenant. If Council supports, in principle, the current tenant, then the tenant would be required to undertake the preparatory work required to finalise and present a proposal for further consideration by Council. The proponent should bear all costs associated with the required processes.
As the proposal for a new lease is outside the Council‟s instrument of delegation, the proposal has to be determined by the Council.
Officer Recommendation
That Council agree, in principle, to support the proposal to grant a new lease for the Bridgewater Bay Kiosk to the incumbent tenant, SL & DA Pty Ltd, provided that the tenant meet all costs associated with the required processes.
Crs Halliday and White
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 82 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F18. CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR PERIOD CLOSURE DATES 2011/12
CEO: Sharon Kelsey, Chief Executive Officer Author: Sharon Kelsey, Chief Executive Officer
Executive Summary
To gain approval from the Council for the proposal to close Shire offices during the Christmas/New Year period for 2011/12.
Background
The Christmas/New Year period is traditionally a quieter customer service delivery period than at other times of the year. Statistics gathered during last year‟s Christmas/New Year period show a much lower than usual use of services than that experienced at other times of the year. However there are a few exceptions, most notably the quite high use of the Portland library services, HACC services and local port services. The customer service statistics for this period show a greater use of the telephone in relation to enquiries as distinct from those occurring at the counter. But again, in general, these numbers are comparatively low as compared to at other times of the year.
To help with the ebb and flow of peak periods for Council services, the flexibility to provide those services is obtained through the use of flexible leave options such as annual and/or long service leave, time off in lieu (TOIL), flexi time and leave without pay. This flexibility enables Council to provide services for extended periods of time during the day, attendance at after hours Council and community based meetings, and imminent deadlines through extensive periods of work. eg: budget preparation. To continue to meet the peak periods of work, it is preferable that accrued leave is taken during lower demand periods such as that between Christmas and New Year.
Report
Historically, the Glenelg Shire Council fell in line with the practices of other government agencies including other councils to close customer service offices during the period between Christmas and New Year. In recent history, the Glenelg Shire Council changed its practice and continued to provide services during this period. We are the only exception in the Great South Coast councils group. However, the low general use of Council services during this time coupled with the need to encourage staff to take leave entitlements during low demand periods such as this needs to be consistent.
Our community is often surprised to find that Council services are open during this period and many of the enquiries are routine operational matters as distinct from those requiring an immediate or emergency response.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 83 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F18. CHRISTMAS/NEW YEAR PERIOD CLOSURE DATES 2011/12 (continued)
The relatively recent practice of not closing the civic offices means that staff leave requisitions may be put forward during undesirable or peak work periods. Ideally, the best option is for leave to be taken at mutually desirable times.
A number of public holidays fall during this period. This year Christmas falls on a Sunday followed by two public holidays on the Monday and Tuesday with New Year‟s Day being on the following Sunday. This would mean Council could close its offices between 28 and 30 December, reopening on Tuesday 3 January 2012. This proposal would not result in any financial impact to Council. Council‟s after hours and emergency services would continue to be available with staff rostered on an at call basis. Closure of the offices at this low demand time would provide an opportunity for appropriate and structured taking of accrued leave at a mutually suitable time.
Conclusion
It is recommended that Council approve the closure of Council offices from 1.00pm on Friday 23 December 2011 through to 8.30am on Tuesday 3 January 2012 subject to some variation with regard to specific arrangements for staff Christmas functions (these details are yet to be determined). Public notification and after hours contact numbers will be advertised prior to the offices being closed.
Officer Recommendation
That Glenelg Shire Council approve the closure of Council offices from 1.00pm on Friday 23 December 2011 through to 8.30am on Tuesday 3 January 2012 subject to some variation with regard to specific arrangements for staff Christmas functions and that public notification and after hours contact number be advertised prior to the offices being closed.
