MINUTES - Mount Alexander Shire Council · MINUTES . FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL . HELD ON...

MINUTES

FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL HELD ON

TUESDAY 22 SEPTEMBER 2015 AT 7.30 PM IN THE

COUNCIL CHAMBER, MOUNT ALEXANDER SHIRE CIVIC CENTRE

CORNER LYTTLETON AND LLOYD STREETS, CASTLEMAINE.

Minutes for the Ordinary Meeting of Council – Mount Alexander Shire Council – 22 September 2015 of 54

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. PRESENT 4

2. APOLOGIES 4

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 4

4. MINUTES 4

4.1. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL – 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 4

5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 5

6. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS 5

7. COMMITTEE REPORTS 5

7.1. GOLDFIELD LIBRARY CORPORATION 5

7.2. AUDIT AND RISK ADVISORY COMMITTEE 5

8. ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCILLORS 10

8.1. ASSEMBLIES ON 1 AND 8 SEPTEMBER 2015 10

9. OFFICER REPORTS 17

9.1. A VIBRANT HEALTHY COMMUNITY (VIB) 17

9.2. BETTER COMMUNITY FACILITIES (BET) 18 BET 23 ADOPTION OF THE ROAD MANAGEMENT PLAN 18 BET 24 ADOPTION OF THE WESLEY HILL RECREATION RESERVE

MASTER PLAN 20

9.3. A THRIVING LOCAL ECONOMY (ECO) 25 ECO 01 EXERCISE AN EXTENSION OF CONTRACT M982-2013 –

SERVICING AND MAINTENANCE OF COUNCIL VEHICLES 25

9.4. BUILDING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES (COM) 28 COM 45 AWARDING OF CONTRACT M1200-2015 FOR PAVEMENT

REHABILITATION, BENDIGO-SUTTON GRANGE ROAD 28 COM 46 AMENDMENT C60 – FOREST STREET TO FOREST CREEK

HERITAGE STUDY – CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 32 COM 47 IN-PRINCIPLE APPROVAL OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

FOR 2014-2015 42 COM 48 CARRY FORWARD BUDGET 2015/2016 45 COM 49 ADOPTION OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STATEMENT 2014/2015 51

10. DELEGATES REPORTS 54

11. NOTICE OF MOTION 54

12. URGENT SPECIAL BUSINESS 54

13. MEETING CLOSE 54


SEPARATE ATTACHMENTS: Confidential Separate Attachment 8.2 Audit and Risk Advisory Committee Minutes 20 April 2015 Separate Attachment BET 23A Road Management Plan Confidential Separate Attachment COM 45A Tender Evaluation Report Awarding of Contract M1200-2015 for Pavement

Rehabilitation, Bendigo-Sutton Grange Road Separate Attachment COM 47A Annual Financial Statements Separate Attachment COM 49A Annual Performance Statement


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY

To start the official proceedings I would like to acknowledge that we are meeting on Jaara country

of which the members and elders of the Jaara Jaara community and their forebears have been custodians for many centuries

and have performed age old ceremonies of celebration, initiation and renewal. We acknowledge their living culture and their unique role in the life of this region.

1. PRESENT

Councillors: Chris Cole, Tony Cordy, Christine Henderson, Michael Redden and Sharon Telford.

Officers: Chief Executive Officer (Phil Rowland), Director Corporate Support (Lucy

Roffey), Director Sustainable Development (Jason Taylor) and Director Sustainable Communities (Vicky Mason).

2. APOLOGIES

Councillor Bronwen Machin and Councillor Tony Bell.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST/CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

Nil.

4. MINUTES

4.1. ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL – 8 SEPTEMBER 2015

The unconfirmed minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Mount Alexander Shire Council held at 7.30 pm on 8 September 2015 at the Mount Alexander Shire Civic Centre have been circulated to Councillors. The unconfirmed minutes have also been posted on the Mount Alexander Shire Council website, pending confirmation at this meeting.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Mount Alexander Shire Council held on 8 September 2015 be confirmed.

MOVED COUNCILLOR REDDEN

That the recommendation be adopted.

SECONDED COUNCILLOR TELFORD

CARRIED.


5. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil.

6. PETITIONS AND JOINT LETTERS

Nil.

7. COMMITTEE REPORTS

7.1. GOLDFIELD LIBRARY CORPORATION

The unconfirmed Minutes of the Goldfield Library Corporation meeting held on 31 July 2015 are at Attachment 7.1A.

7.2. AUDIT AND RISK ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Confirmed Minutes of the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee meeting held on 20 April 2015 are at Separate Confidential Attachment 7.2A.

RECOMMENDATION

That the unconfirmed Minutes of the Goldfield Library Corporation meeting and the confirmed Minutes of Audit and Risk Advisory Committee meeting be noted.



SECONDED COUNCILLOR CORDY

CARRIED.


Attachment 7.1A


8. ASSEMBLIES OF COUNCILLORS

8.1. ASSEMBLIES ON 1 AND 8 SEPTEMBER 2015

RECOMMENDATION

That the Records for the Assemblies of Councillors on 1 September and 8 September 2015 be entered into the record of this meeting (Attachments 8.1 and 8.2).

MOVED COUNCILLOR COLE



CARRIED.


Attachment 8.1


Attachment 8.2


9. OFFICER REPORTS

9.1. A VIBRANT HEALTHY COMMUNITY (VIB)

Nil reports.


9.2. BETTER COMMUNITY FACILITIES (BET)

BET 23 ADOPTION OF THE ROAD MANAGEMENT PLAN

Responsible Director: Jason Taylor, Director Sustainable Development Responsible Officer: Ben Grounds, Manager Infrastructure Original Document: DOC/15/32142

Purpose 1.

The purpose of this report is to enable Council to adopt the Mount Alexander Shire Council Road Management Plan, 22 September 2015.

Refer to:

Separate Attachment BET 23A: Mount Alexander Shire Council Road Management Plan DOC/14/41343

Background 2.

The Road Management Act 2004 (the Act) establishes a statutory framework for the management of road networks and is based on the following key principles:

• Clear allocation of road asset ownership and management; • Established processes and accountabilities for policy decisions and

performance standards; • Provision of operational powers to achieve targets and performance

standards; and • Clarification of civil liability laws for the management of roads.

Under the Road Management Act 2004, the Mount Alexander Shire Council Road Management Plan (RMP) now requires updating.

Policy and Statutory Implications 3.

Section 54(5) of the Act requires a road authority to conduct a review of its road management plan at regular intervals. Section 301, Part 3 - Road Management Plans of the Road Management (General) Regulations 2005 requires the revision be undertaken following every general election of Council.

The review process is prescribed by the Road Management Act 2004, and is now complete for Council’s RMP. This process involves a number of stages of public consultation.

Issues 4.

During the review of the previous RMP, officers identified a number of elements of the plan that require amendment. These are primarily the inspection frequencies and the hazard response times.

Inspection frequency and hazard response times are both based on road hierarchy.

