Agenda of Council Meeting

Ordinary Meeting

Summary of Items

Monday, 6 March 2017

Previous Minutes

MINUTES: Council Meeting - 6 February 2017

Environment and Planning

CCL015-17 Review of Georges River Council's IHAP

(Report by Project Manager - Change Program, George Andonoski)................... 2

CCL016-17 Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined

(Report by Manager – Development Assessment, Tina Christy)......................... 17

CCL017-17 Community Consultation on the Former Oatley Bowling Club site - Progress Report

(Report by Executive Manager, Rebekah Schulz)................................................. 21

Finance and Governance

CCL018-17 Operational Plan 2016-2017 Performance Report July 2016 - December 2016

(Report by Coordinator Integrated Planning, Jessica Lee).................................. 24

CCL019-17 Transformation and Change Program Progress Report

(Report by Director Transformation and Change, Marissa Racomelara)......... 185

CCL020-17 Advice on Court Proceedings - February 2017

(Report by General Counsel, Jenny Ware)........................................................... 191

CCL021-17 Investment Report as at 31 December 2016

(Report by Team Leader Financial Reporting, Rindayi Matienga)................... 198

CCL022-17 Investment Report as at 31 January 2017

(Report by Team Leader Financial Reporting, Rindayi Matienga)................... 215

CCL023-17 Quarterly Budget Review Statement to 31 December 2016

(Report by Chief Financial Officer, Rob Owens)................................................. 232

CCL024-17 University of Wollongong Jubilee Oval

(Report by Executive Manager Jubilee Stadium and Facilities, Luke Coleman) 249

Assets and Infrastructure

CCL025-17 Property Matter - Leasing of Former Kogarah City Council Civic Buildings

(Report by Property Portfolio Manager, Bernard Morabito)................................ 253

CCL026-17 Tender for the Construction of the Jubilee Park Adventure Playground

(Report by Manager Project Delivery, Michelle Whitehurst).............................. 261

CCL027-17 Georges River Traffic Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 21 February 2017

(Report by Manager Infrastructure, Glen Moody)................................................. 266

Community and Culture

CCL028-17 Aboriginal Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 6 February 2017

(Report by Manager Community and Cultural Development, Scott Andrew). 272

CCL029-17 Community Development and Services Advisory Committee Meeting Minutes - 13 February 2017

(Report by Manager Community and Cultural Development, Scott Andrew). 276

CCL030-17 Stronger Communities Fund Projects

(Report by Acting Director Community and Culture, Margaret Le)................... 280

CCL031-17 Council Owned and or Managed Facilities Policy - Venue Hire Grant Funding Program

(Report by Manager Community and Cultural Development, Scott Andrew). 283

CCL032-17 Library Services Integrated Library Management System -Tender T16-029

(Report by Manager Library Services, Wilma Bancroft)...................................... 302

Confidential (Closed Session)

CON002-17 Tender for the Construction of the Jubilee Park Adventure Playground

(Report by Manager Project Delivery, Michelle Whitehurst)

CON003-17 Library Services Integrated Library Mangement System

(Report by Manager Library Services, Wilma Bancroft)

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 3

6. Environment and Planning

Item: CCL015-17 Review of Georges River Council's IHAP

Author: Project Manager - Change Program, George Andonoski

Directorate: Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) That the amended IHAP Charter and IHAP Guidelines be adopted.

(b) That the General Manager investigate the establishment of a Section 82A application process including the creation of a separate S82A IHAP Review Panel and writing to other Sydney Councils that utilise an IHAP Panel and she be delegated to implement an outcome that meets the requirements of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act.

(c) That subject to the introduction a process for the determination of Section 82A Review Applications, the IHAP Charter and Guidelines be amended to reflect this and updated on Council website.

Executive Summary

1. The Georges River IHAP was established by Council following the proclamation of the Georges River Council.

2. The panel has been operating for a period of six months and a number of operational and procedural issues have been raised by Council staff, panel members and the general public. This became the catalyst to carry out a six month review of the IHAP.

3. As a result of this review there has been some minor internal administration and procedural changes implemented. In addition to this, a number of changes have been proposed to the IHAP Charter and Guidelines and these amended documents are presented to Council for formal adoption.

Background

4. The Georges River Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) was established by Council resolution on the 19 May 2016 as an independent panel of professionals and community representatives with the full delegation of the Council to make decisions on certain applications.

5. The establishment of Independent Hearing and Assessment Panels is considered ‘industry best practice’ in local government as a means to improve transparency, confidence and efficiency in the development assessment and decision making process.

6. The proposed planning reforms and changes the Environmental Planning Assessment Act have acknowledge the benefits and importance of IHAP panels as they depoliticise and improve the thoroughness and quality of decision making, and over time, increase the community confidence in the planning system.