Crs Stephens and White
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 84 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F19. CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CEO: Sharon Kelsey, Chief Executive Officer Author: Sharon Kelsey, Chief Executive Officer
Executive Summary
This report is to advise the Council on the status of the Australian Local Government Association‟s (ALGA) position in relation to constitutional recognition for local government and the impending referendum on this matter by 2013.
Background
The recent decision in the High Court of Pape vs Commission of Taxation (2009) cast doubt on the federal government‟s ability to directly fund local government. This doubt has overshadowed the validity of federal funded programs such as Roads to Recovery and undermines potential funding of other programs including critical community infrastructure.
The Australian Constitution (the Constitution) came into operation on 1 January 1901 and in the process formed the commonwealth or federal government. The Constitution also recognised the state governments and their residual powers. However the Constitution makes no reference to local government and therefore there is no federal constitutional status for local government in Australia. This omission probably reflected the times given that the main purpose of the Constitution was to establish the powers transferred from the states to the new federal government. It is probable that the role of local government was seen as a traditional one of managing roads, rates and rubbish services at a very localised level. Therefore it may not have been considered necessary to recognise local government in the Australian Constitution when it was initially drafted.
However, much has changed to necessitate the need for local government to be clearly recognised in the Australian Constitution. Prior to World War II the majority of taxation revenue was collected as a state function but this has since transferred to federal government with federal government having direct involvement in a range of community activities such as health, transport and education. Local governments across Australia are a key facilitator of many core services that work hand in hand with federal government functions and therefore often work in direct partnership with federal governments. As local government is not currently recognised in the Australian Constitution, the doubt over the ability of federal government to directly fund local government remains.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 85 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F19. CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (continued)
If direct funding cannot be sourced from the federal government, then federal money will be filtered via state governments. This will unnecessarily involve the administration and associated costs of another tier of government before it can be spent in local communities.
Not only is it critical to ensure that the federal government is a valid source of funding to local government and able to directly fund local governments but it is also important that the third tier of government is recognised for its important links with its community. Appropriate recognition in the Australian Constitution would address this anomaly.
The Australian government is committed to holding a national referendum on whether local government should be recognised in the Australian Constitution. The recognition would ensure the federal government would be able to directly fund local councils and other community infrastructure programs in the most direct and efficient way.
Report
The role of local government continues to expand well beyond that envisaged in 1901. Today local government provides an expansive range of services from child care, arts and culture, through to economic development and environmental sustainability. Whilst rates, roads and rubbish remain important local government services, they now sit among a range of core services provided by local government. In Glenelg Shire, there are currently over 150 services offered to residents. The main source of funding for these services and investments in community assets is rate revenue. It remains vital to local communities that federal government can fund local programs in the most direct, cost efficient means possible. For this to be assured, local government needs to be recognised in the Australian Constitution.
The federal government has committed to a referendum on this issue by 2013. Chapter VIII of the Australian Constitution lays out the procedure for amending the Constitution. Section 128 provides a constitutional amendment must be approved by a referendum. For constitutional change to occur, it requires the support of an absolute majority of both houses of federal parliament and the approval in a referendum of the proposed amendment by a majority of electors nationwide, and in a majority of states.
Altering the Constitution by referendum has historically been difficult. Since 1977 no referendum question has been carried successfully. The ALGA is proposing a simple change to the Constitution to secure the constitutional direct federal funding of local government.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 86 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F19. CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT (continued)
A panel of 18 members led by former Chief Justice of the New South Wales Supreme Court, the Honorable James Spigelman, AC QC, has been appointed by the Gillard Government to consider the level of support for this proposed constitutional change. All councils across Australia are being asked to consider their position in relation to the constitutional recognition of local government and to advise ALGA of that position.
Conclusion
To ensure the federal government is secured as a valid source of funding for local government and to recognise local government‟s role in the community, a change to the Australian Constitution is being proposed.