Changes have been made based on risk management and achievability, as well as consideration of other councils’ RMPs and the outcomes of an internal audit on Mount Alexander Shire Council’s RMP.


Financial and Resource Implications 5.

The delivery of the service levels in the Draft RMP is achievable within existing allocated resources.

Consultation 6.

Consultation to gain feedback on the previous RMP was undertaken in October 2014 and the feedback was reported to Council soon afterwards. Four submissions were received and the relevant feedback has been incorporated into the drafting of the new RMP.

The subsequent Draft RMP was advertised for feedback in the Council Column on 12 May 2015. No submissions were received by the closing date.

Conclusion 7.

Section 54(5) of the Road Management Act requires a road authority to conduct a review of its road management plan at regular intervals. The Road Management (General) Regulations 2005 requires the revision be undertaken following every general election of Council.

Council has now completed the review of the road management plan. The review identified a number of elements of the plan that require amendment, particularly the inspection frequencies and hazard response times.

The Draft RMP was prepared and advertised for public submissions in May 2015. No submissions were received.

The Mount Alexander Shire Council Road Management Plan, 22 September 2015 is now ready for adoption.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Adopt the Mount Alexander Shire Council Road Management Plan, 22 September 2015;

2. Following the adoption of the amended Road Management Plan, give notice of the decision in the Government Gazette and in a daily newspaper generally circulating within the area; and

3. Make the amended Road Management Plan available on Council’s website and at the Civic Centre.




CARRIED.


BET 24 ADOPTION OF THE WESLEY HILL RECREATION RESERVE MASTER PLAN

Responsible Director: Vicky Mason, Director Sustainable Communities Responsible Officer: Sue Jones, Manager Liveable Communities Original Document: DOC/15/38027

Purpose 1.

The purpose of this report is for Council to approve and adopt the Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve Master Plan.

Refer to:

Separate Attachment BET 24A: Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve Master Plan, Centrum Architects June 2015 (DOC/15/34539).

Background 2.

Councillors have had several presentations on options for the development of the Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve.

Council engaged Centrum Architects in May 2013 to work with members of both the Committees of Management and user groups at the Reserve. The purpose of this was to produce a functional and technical brief that documented the needs of each user group and to produce a concept design and estimate of probable cost for the development of a multi-use pavilion and netball courts on the western side of the Reserve.

Council continued to work with user groups to consider possible alternative sites for the location of netball courts and options for the redevelopment of the facilities at the Reserve. This included investigation of pavilion design with reduced excavation works at the site, minimum standards for local level facilities in line with AFL standards, an estimate of probable cost and options for staging the redevelopment.

At its Ordinary Meeting of Council on 24 June 2014, Council received a report, outlining a summary of the work undertaken to date to explore the options for the development of the Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve to ensure that a preferred direction could be identified. A plan outlining the recommended delivery of the redevelopment was proposed to be delivered in stages which would include:

• Stage One: works for netball pavilion and covered area, ground works, court lighting, ramp, steps and roadways ($1.7 million);

• Stage Two: development of the multi−use pavilion, roadways and drop off point, ramps, steps and external works ($2.3 million); and

• Stage Three: cricket pavilion, car park and roadways, playground and barbeque area, remote control car facilities, walking/running tracks and landscaping ($1.81 million).

Council resolved to:

1. Note the extensive consultation, background research, costings and risk assessment undertaken to provide development options for Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve;


2. Resolve to proceed with a staged development of Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve with provision for netball, cycling, cricket, junior football and all other reserve uses. This will develop Wesley Hill as the Junior Sporting Hub for the Shire, with six netball courts, a regional AFL facility, a single level multi-use pavilion and the potential for future possible expansion (including a possible connection to the Castlemaine War Memorial Stadium);

3. Request that Council staff prepare a Master Plan for Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve and detailed designs for initial stages of the development;

4. Review the underspends from the Council’s 2013/14 Capital Works Program so that additional funds can be allocated to Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve development design costs in the 2014/15 financial year;

5. Receive a report on options for funding the design and delivery of the development and possible timelines for this; and

6. Upon receipt of this report, take steps to include the Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve development in its Long Term Financial Plan.


The Council Plan 2013-2017 under the goal ‘Better Community Facilities’ includes an objective, "Provide access to well−maintained sporting and recreation facilities for all residents". This includes the strategy to "Progress master plans for our recreation reserves."

The Council Plan 2013-2017 under the goal ‘A Vibrant and Healthy Community’ includes an objective "Support and encourage our community sporting groups". This includes the strategy to "Support sports and recreation clubs to enhance operations and management arrangements". The proposed redevelopment of the Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve to provide a multi−use pavilion and netball courts is consistent with both of these goals.

The project is consistent with Council's strategy, Investing in Sport, which outlines a vision for the future and provides a long term plan to improve our sporting reserves across the Shire. It links significant community consultation with the Shire's major sporting reserves, alongside a decision making process that gives clarity and a framework that prioritises projects that will actively increase participation and access.

The upgrading of the Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve is consistent with the recommendations of the Mount Alexander Reserves Improvement Plan 2011.

Issues 4.

During April 2015, Council continued to work with Centrum Architects to undertake the development of a Master Plan for the Reserve and prepare a detailed program for the delivery of Stage One of the redevelopment, including all aspects of expected phases, timelines and estimate of cost. Centrum developed a draft Master Plan based on the functional and technical brief developed in conjunction with users during consultations that occurred during 2013 and 2014.

On 22 June 2015, Council officers met with representatives from the relevant committees, Castlemaine War Memorial Stadium Committee of Management and


the Wesley Hill Facility Committee of Management, to gather feedback on the design for the Master Plan.

Council received written responses from both Presidents of the Committees of Management on 8 July 2015 which included feedback on traffic flow, facility priorities, landscape and playground works, sustainability options and possible inclusions as part of the staging process. The next stage of detailed design for Stage One will address most of areas identified by the users through consultation during the process.

The final Master Plan is consistent with Council’s resolution to proceed with a staged development of Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve with provision for netball, cycling, cricket, junior football and all other reserve uses. This will develop Wesley Hill as the Junior Sporting Hub for the Shire, with six netball courts, a regional AFL facility, a single level multi−use pavilion and the potential for future expansion, including a possible connection to the Castlemaine War Memorial Stadium.


As part of the 2015/2016 Budget, $170,000 has been allocated to complete the detailed design and documentation for Stage One of the redevelopment. The cost of Stage One is $1.7 million, which will be fully funded by Council as there is no grant funding available.

Consultation 6.

There has been extensive consultation with user groups and representatives of both the Castlemaine War Memorial Stadium Committee of Management and the Wesley Hill Facility Committee of Management towards the development of a Master Plan, from the initial project inception in 2008, through to workshops held with representatives from the user groups in 2013 and 2014 to capture user group input.

Further consultations have been presented to the groups in June 2015 to incorporate feedback and confirm the proposed Master Plan.

Conclusion 7.

Council has continued to work with Centrum Architects to finalise a Master Plan for the Reserve which has been presented to groups in June 2015 to confirm the configuration of the Reserve.