Officer Recommendation
That Council:
1. declares its support for financial recognition of local government in the Australian Constitution so that the Federal Government has the power to fund local government directly;
2. declares its support for inclusion of local government in any new Preamble to the Constitution if one is proposed;
3. calls on all political parties to support a referendum by 2013 to change the Constitution to achieve this recognition;
4. writes to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and local Federal Member of Parliament advising them of Council‟s support.
Crs Stephens and Saunders
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 87 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F20. COUNCIL SUBMISSION ON THE REVIEW OF THE VICTORIAN PLANNING SYSTEM (Separate circulation to Councillors and Group Managers) (DWS: 1238289)
Group Manager: Sydney Deam, Group Manager Planning & Economic Development Author: Tony Augunas, Strategic Planner
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report is to enable Council to endorse the submission prepared by the Strategic Planning unit relating to the review of the planning system.
Background
The Minister for Planning announced on 14 July 2011 that he is encouraging public submissions to be made on ways to improve the planning system in Victoria. The Minister has set up the Victorian Planning System Ministerial Advisory Committee, which has called for submissions to be made, by 31 August 2011, on the following seven questions:
1. What‟s good about the system?
2. What works well and what doesn't?
3. What are the ways to fix the problems and improve the system?
4. How can the planning system be more effective and efficient?
5. How can the planning system be made easier to access and understand?
6. Is the present planning system right for Victoria?
7. Are the respective roles of the State and Local Government in the planning system still appropriate?
Budget Implications
There are no budget implications.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 88 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F20. COUNCIL SUBMISSION ON THE REVIEW OF THE VICTORIAN PLANNING SYSTEM (continued)
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council endorse the submission prepared by the Strategic Planning unit.
2. That Council‟s Strategic Planning unit forward the submission to the Victorian Planning System Ministerial Advisory Committee by 31 August 2011.
Crs Stephens and Halliday
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 89 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F21. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL CHANGES FOR REGIONAL TOURISM BOARDS
Group Manager: Sydney Deam, Group Manager Planning and Economic Development Author: Gary Bebbington, Manager Economic Development and Tourism
Executive Summary
This report is to recommend Council pursue further options regarding Glenelg Shire Council‟s inclusion and funding contribution to the new regional tourism board for the Great Ocean Road (GOR) region. It also recommends that Council consult with key Shire tourism organizations to determine their view on Tourism Victoria‟s proposal.
Background
Tourism Victoria‟s Regional Tourism Action Plan 2009 – 2012 recognises the issue of improving regional tourism structures. In relation to Regional Tourism structures the Regional Tourism Action Plan noted:
• Many regional structures are under-resourced and lack adequate funding support.
• Regional structures rely heavily on volunteers who are struggling to cope with competing demands from their own business.
• The roles and responsibilities of some regional structures are unclear or duplicated.
• Many regions do not communicate well with stakeholders.
• Existing regional Campaign Committees only focus on marketing and are unable to address other critical issues impacting regional tourism growth such as product development, investment attraction, skills training and sustainability management.
As a consequence of these findings and based on industry feedback, the Regional Tourism Action Plan determined to:
“Evolve industry structures over the next 3-years. This will involve the creation of a Regional Tourism Board (RTB) in each region to set the overarching strategic vision and direction for tourism. The RTB will play a critical role in creating a platform for future growth and will have responsibility for a range of key functions”.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 90 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F21. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL CHANGES FOR REGIONAL TOURISM BOARDS (continued)
Report
Tourism Victoria‟s Regional Tourism Action Plan (RTAP) details that a RTB will be responsible for holistic tourism development and advocacy for the region. Functions will include regional marketing, industry development, product development, skills training, mentoring, networking, identifying investment priorities and managing sustainability. Tourism Victoria believes the RTB will play an important role in consolidating the strategic direction of the tourism industry for the entire region and communicating with key partners such as Tourism Victoria.