Adoption of the draft Master Plan for the Reserve will enable Stage One redevelopment detailed design and documentation to be undertaken during 2015/2016.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopt the Wesley Hill Recreation Reserve Master Plan.



SECONDED COUNCILLOR REDDEN

CARRIED.


Attachment BET 24A


9.3. A THRIVING LOCAL ECONOMY (ECO)

ECO 01 EXERCISE AN EXTENSION OF CONTRACT M982-2013 – SERVICING AND MAINTENANCE OF COUNCIL VEHICLES

Responsible Director: Director Corporate Support Responsible Officer: Manager Finance Original Document: DOC/15/37503

Purpose 1.

The purpose of this report is to request Council to approve the extension of Contract M982-2013 Servicing and Maintenance of Council Vehicles for a further two years.

Background 2.

In May 2013 Council publicly tendered for a new contract for the Servicing and Maintenance of Council Vehicles and two conforming tenders were received.

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 12 November 2013, Council awarded the contract to Hingol Holdings Pty Ltd T/As Autopro Castlemaine as primary contractor and Parsons Motor and Body Shop (Vic) Pty Ltd as secondary contractor.

This contract excludes Toyota and Mitsubishi fleet vehicles as they will continue to be serviced at the respective Castlemaine dealerships. All new vehicles are returned to an authorised dealership of the relevant manufacturer for the complimentary first service.

These contracts are due to expire on 30 November 2015 but have an option to extend for a further two year term.


Including consideration of Economic, Social and Environmental impacts.

The Local Government Act 1989 (the Act) provides direction to Local Government Authorities in regards to procurement of goods and services and the awarding of contracts. Section 186 of the Act requires Councils to undertake competitive market testing processes before entering into contracts for goods or services over the value of $150,000 or for the carrying out of works over the value of $200,000.

Clause 208 of the Act – Best Value Principles requires Local Government Authorities to comply with the various Best Value Principles, including the need for Council services to meet quality and cost standards. Other Best Value considerations when evaluating tenders include community expectations, opportunities for local employment growth or relations, and potential environmental advantages.

All goods and services purchased by Council must be compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Dangerous Goods Act, Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1987, and associated regulations and codes of practice wherever applicable.

Council’s procurement policy requires a minimum of three written quotes on all contracts over $15,000.


Issues 4.

The initial contract was for a period of two years, with a two year option. The contract commenced on 1 December 2013 and will therefore end on 30 November 2015.

Both contractors are based locally in Castlemaine and have performed the services required under the contract in a satisfactory manner with no major issues having been reported during the initial term.

As the contracts are soon due to expire, Council has the opportunity to exercise the two year extension option. A Council resolution is required to exercise this option.


The contract is based on a schedule of rates for the specified services. Neither the quantity of work or total annual spend are guaranteed by Council. Expenditure will be subject to existing and future budgets approved by Council, with expected annual spend approximately $15,000.

Both contractors were requested to provide an updated schedule of rates to be applied for the contract extension. Both contractors provided updated schedules which were reviewed and are reasonable, and within budget. On average the increase is approximately 5% from rates provided two years ago.

Consultation 6.

Both existing contractors have been consulted and have provided updated schedules of rates as they wish to continue as providers of the service for the further two years.

Conclusion 7.

In December 2013 Council entered into contracts with two local companies to service and maintain Council vehicles. The contracts are set to expire on 30 November 2015, and include the option for a two year extension.

The performance of both contractors has been satisfactory, and schedule of rates provided for the extension are reasonable and within budget.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

Exercise the option to extend contract M982-2013 Servicing and 1.Maintenance of Council Vehicles for a further 1 x 2 years with Hingol Holdings Pty Ltd T/As Autopro Castlemaine as primary contractor and Parsons Motor and Body Shop (Vic) Pty Ltd as secondary contractor; and

Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix the Common Seal to 2.the contract documentation to exercise the option on contract M982-2013.


MOVED COUNCILLOR TELFORD


SECONDED COUNCILLOR COLE

CARRIED.


9.4. BUILDING SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES (COM)

COM 45 AWARDING OF CONTRACT M1200-2015 FOR PAVEMENT REHABILITATION, BENDIGO-SUTTON GRANGE ROAD

Responsible Director: Jason Taylor, Director Sustainable Development Responsible Officer: Ben Grounds, Manager Infrastructure Original Document: DOC/15/36456

Purpose 1.

The purpose of this report is to enable Council to consider and determine the awarding of Tender M1200-2015 for Pavement Rehabilitation, Bendigo Sutton-Grange Road.

Refer to:

Confidential Attachment COM 45A Tender Evaluation Report, contract M1200-2015 for Pavement Rehabilitation, Bendigo Sutton-Grange Road

Background 2.

Council is committed to the maintenance and rehabilitation of road infrastructure in an efficient and timely manner. Three segments of the Bendigo Sutton-Grange Road have been identified for rehabilitation as part of the ongoing capital works program. The identification of Bendigo Sutton-Grange Road for rehabilitation was made following a detailed assessment of the road network and corresponding condition ranking for all roads. The condition ranking was used to help determine the priority of the rehabilitation works.

The rehabilitation of Bendigo Sutton-Grange Road includes the design and construction of three sections:

• a segment 50 metres south to 200 metres north of Pollards Road intersection along the Bendigo-Sutton Grange Road, including 20 metres into Pollards Road;

• a segment 100 metres from the Metcalfe Elphinstone Road intersection for 1.9 kilometres to the north along the Bendigo-Sutton Grange Road; and

• a segment 100 metres north of Grays Road and 200 metres south of Grays Road along the Bendigo-Sutton Grange Road, including 20 metres into Grays Road.

Tenders were invited from suitably qualified contractors for the contract by advertisement in The Age and Bendigo Advertiser on 18 July 2015, and the Midland Express on 21 July 2015.

Tender documentation was available for download from Council’s e-Tender website from 18 July 2015.

Tenderers were required to prepare an Economic Impact Statement to demonstrate the level of local and regional content proposed under this contract.


Council’s Road Management Plan highlights the requirements for responsible asset management with consideration of expected service delivery, management


of public risk, optimising asset life, efficient use of available resources and developing long term strategies for improvement.

The Local Government Act 1989 provides relevant direction to local government in regards to procurement and contracts. Section 186 of the Local Government Act requires councils to undertake competitive market testing processes before entering into contracts for purchase of goods or services or for the carrying out of works for the value of $150,000 or above. The Act imposes specific restrictions on Council in regard to entering such contracts.

Important provisions within Section 186 include minimum standard processes for giving public notice of the purpose of contracts in excess of the value of $150,000. Nothing in Section 186 of the Local Government Act requires Council to accept the lowest tender or to accept any tender.

Clause 208 of the Local Government Act – ‘Best Value Principles’ requires local governments to comply with the best value principles, specifically in this instance the need for Council services to meet quality and cost standards, and further provides a number of factors that may be looked at in applying the principles of best value.