The first Implementation Committee meeting was held in September 2010 and further meetings were conducted. Unfortunately, the Committee could not reach agreement on a preferred structural model for the new RTB. The discussions at the Implementation Committee level reflected the divide between East and West sectors of the Great Ocean Road region. As a result of their inability to reach agreement the Committee was „terminated‟ early in 2011.
Following the termination of the Implementation Committee it was determined that Tourism Victoria would work with Local Government Chief Executive Officers to establish a new RTB. A series of meetings were held between Local Government CEOs and the Acting Chief Executive Officer of Tourism Victoria during March/April 2011. At these meetings a range of views were expressed.
Glenelg Shire expressed a view that:
1) The proposed funding model did not link to a tourism related performance indicator eg: the money invested by a council could not be measured for a return on investment.
2) There was a benefit in a coordinated approach to tourism across the region but the model appeared premised on a dominant view of tourism flowing from Melbourne and it did not recognise alternative markets eg: SA.
3) In the structure tabled at the meeting with the GSC CEO, the Glenelg Shire was depicted as a „stand alone‟ area in the model. It was unclear as to how the major focus on the GOR with a gateway through Geelong would be a benefit to the Shire. An alternative model is now shown in the proposed structure. This amended model was not discussed with Glenelg Shire.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 91 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F21. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL CHANGES FOR REGIONAL TOURISM BOARDS (continued)
4) The Regional Tourism Director indicated that GSC currently contributed some $80k to a regional tourism body and therefore the proposed increase in funding by GSC would be minimal. However, this was in error because GSC does not contribute funding to a regional tourism body.
During May 2011 the Regional Tourism Advisor, met with the Great South Coast Mayors and CEOs group to determine their position on the structure outlined below. All Councils generally agreed with the basic concept but there is still not a uniform consensus amongst LGA‟s on the suitability of the model for all parties and that the benefits derived would equate to the funding required.
The RTAP determined that a new RTB would not replicate other structures nor create additional bureaucracy in the region. Once established, the existing Campaign Committees would be disbanded.
The RTAP also determined to review the alignment of Geelong Bellarine with the Great Ocean Road region. The review came about as a result of strong lobbying from the Geelong Bellarine industry during the RTAP consultation phase. The independent review was undertaken and determined that a separate Geelong Bellarine region was a viable option. Despite these findings, when the decision was relayed to the Geelong Bellarine industry they had a change of heart and opted not to separate. The sub-destinations at the western end of the region strongly supported the separation of Geelong and Bellarine from the GOR. Tourism Victoria noted this feedback plus the additional costs to establish an RTB (min. $500k) and agreed not to create two separate RTBs.
Glenelg Shire is part of the GOR region in terms of Tourism Victoria‟s “Jigsaw” structure but realistically was never geographically and historically recognised as being on the GOR. Glenelg Shire does not fund a regional tourism body and “Discovery Coast” is marketed by Council. This places the Shire in the position of having no funds currently supporting a Shire regional tourism body that could be transferred to the proposed new RTB.
A benefit of our current structure and geographical position at the western end of the State is that unlike many of the GOR tourism regions, Glenelg Shire (Discovery Coast) has no internal conflict with identity, structure or direction in regards tourism strategy. It was for these very reasons that last year Moyne Shire withdrew from the Shipwreck Coast tourism alliance and also no longer funds a regional body.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 92 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F21. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL CHANGES FOR REGIONAL TOURISM BOARDS (continued)
The Proposed New Structure:
The new Board will be the peak tourism organisation for the GOR.
• Board will be focused on Strategy & Policy and would meet 6-8 times per year.
• Board responsible for the holistic development of tourism in the GOR.
• Functions include:
Industry Development
Product Development
Marketing
Identification of investment opportunities
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 93 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F21. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL CHANGES FOR REGIONAL TOURISM BOARDS (continued)
• The Board would develop and operate under a three-year strategic plan developed in consultation with all stakeholders, as well as a one year Business Plan
• Board to operate as a Company Limited by Guarantee.