All goods and services purchased by Council must be compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, the Dangerous Goods Act, Equipment (Public Safety) Act 1987, and associated regulations and codes of practice whenever applicable.

The tender process has been conducted in accordance to the conditions included within the Mount Alexander Procurement Policy. The tender evaluation criteria within Council’s Procurement Policy help to ensure competition in the supply of goods and services and products to Council and supports administrative consistency and fairness through transparency in Council’s decision making.

Issues 4.

At the commencement of the tender process and following the close of the tender period, the tender evaluation panel completed conflict of interest and confidentiality declarations. No known conflicts were declared at either stage.

Two conforming and one non-conforming tenders were received by the closing date of 2.00 pm, 14 August 2015.

Tenderer

Leech Earthmoving Contracting Pty Ltd

Doran Earthmoving Pty Ltd

Bitu-Mill Civil Pty Ltd

The Tender Evaluation Panel met on 19 August 2015 to undertake the evaluation of all three tenders received and deemed one of these tenders as non-conforming. All conforming tenders were evaluated against the pre-determined evaluation criteria outlined below.

1. Cost to Council 2. Response to Specification 3. Experience and Qualifications

4. Sustainability 5. Risk and Quality Management 6. Business and Financial Capacity


As this public tender was estimated to be valued above $250,000 (inc GST), Economic Impact Statements were requested to be completed by tenderers as part of this tender process.

The Economic Impact Statements were not considered as part of this evaluation as there are no tenders within 5% of the highest ranked tender.

Following a detailed evaluation against the pre-determined criteria and weightings, the tender evaluation panel recommend the awarding of the contract to Bitu-Mill Civil Pty Ltd for $765,091.91 (GST exclusive) inclusive of safety works. A provisional sum for road safety works is included at a cost of $73,500.00.


Council’s 2015/2016 Budget identifies the Bendigo Sutton-Grange Road for rehabilitation due to its condition and allocates a sum of $1,013,087.00 for design and construction of pavement rehabilitation. This is inclusive of project management costs.

The preferred tenderer, Bitu-Mill Civil Pty Ltd, has submitted a lump sum of $765,091.91(GST exclusive). As the submitted price is less than the allocated budget and this is Federal Government Funded (Roads to Recovery Program), any savings will need to be re-allocated to other road projects to be designed this financial year.

Consultation 6.

A comprehensive capital works development process was undertaken prior to the decision by Council to proceed with these works.

A Tender Evaluation Panel was formed to plan the tender process, evaluate tender submissions received and make a recommendation to Council on the awarding of the contract for Pavement Rehabilitation- Bendigo Sutton-Grange Road. The panel included members from the Infrastructure, Finance and Procurement Units.

Conclusion 7.

Council invited tenders for Pavement Rehabilitation- Bendigo Sutton-Grange Road. Two conforming tenders and one non-conforming tender were received by the closing date of 2.00 pm, 21 August 2015. The non-conforming tender was not considered for evaluation by the tender evaluation panel.

The two conforming tenders were evaluated using predetermined evaluation criteria and weightings.

The preferred tenderer is Bitu-Mill Civil Pty Ltd for a contract price of $691,591.91 (GST exclusive) plus road safety works of $73,500.00 and a total contract sum of $765,091.91.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

Award Contract M1200-2015 for Pavement Rehabilitation- Bendigo Sutton-1.Grange Road to Bitu-Mill Civil Pty for a lump sum contract price of $765,091.91 (GST exclusive) inclusive of road safety works; and

Authorise the Chief Executive Officer to sign and affix the Common Seal to 2.the contract documentation for Contract M1200-2015 for Pavement Rehabilitation- Bendigo Sutton-Grange Road.




CARRIED.


COM 46 AMENDMENT C60 – FOREST STREET TO FOREST CREEK HERITAGE STUDY – CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS

Responsible Director: Jason Taylor, Director Sustainable Development Responsible Officer: Daniel Borton, Senior Strategic Planner Original Document: DOC/15/34506

Purpose 1.

The purpose of this report is to enable Council to consider submissions made to Planning Scheme Amendment C60 during its exhibition and determine whether to request the Minister for Planning appoint a planning panel to consider the submissions.

Refer to:

Attachment COM 46A: Amendment C60 – Summary of Submission 4 and Officer Response.

Background 2.

Planning Scheme Amendment C60 proposes to introduce Heritage Overlays as recommended by the Forest Street to Forest Creek Heritage Assessment.

The Forest Street to Forest Creek Heritage Assessment considers the significance of places in an area adjacent to the Castlemaine CBD. The amendment will enable Council to make informed decisions about site redevelopment applications in the area.

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 May 2015, Council resolved to:

Adopt the Forest Street to Forest Creek Heritage Assessment Report, 1.April 2015, subject to minor corrections as required;

Request that the Minister for Planning authorise the preparation of 2.Planning Scheme Amendment C60 to implement the Forest Street to Forest Creek Heritage Assessment Report, through the application of three Heritage Overlays to land;

Exhibit Planning Scheme Amendment C60 following the receipt of 3.authorisation from the Minister for Planning; and

Delegate, to the Manager Development Services, the ability to make any 4.changes to amendment documentation for Planning Scheme Amendment C60 prior to exhibition to respond to issues raised by the Department of Land, Environment, Water and Planning during the Authorisation process, or included as Authorisation conditions.

The Minster for Planning authorised the amendment (Authorisation A03070) on 27 May 2015. The amendment was exhibited between 22 June 2015 and 10 August 2015. Five submissions were received during this period.



Relevant policies, strategies and plans

The Council Plan 2013-2017 includes the objective to ‘Protect and promote our built, cultural and natural heritage’. The completion and adoption of the Forest Street to Forest Creek Heritage Assessment will promote built heritage more broadly. The planning scheme amendment to implement heritage overlays will protect heritage.

The Heritage Strategy 2012-2016 identified gaps in the recognition of heritage places within the Shire. It recommended further ‘identification of heritage places, collections and intangible heritage across the Shire with a particular focus on under-represented heritage including Indigenous, industrial and 20th century heritage’. The Forest Street to Forest Creek Heritage Assessment identifies a number of industrial buildings, and residences associated with industry for inclusion in the Heritage Overlay.

The Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study found that heritage was a key driver of the local economy, contributing significantly to tourism. Further protection of heritage places will contribute to heritage remaining a key local economic driver.

Statutory powers and implications

Planning and Environment Act 1987

A planning scheme amendment to implement the Forest Street to Forest Creek Heritage Assessment is being undertaken through the usual process in accordance with Sections 17 to 39 of the Planning and Environment Act. These sections detail the requirements for exhibition of a planning scheme amendment, Council’s options when considering submissions, and the process for approval of an amendment.

Section 22 of the Act requires Council to consider all submissions made to a planning scheme amendment, enables a planning authority to consider a late submission, and requires it to do so if the Minister directs.

In considering submissions, Section 23 of the Act requires Council to either:

a) change the amendment in the manner requested; b) refer the submission to a panel appointed under Part 8; or c) abandon the amendment or part of the amendment.

Mount Alexander Planning Scheme

Clause 15.03 – Heritage includes the objective “To ensure the conservation of places of heritage significance”. Preparation of a planning scheme amendment to implement the assessment will ensure places of heritage significance are identified, and can be managed through the planning system.

Clause 22.20 – Natural and Cultural Heritage includes the objective “To ensure that the Shire’s local heritage is preserved and maintained”. As with clause 15.03, application of a Heritage Overlay to significant places will ensure these places are managed through the planning system, and that any change proposed is carefully assessed.


Issues 4.

Submissions

Council received a total of five submissions to Amendment C60. Four submissions were received during the statutory exhibition period, and a late submission was received from VicRoads after the close of exhibition. The initial four submissions were from, or on behalf of, land-owners affected by the application of a Heritage Overlay. One submission sought changes to the heritage assessment, and the other three requested that sites be removed from the amendment.

Submission four is lengthy (36 pages), and the points raised in this submission are summarised and addressed in Attachment COM 46A. The key issues raised in all submissions are summarised below:

Requests changes to the text on page 47 of the assessment report regarding street trees in Bruce Street.

The submitter states that the current trees in Bruce Street were planted in 1983 when the Council sealed the road. The text in the assessment report is ambiguous, but infers that the trees have existed for a significant time.

To satisfy this submission, the wording of the assessment should be updated to reflect the date of tree planting. It would be practical to update the assessment after the planning panel report is issued in case any further changes are recommended by the panel.

Requests that the school reserve at 2B Duke Street be excluded from the amendment.

The submission states that the affected land, along with adjoining 4 Duke Street (site of the former Castlemaine Information Centre), is outside the study area, and that the Statement of Significance (SOS) does not address this site. The SOS refers to the area being significant for the gold-mining activities along the creek, European horticulture and revegetated bush, and social and sporting activities on the reserves. The SOS refers only to the Eastern and Western Reserves, and does not make specific reference to this site.

The submission states that no detailed investigation has been carried out of the land, and many of the reasons of significance only refer to the Eastern and Western Reserves, such as the planted European gardens. The submission also notes that the site does not connect with the other reserves, as it is fully fenced and separated by Urquhart Street, and argues that this separation ensures that any social value from social and sporting activities relates to the Eastern and Western Reserves.

Officers have reviewed the site in relation to the SOS. The SOS states that:

The Western and former Eastern Reserve (Castlemaine Lawn Tennis Club) is of local historical, aesthetic and social significance.

The submission is correct in that the information in the SOS relates to the Eastern and Western Reserves. The subject site is a continuation of the Eastern and Western Reserves, and while the site is currently fenced it may not have been in the past, and there may have been better linkages.


Most of the information listed in the SOS relates specifically to the significance of the Eastern and Western Reserves, with details such as its relationship to goldfields mining relating to a broader area not subject to the proposed Heritage Overlay. While this site does form a contiguous reserve, the SOS does not demonstrate that this site is significant for the same reasons as the Eastern and Western Reserves, or that this site is significant at all.

For this reason, officers recommend removal of 2B Duke Street and 4 Duke Street from proposed Heritage Overlay 1204.

Oppose the application of a Heritage Overlay to the former Rowe Motors building at 46-50 Forest Street.

The submission opposes the application of a Heritage Overlay to the site at 46-50 Forest Street on the grounds that the building has no historical significance from either an architectural or past use perspective.

The study identifies the building as an important contributory place associated with transport. It forms part of a collection of buildings, important for their architectural design, reflecting 20th century modernism as expressed in rural Victoria.

Officers recommend the proposed Heritage Overlay remain on the site.

Oppose the application of a Heritage Overlay to the fifteen properties proposed as part of the serial listing (further detail in attachment).

The submitter states that the amendment should be abandoned. The submission is divided into two parts, with the first part focusing on the strategic merits of applying the Heritage Overlay to this area, economic considerations, and the strategic justification of the amendment (predominately the 15 site serial listing). The second part is a more specific assessment of a particular site on behalf of the land-owner. Due to the length and detail of this submission, it is summarised in an attachment to this report.

Many of the issues raised by the submission would be best addressed by a heritage expert, but this is not able to occur before the pre-set panel hearing dates. If the amendment is referred to a planning panel, heritage advice would be sought in preparing Council’s submission to the panel.

While the submission raises a number of valid points, often they are based on general information contained in the history section of the report, rather than the statements of significance, which are the strategic justification for the amendment.

As the submission states the amendment should be abandoned, it cannot be satisfied by changing the amendment. Removing the serial listing from the amendment may satisfy the submitter, but would lead to a significant change to the amendment. The most appropriate way to address this submission is refer it to a planning panel.

Options to address submissions

In accordance with the Planning and Environment Act, Council can abandon the amendment, change the amendment in the manner requested or refer the submissions to a planning panel.

The heritage assessment for this area, community support for heritage and already expended staff resources are reasons against abandoning the amendment. It is


also not practical to change the amendment in the manner requested by all the submitters.

The most appropriate way forward to address the submissions is to request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent planning panel to consider submissions. A planning panel will consider the merits of the proposed amendment, and each submission, and provide a report with recommendations to Council.


Significant resourcing has been invested in preparation of the heritage assessment and exhibition of the amendment, including community consultation sessions, preparing the amendment for exhibition, and exhibiting the amendment.

Implementation of the amendment will cause a marginal increase in overall planning permit application numbers, as permits will be triggered for some minor works. Major works would most likely already need a permit.

The costs of a planning panel can be contained within the current 2015/2016 strategic planning budget.

Consultation 6.

Council undertook extensive public engagement in the development of the Forest Street to Forest Creek Heritage Assessment. Council adopted the heritage study on 12 May 2015.

A statutory exhibition of the amendment has been undertaken from 22 June 2015 to 10 August 2015. This included 75 notices to owners/occupiers, notices to prescribed ministers and government agencies, notices in the Midland Express and Victorian Government Gazette and provision of the amendment on Council’s website.

A total of five submissions were received four of which requested changes to the amendment, or objected to it.

Conclusion 7.

On 12 May 2015 Council adopted the Forest Street to Forest Creek Heritage Assessment. At the same time Council resolved to seek authorisation from the Minister for Planning to prepare Amendment C60 to implement the planning recommendations of the assessment. Council also resolved to exhibit the amendment once authorisation was received.

The amendment was exhibited from 22 June to 10 August 2015, and five submissions (including one late submission) were received. One submission requests minor changes to the assessment which can be accommodated.

Three submissions object to the Heritage Overlay being applied over certain places. Officers have reviewed these three submissions and recommend that 2B Duke Street and 4 Duke Street be removed from the amendment to satisfy one amendment. The remaining two submissions cannot be satisfied without a major change to the amendment.