• The skills based members would be appointed by an independent appointment panel following a public call for Expressions of Interest.
• The Appointment Panel would consist of 2 representatives from Local Government, Tourism Victoria representative and an independent chair.
• Parks Victoria, Tourism Victoria and Local Government appoint their own representatives.
Under the proposal outlined the new board will operate the following staffing levels with formal offices operating in Geelong and Warrnambool. Chief Executive Officer, Deputy CEO, Marketing and Media Coordinators, Project Officers, Online Officer, Membership Officer, Tourism Managers. All of these staff currently exist as part of sub destination structures (GOT, SCM, Otways Tourism) and would be seconded/transferred to the new RTB.
All existing sub destination structures (Geelong Otway Tourism, Shipwreck Coast Tourism, and Discovery Coast Tourism) would cease to operate in their current form. Local Tourist Associations would continue to operate as determined by the needs of the industry. Replacing the sub destination organisations will be Tourism Forums managed by the RTB.
Proposed Funding 2011/12
Under the structure as outlined above, it is proposed that existing Council funding and staffing which is committed for the 2011/12 financial year to Regional Tourism Associations (Geelong Otways Tourism, Shipwreck Coast, Otways Tourism, etc) continue until the new legal entity – Great Ocean Road Tourism Pty Ltd is formally established.
Once the new Board is in place the staffing and funding is formally transferred from the Regional Tourism Associations to the new RTB. It is anticipated that this would occur by 1 October 2011.
The transfer of staffing and funding would be subject to a detailed General Service Agreement/MOU to ensure the interests of the funding body are protected and the new regional structure would result in all current Regional Association staff reporting to a Great Ocean Road Regional Tourism Board via a Chief Executive Officer.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 94 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F21. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL CHANGES FOR REGIONAL TOURISM BOARDS (continued)
During the 2011/12 financial year, Tourism Victoria will contribute a minimum of $500,000 to the new Regional Tourism Structure. The funding allocation is made up of Regional Marketing Program Funding, RTB Admin funding, Tourism Excellence and Regional Event funding.
All future Tourism Victoria funding will be channeled through the new RTB.
Budget Implications
One of the key immediate roles of the new RTB will be to develop a long term funding model. It is proposed that in November/December 2011, a working group from the RTB plus Local Government and Tourism Victoria commence discussion re: a long term funding formula for the new structure. Initial modeling re: this issue indicates that formulas based on rateable properties/domestic visitor nights/international visitor nights would see Local Government contributing similar amounts (in most instances) to their current commitments to Regional Tourism Associations.
As an example an $8 fee per rateable property would result in the following allocations:
Local Government Rateable Properties Total ($) City of Greater Geelong 104,609 836,872 Borough of Queenscliffe 3,002 24,016 Surf Coast 19,070 152,560 Colac Otway 14,398 115,184 Golden Plains 2,342 18,736 Corangamite 9,448 75,584 Warrnambool l15,478 123,824 Moyne 10,936 87,488 Glenelg 13,890 111,120
Total 193,173 $1,545,384
Clearly under this modeling the Glenelg Shire contribution would need to be reviewed and the above is provided by Tourism Victoria only as an example. However, the funding model is important as Glenelg does not make contributions to existing regional tourism associations and are therefore not formal funding partners of the new structure. It should be noted that Glenelg Shire Council would still be required to fund the operation of our Visitor Information Centres along with existing tourism staff as they are Council employees and would still be required under this model.
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 95 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
F21. PROPOSED STRUCTURAL CHANGES FOR REGIONAL TOURISM BOARDS (continued)
Conclusion
The proposed Regional Tourism Board structure will have little impact on many of the Great Ocean Road regions as funding and staff will simply be transferred to the new organisation. In the case of Glenelg Shire (Discovery Coast) the Tourism Victoria proposal will require substantial additional tourism funding.