The most appropriate way to address these outstanding submissions is to request the Minister for Planning appoint an independent planning panel to consider the amendment, and submissions.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

1. Consider all submissions made to Mount Alexander Planning Scheme Amendment C60 and accept the late submission from VicRoads, as allowed for under Section 22 of the Planning and Environment Act;

2. Refer submission 1 to the study author to update the study to reflect the correct planting year for street trees in Bruce Street;

3. Amend proposed Heritage Overlay 1204 by removing 2B Duke Street and 4 Duke Street from the proposed area; and

4. Request the Minister for Planning to appoint a Planning Panel to consider Amendment C60 and all submissions, in accordance with Section 23 of the Planning and Environment Act.




CARRIED.


Attachment COM 46A Amendment C60 – Summary of Submission 4 and Officer Response. Page Submission Officer Response

4 When preparing an amendment Council must have regard to any Municipal Strategic Statement, strategic plan, or policy statement which forms part of the scheme. Council must take into account economic effects. Planning Practice Note 46 (Strategic Assessment Guidelines) includes a guide as to the type of effects that might need to be considered including future investment, and potential future development.

Economic effects have been considered. It is generally accepted that the broader economic effects should be considered at amendment stage. Strategic work completed to date (such as the Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study) reinforces that heritage is a key driver of the local economy. Applying the HO will not prevent changes of use, or improvements to the buildings, rather it will trigger an assessment of any external changes to buildings, to ensure they are appropriate. The economic effects of individual proposals are assessed at permit stage. The economic effects should be considered at the amendment stage, rather than the study stage. While the broader economic effects of the amendment have been considered, it is acknowledged that this is not apparent in the Explanatory Report for the amendment.

5 Application of a Heritage Overlay makes it reasonable to expect a permit would only be issued for demolition in exceptional circumstances.

It is possible that a planning permit will be issued for demolition of a building under a HO, and Council has done so in the past on a number of occasions. The application of a HO ‘raises the bar’ in terms of justification for demolition.

5 Proposed HO is contrary to Council’s planning goals for the area and Castlemaine Commercial Centre.

A Heritage Overlay does not prohibit demolition. It does, however, mean that a planning permit is required. In assessing a planning permit application a balanced assessment can then be undertaken of heritage significance and economic effects. Council has many strategic statements or policies that at first glance may appear contradictory, but in actual fact may promote a better solution. In this instance it is the role of the planner to weigh up any individual permit applications against these.

5 The report has not made enough effort to differentiate between heritage significance and heritage interest.

The history section of the report (the majority, forming around two thirds of the pages) relates to history, and heritage interest. The Statements of Significance for the three proposed HO’s (pages 33-53) summarise the key information from the


Page Submission Officer Response

history section that supports and justifies the Heritage Overlays proposed as part of the amendment.

6 The linking of the two precincts and serial site is not appropriate.

Each of the three proposed HO’s have their own statement of significance, detailing why the site is significant warranting a HO. An assessment against Heritage Victoria criteria was undertaken of the whole study area as part of the overall heritage assessment, however the Statements of Significance are separate. Each proposed overlay is required to ‘stand on it’s own’ in terms of the relevant Statement of Significance.

8 Report refers to Heritage Precinct and includes the Forest Creek channel and Western Reserve as contributory places.

In undertaking the report there was consideration given to applying a ‘precinct’ HO as opposed to a ‘serial’ HO. The main difference being that in a precinct HO, all places regardless of whether they are significant or not are included. The serial option was determined most appropriate, with separate listings for the reserve and channel.

8 The study refers to a number of historical themes, but ‘Transport’ is not included under ‘Victoria’s Framework of Historical Themes’.

Transport comes under the theme of Building Settlements, Townships and Cities.

9 The theme of transport is the over-arching justification for the HO’s, however it cannot be said that transport was the dominating industry of the area, nor was the majority of transport related industry in Castlemaine based in the study area.

The area is significant for is transport related industrial development. Many of the dwellings in the area are also the former owners or manager’s residence of transport related industries. While not all industrial sites have been used for industry on a continuous basis, the sites have a history of transport related industry, and three of the current buildings were constructed for transport. Additionally the flour mill was also related to the construction of the Melbourne Murray River railway line.

13 The sites involved are not interlinked or have a relationship with each other.

Buildings in the proposed serial listing generally have a relationship with a number of (but not all) other buildings. This may be a common theme, or direct relationship, particularly between dwellings and industrial buildings.

18 The Hunt & Lobb building is excluded from the Heritage Overlay. While it is a reasonable explanation to exclude the building, the building has been used to

Council considered whether to apply an interim Heritage Overlay to the former Hunt & Lobb site on 26 August 2014. At the time, an application had been received


Page Submission Officer Response

support the application of the HO over other buildings which is unreasonable.

to demolish the building, and a permit for redevelopment had previously been issued. At the meeting Council resolved not to apply a HO to the site. In assessing this request, Council considered that if a HO was applied, and a permit was lodged for demolition, it would likely be approved. While the former Hunt & Lobb building is considered in the history of the area (as it forms part of the study area), it is not included in the Statement of Significance supporting the application of the HO to the sites.

19 The inclusion of former residences of blacksmiths, coach builders and motor garage owners does not meet the basic tests of VHR Criterion H.

Criterion H relates to Special association with the life or works of a person, or group of persons, of importance in our history. Criterion H is not listed as a reason for this area being significant in the Statement of Significance. The Statement of Significance lists other criteria.

19 The listing does not meet the Victorian Planning Provision guidelines. The application of the serial HO listing is not consistent with the practice note for applying the HO.

There are two examples listed in the practice note, and while C60 does not match these two examples, officers believe that the application of a serial listing is consistent with the practice note.

22 The submitter has reviewed the parts of assessment from the report assessing the study area against HV criteria.

While many of the statements made by the submitter are correct, this assessment is of the whole study area, and not just the places recommended for HO. The assessment of the places recommended for a HO are included in the Statements of Significance.

35 Section 1.01 Once a listing is proposed, the heritage assessment process would appear to generate a momentum in favour of listing.

In part this is true, but more so because if a HO is unlikely to be applied/approved, in general a Council will not proceed with an amendment to implement it.

36 Section 1.02 Significance to the local community is not properly assessed.

The submission somewhat advocates for a voting system as to whether the community want a HO applied to specific places or not. While this may have merit in some aspects, this is not how the planning system works. Further most strategic work that has been done for Council (including community planning, and the Castlemaine Commercial Centre Study) recognises the importance of heritage to the community, both from a sense of place that it creates, and in terms of economic development driving tourism to the region.


Individual Review of 141 Barker Street Page Submission Officer Response

26 No assessment of potential social and economic affects has been performed.

An overall assessment of the broader economic effects has been undertaken, however this has not been done for each individual building proposed for inclusion in the HO.

26 Contrary to the Report’s claims, the building has never been previously identified as being of heritage significance, only potential heritage significance at the local level.

Officers believe the submitters statement to be correct (should the amendment be referred to a planning panel, this will need to be confirmed). The heritage assessment should be changed to reflect that it has previously been identified as being of ‘potential’ heritage significance.

27 The submission then undertakes an assessment against the Heritage Victoria criteria. The assessment is very detailed.

This section of the submission is quite thorough. It is best that this is reviewed by a heritage consultant, ideally the study author. This has not been done to date, however will be undertaken should Council refer the amendment to a planning panel.


COM 47 IN-PRINCIPLE APPROVAL OF ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 2014-2015


Purpose 1.

The purpose of this report is to request Council give in-principle approval of the Annual Financial Statements for the 2014/2015 financial year.

Refer to:

Separate Attachment COM 47A Draft Annual Financial Statements 2014/2015

Background 2.

The draft statements were forwarded to Council’s auditors, RSD Chartered Accountants (RSD) on 19 August 2015 and the audit was conducted between 24 and 25 August 2015.

The draft statements were reviewed by the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee at its meeting held on 3 September 2015. The Committee passed the following resolution:

That the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee, following consideration of the draft financial statements for the year ended 30 June 2015, recommend to Council that:

• Council gives its in principle agreement to Council to adopt the statements for forwarding to the Victorian Auditor General for approval; and

• Authorise Councillor Henderson and Councillor Cole, as members of the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee, to sign the financial statements in their final form after any changes recommended or agreed to by the auditors have been made.

The ‘in principle’ statements, the Council resolution and the Audit Report are then forwarded to the Victorian Auditor-General who reviews the Statements.

Any matters of significance, including proposed qualification issues not previously considered by the Council, are reported back to Council prior to the formal sign-off of the statements by the two designated Councillors. When both the Council and VAGO are satisfied with the Statements they are signed by the nominated Councillors and forwarded to the Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) for signing. They are then forwarded to the Minister by 30 September in accordance with the Local Government Act (the Act).


Section 132 (2) and 132 (5) of the Local Government Act requires that:

The Council, after passing a resolution giving its approval in principle to the performance statement and financial statements, must submit the statements to the auditor for reporting on the audit.


The Council must ensure that the performance statement and financial statements, in their final form after any changes recommended or agreed by the auditor have been made, are certified in accordance with the regulations by 2 Councillors authorised by the Council for the purposes of this subsection.

Issues 4.

For the year ended 30 June 2015, Council will report a surplus of $1.777 million, the result for the prior year was a deficit of $66,000. The comprehensive result, after accounting for impairment of community buildings of $215,000, is a surplus of $1.562 million (2013/2014 $3.592 million).

The operating result was less than adopted budget by $364,000, due mainly to the prepayment of the Local Government Financial Assistance Grant ($2.176 million), contributed assets (Developers and Found -$1.641 million) offset by depreciation being more than budget ($2.492 million). Detailed explanations of variances to budget for income and expenses can be found in note 2(a) of the financial statements.

The total funds available at 30 June 2015 were $12.412 million compared with $11.888 million as at 30 June 2014. The cash balance was greater than budget by $3.234 million, mainly due to unspent grants ($2.176 million) (see Grants Note 6) and uncompleted council funded projects ($4.548 million) (see Reserves Note 29).

Total unrestricted funds (including both cash and other financial assets) (Note 17) shows a positive balance of $374,000 which is an improvement of $606,000 since 30 June 2014.


There are no financial and resource implications in relation to this report.

Consultation 6.

There are no consultation requirements in relation to the preparation of these statements.

Conclusion 7.

The Financial Statements have been prepared for the 2014/2015 year and have been submitted to the Auditors and were also reviewed by Council’s Audit and Risk Advisory Committee at their meeting on 3 September 2015.

Council must approve the Statements in principle before submitting them to the Auditor General for final approval as required under the Local Government Act. Council must also authorise two Councillors to sign the statements. It is recommended that the Mayor and Councillor Cole, as members of the Audit and Risk Committee, be authorised to sign the Statements.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

Approve, in principle, the Financial Statements for 2014/2015; and 1.

Authorise Councillor Henderson and Councillor Cole to certify the 2.Statements in their final form, after any changes recommended or agreed to by the Auditors have been made.




CARRIED.


COM 48 CARRY FORWARD BUDGET 2015/2016


Purpose 1.

The purpose of this report is to seek Council approval on the proposed carry forward budget items.

Refer to:

Attachment COM 48A: Updated Detailed Capital Works Attachment COM 48B: Updated Detailed Special and Operating Projects

Background 2.

The 2015/2016 Budget was approved at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 23 June 2015. Each year Council makes adjustments to the adopted Budget for previously approved uncompleted capital works, special projects and grant funded expenditure, including some unspent specific purpose operating grants.


Previously approved but uncompleted Capital Works and Special Projects are recommended for budget carry forward, where it is considered that the work is still a priority. In addition, budget adjustments are recommended to take into account unspent grants and recently advised new grants income and the associated expenditure.

Section 128(1) of the Local Government Act 1989 requires that Council “must prepare a revised budget if circumstances arise which cause a material change in the budget and which affects the financial operations and position of the council”. The proposed changes recommended do not require a revised budget to be advertised as they do not have a material impact.

Issues 4.

Capital Works

For the 2014/2015 financial year Capital Works to the value of $9.489 million (2013/2014 - $8.814 million) were completed with uncompleted works of $3.878 million 2014/2015 of which $2.082 million was included at the time of developing the Budget.

During the 2015/2016 budget process $2.082 million of projects (including $875,000 for the Maldon-Castlemaine Rail Trail and $700,000 for Pavement Rehabilitation) were forecast to not be completed by 30 June 2015 and therefore shown as carry forwards in the Budget. Additional carry-forward works to the value of $1.796 million are recommended.

Major projects carry-forward include:

• Maldon-Castlemaine Rail Trial $873,328


• Pavement Rehabilitation $681,243 (Roads to Recovery Funded)

• Bridge Renewal $566,799 (Fryes Road, and Newstead-Cemetery Road)

The proposed carry-forward changes increase the 2015/2016 Capital Works Budget from $10.392 million to $12.188 million ($13.57 million 2014/2015). The updated detailed Capital Works report shows the specific projects to be carried forward (Attachment COM 48A).

Operating and Special Projects

In 2014/2015, Council completed Special Projects to the value of $1.39 million against a budget of $1.84 million.

It is recommended that $87,313 is carried forward to complete works in the Aged and Disability services from grant funds previously received.

To complete Special Projects $471,098 is recommended for carry forward. These changes will increase the 2015/2016 net Special Projects Budget from $613,578 to $1.085 million.

The table below is a summary of Special Projects recommended for carry forward by Council Plan Goals. The detail of all Special Projects can be found in Attachment COM 48B.

Budget Changes

In addition, budget adjustments are recommended to take into recently advised new grants income and the associated expenditure, as well as the timing of grants received.

• The Commonwealth Government has brought forward the payment of half of the 2015/2016 Financial Assistance Grant allocation to Victorian Councils. Council received $2,175,563 of funds in the 2014/2015 financial year so it is recommended to reduce the 2015/2016 budget operating grants by $2,175,563.