In recent times several major tourism strategies have been developed by Council and are showing success. Even under the proposed new structure our current Visitor Information Centre operations and tourism unit staff will still be required and marketing strategy and funding still supported by Council.
Officer Recommendation
1. That Council‟s Tourism unit consults with Shire tourism organisations to determine their view on Tourism Victoria‟s proposal.
2. That Council‟s CEO continues discussions with Tourism Victoria regarding Glenelg Shire Council‟s inclusion and funding contribution to the new regional tourism board.
3. That after discussions with Tourism Victoria and Shire tourism organisations a report recommending options is submitted to Council.
Crs White and Wilson
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 96 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
ANY OTHER PROCEDURAL MATTER:
URGENT BUSINESS:
1. 175th Anniversary of Henty Brothers Moving Inland to Henty – November 2011
MOTION
Crs Northcott and Saunders
That Council determine that this item be designated as urgent business in accordance with clause 5.68 of the Glenelg Shire Council Meeting Procedure adopted 27 April 2011.
CARRIED
At this stage Council has no real plans for this anniversary. Would like to signify the anniversary with recognition signage.
MOTION
That Council erect two signs at the locality of Henty, for the 175th anniversary this coming November, to signify Victoria‟s first European inland settlement by the Henty Brothers.
Cr Stephens and Saunders
CARRIED
RECEIPT OF ITEMS SUBMITTED FOR INFORMATION:
INDEX – SEPARATE CIRCULATIONS TO REPORTS
Separate Circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media
C1. Candidate Sites for Waste Transfer Station at Nelson D1. Delegated Planning Committee Unsigned Minutes E1. Assembly of Councillors Records – 15 July to 11 August 2011 (inclusive) F3. Draft Public Art Policy (Stage One) F4. Proposal for Establishing Cultural Collection Advisory Committee F8. Portland and Heywood Public and Community Transport Needs Analysis F9. Range Road/Norman Road Rural Locality – Road Network Connectivity for Heavy Vehicle Access Relating to Agricultural Production and Fire Emergencies F10. Roads to Recovery Advocacy F11. Finalisation of 2011/12 Longer Term Capital Plan F12. Council Infrastructure Assets and Control of Building Sites – Protection Permits
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 97 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
Separate Circulation to Councillors, Group Managers and Media (continued)
F13. Further Work Undertaken – Rate Strategy Review Submission: Victorian Farmers Federation F14. Change to Boundaries of the Municipal District: Process and Considerations
Separate Circulation to Councillors and Group Managers
F6. Narrawong Beach Patrol F17. Lease of Bridgewater Bay Kiosk – 1661 Bridgewater Road, Cape Bridgewater F20. Council Submission on the Review of the Victorian Planning System
Separate Circulation to Councillors
Nil
„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 Stephens and Wilson
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 98 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
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:
E1. Contract No. 201048 – “Various Concrete Works (Annual Contract)” Contractual Matters – Section 89 (2)(D) of The Local Government Act 1989.
E2. 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
Crs Halliday and Northcott
That the recommendation be adopted.
CARRIED
ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING:
MOTION
Crs Wilson and Halliday
That the meeting be adjourned at 9.00pm and resume at 9.05pm.
CARRIED
RESUMPTION OF MEETING:
MOTION
Crs Wilson and Saunders
That the meeting be resumed at 9.05pm
CARRIED
E. „IN CAMERA‟ REPORTS:
ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING - 99 - Tuesday, 23 August 2011
OPENING OF COUNCIL MEETING TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC:
MOTION
Crs Saunders and Stephens
That the Council Meeting be opened to members of the public at 9.10pm.
CARRIED
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THE MAYOR DECLARED THE MEETING CLOSED AT 9.10pm.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT PAGES 1 TO 99 ARE CONFIRMED AND ARE A TRUE AND CORRECT RECORD.
CR BRUCE CROSS MAYOR
MUNICIPAL OFFICES PORTLAND
27 September 2011