• The Victorian State Government announced on 29 June 2015 that Council would receive $31,343 of funding as part of the Roadside Weeds and Pests Program. This funding supports Council to clear weeds and pests from rural roadsides. It is recommended to adjust the associated income and

Program Adopted Budget

Updated Budget

Carry-Forward

Grand Total 632,731 1,103,829 471,098

A Vibrant and Healthy Community 69,134 268,911 199,777 Better Community Facilities 303,346 454,087 150,741 A Thriving Local Economy 190,251 211,235 20,984 Building Sustainable Communities 70,000 169,596 99,596


expenditure as this grant and services was not included in the adopted budget.

• $160,000 of grant funded was anticipated in the 2015/2016 financial year to assist with the Castlemaine, Campbells Creek and Chewton Flood Management Plan. $80,000 was received in the 2014/2015 financial year and therefore it is recommend to reduce the 2015/2016 Budget operating grants by $80,000.


Previously, approved but uncompleted Capital Works, Special Projects and Operating activities are recommended for budget carry forward, where it is considered that the work is still a priority. In addition, budget adjustments are recommended to take into account unspent grants and recently advised new grants income and the associated expenditure.

To the extent that these projects represent unspent funds, there is no cash impact. Officers are confident that the inclusion of carry-forward projects will not impact on projects and services planned to be delivered in 2015/2016.

Consultation 6.

Responsible budget officers, and the Leadership Group have had input into the determination of the carry forward budgets. In some instances this has required seeking formal approval from granting bodies to be permitted to carry forward unspent grant funds.

Conclusion 7.

Previously, approved but uncompleted Capital Works and Special Projects are recommended for budget carry forward, where it is considered that the work is still a priority. In addition, Budget adjustments are recommended to take into account unspent grants recently advised grants. The changes recommended do not require a revised budget to be advertised as they do not have a material impact.

RECOMMENDATION

That Council include in the 2015/2016 Budget:

$1.796 million of capital works that were incomplete from 2014/2015; 1.

$471,098 for special projects and $87,313 from operating budgets that were 2.incomplete from 2014/2015;

An adjustment of a reduction in the 2015/2016 budget of $2,255,563 of 3.operating grants that were received in 2014/2015; and

A further adjustment of $31,343 of operating grants, and associated 4.expenditure as a result of funding as part of the Roadside Weeds and Pests Program.





CARRIED.


Attachment COM 48A


Attachment COM 48B


COM 49 ADOPTION OF ANNUAL PERFORMANCE STATEMENT 2014/2015

Responsible Director: Director Corporate Support Responsible Officer: Director Corporate Support Original Document: DOC/15/38544

Purpose 1.

The purpose of this report is for Council to review the Performance Statement for 2014/2015, adopt the Statement in principle for forwarding to the Victorian Auditor General and nominate two Councillors to sign the Performance Statement.

Refer to:

Separate Attachment COM 49A Performance Statement 2014/2015

Background 2.

The Victorian Government established the Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) in 2014 to ensure that all councils are measuring and reporting on their performance in a consistent way. The Local Government Performance Reporting Framework is mandatory for implementation by councils as part of the 2014/2015 planning and reporting cycle.

There were 52 service performance indicators being measured across eleven service areas. These have now been reduced to 48 with the Economic Development indicators removed completely on the basis that they required further refinement.

For each service area there are output measures for appropriateness, quality and cost and one outcome measure. The outcome measures will be collated and reported in an Annual Performance Statement which is audited as part of the yearend audit and included in Council’s Annual Report.

There are a further 12 financial performance indicators and 6 sustainable capacity measures which are also to be audited and included in the Performance Statement.

All other service output measures are reported in the Report of Operations in Council’s Annual Report.


The Local Government Act requires a council’s annual report to contain an audited performance statement. Sections 131,132 and 133 outline the requirements for preparing and auditing the performance statement.

Part four of the Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014 outline the information required in the performance statement.

Further guidance is also contained in the Local Government Better Practice Guide 2014-15, Performance Reporting Framework Indicator Workbook and the Local Government Better Practice Guide 2014-15, Performance Statement.

Council is required under the Act to give its in principle agreement to adopt the Performance Statement before forwarding the statement to the Victorian Auditor General for approval.


Issues 4.

The draft Performance Statement and supporting evidence were provided to the auditors on 24 August 2015. A copy of the Performance Statement is in Separate Attachment COM 49.

There are no material variations to report in the non-financial data, as this is the first year of the indicators and there are no comparators. However a comment has been included to clarify any nil results, so it is clear to users of the report that the result is nil and not an error.

There are a few transitional indicators that are not required to be reported until 2015/2016. There are also a number of optional indicators; we have not chosen to report on any optional indicators at this stage.

The Performance Statement was reviewed by the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee at their meeting on 3 September 2015 and they resolved that:

The Audit and Risk Advisory Committee, following consideration of the draft Performance Statement for the year ended 30 June 2015, recommend to Council that:

• Council gives its in principle agreement to adopt the Performance Statement for forwarding to the Victorian Auditor General for approval; and

• Authorise Councillor Henderson and Councillor Cole, as members of the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee, to sign the Performance Statement in its final form after any changes recommended or agreed to by the auditors have been made.


There are no financial and resource implications from this report.

Consultation 6.

The Service Performance Indicators include a number of services that are delivered for Council by third parties. These include the management of aquatic facilities managed by the YMCA, waste collection managed by Wheelie Waste and library services are managed by Central Goldfields Library Corporation. These third parties were all cooperative in meeting the data requirements for the Service Performance Indicators and audit evidence requirements for the External Audit.

The Performance Statement was reviewed by the Audit and Risk Advisory Committee at their meeting on 3 September 2015 with no changes recommended.

Conclusion 7.

The draft Performance Statement 2014/2015 and supporting evidence were provided to the auditors on 24 August 2015.

The Audit and Risk Advisory Committee also reviewed the draft Performance Statement at is meeting on 3 September 2015,and recommended that Council gives its in principle agreement to adopt the Performance Statement for forwarding to the Victorian Auditor General for approval.


RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

Approve, in principle, the Performance Statement for 2014/2015; and 1.

Authorise Councillor Henderson and Councillor Cole to certify the 2.Performance Statement in their final form, after any changes recommended or agreed to by the Auditors have been made.




CARRIED.


10. DELEGATES REPORTS

Nil.

11. NOTICE OF MOTION

Nil.

12. URGENT SPECIAL BUSINESS


That a matter of Urgent and Special Business be heard.


CARRIED.


That the Council close the meeting to members of the public, in accordance with the Local Government Act Clause 89 (2) (d), as the urgent and special business relates to a contractual matter.


CARRIED. (8.05PM)


That Council move out of camera and open the meeting to the public.


CARRIED. (8.55PM)

13. MEETING CLOSE

Meeting closed at 8.56pm.


MINUTES - Mount Alexander Shire Council · MINUTES . FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL . HELD ON...

Documents

Transcript of MINUTES - Mount Alexander Shire Council · MINUTES . FOR THE ORDINARY MEETING OF COUNCIL . HELD ON...