7. These planning reforms will set the basic rules about the constitution, membership and functions of local planning panels and to ensure a single framework, any existing IHAP’s or similar panels will be transitioned to the new provisions.

8. The functions of the Georges River IHAP are to:

· Determine development applications(DA), modifications to development consent (s96) and reviews of determination which are within the delegations of the Panel;

· Consider Planning Proposals and make recommendations as to whether the matter should proceed to a Gateway Determination (except for reclassification of public land);

· Provide an independent forum for interested persons and the community to make submissions before the Panel;

· Provide increased transparency for the determination of significant development applications made to the Council; and

· Achieve good urban design and development outcomes consistent with the relevant legislation and planning controls.

9. Georges River IHAP meetings are held once a month and commence at 4pm in the Council Chambers at the Hurstville Civic Centre. Details of the dates and locations of meetings are published on the Georges River Council website. The first meeting was held on 21 June 2016.

10. Site inspections by IHAP panel members are undertaken between 1pm -3.30pm on the same day as the scheduled IHAP meeting. The applicant and/or interested community members who lodged a submission during the neighbour notification period are informed when their IHAP item is scheduled for site inspection and consideration at the IHAP meeting.

11. The IHAP meeting is run by the Chairperson who is the lawyer on the Panel. The public component of the meeting commences at 4pm and the interested community members who have registered to speak will be invited to present their views of the proposal to the IHAP members. This is followed by the verbal presentation of the applicant/owner of the site. Speakers have a maximum of three (3) minutes to address the Panel and these presentations are timed.

12. This process is repeated for each item on the IHAP agenda until all the speakers have concluded.

13. Similar to the Joint Regional Planning Panel (JRPP), the public component of the meeting is then closed and the Panel members deliberate in a closed session on each item. The determination and decisions of the Panel is by a majority of votes with each member casting one vote. In the event of a tied vote the Chairperson has the casting vote.

14. Decisions of the Panel are recorded against each item in formal minutes taken on the day and are made available to the public the following business day on Council’s website.

15. Under this model, elected Councils set the strategy, policy and standards for development on behalf of their constituents, while the technical assessment and decisions are made by independent experts in line with Council’s framework.

16. To ensure that these panels remain independent and maintain community confidence in the system, the panel members, including the appointed community representative are to have no contact with the public as an individual or panel outside the IHAP meeting process. Unlike previously, where applications where determined by Councillors at a Council Meeting, no lobbying or representation to any of the IHAP members is permitted.

PROPOSAL

17. The IHAP has now been in operation for just over six (6) months. During this time, a number of issues or suggestions for improvement have been identified. Rather than doing ad-hoc changes to the process it was decided that a detailed review of operations would be carried out at the end of the year (2016).

18. In December last year, workshops were held with senior Council Staff and then a further workshop with the IHAP panel members. This information, together with feedback received from our community and findings from both the JRPP and Planning Reforms formed the basis of this review. A number of matters were discussed ranging from the clarification of the roles of the IHAP members and contact with the public, the time given to residents to speak at a meeting and internal processes for the operation of the meetings.

19. The operational guidelines and procedures from the Joint Regional Planning Panels (now Sydney South Panel) were used as a guide and basis for the implementation of the recommended changes and clarification.

20. In accordance with the discussion and matters raised during the review, the IHAP Charter and Guidelines have been amended to reflect these changes. The documents have been amended to provide clarification on the role community representative and contact with the panel members outside the meeting process. The time limit on speakers, community groups and resident representatives has also been further clarified. The provision and ability to stage electronic meetings has been added, together with the requirement for reasons/justification to be provided in the minutes with the requirement of all panel members to sign the minutes. Finally, clarification on Section 96 applications has been included and what modifications will need to go back to the Panel.

21. In addition to the Charter and Guidelines, the application form to address the IHAP has been clarified and simplified, providing clarification on site visits and the role of the residents and panel during these visits.

22. Council currently provides a Frequently Asked Questions page on its website regarding the operation of the IHAP and its role in the determination of applications. This document will be amended and updated as required as a result of the proposed changes and clarification to the Charter and Guidelines. It is anticipated that this will be a live document and will be regularly monitored and updated as required should further clarification or information be required.

23. One of the matters raised at the review, which is yet to be included in the Charter or Guidelines is how Council will choose to deal with and process a request to review an application under the provisions of Section 82A of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act.

24. Under this provision of the Act, where the application was determined by a delegate of the Council, the review must be undertaken by the Council or another delegate of the Council who is not subordinate to the delegate who made the determination, or if the application was determined by Council then the review must be made by Council.

25. So where an application has been determined by a Council Officer or the Director Environment and Planning under their delegation, then the review can be undertaken by the IHAP. The issue for Council arises where the original determination is made by the Georges River IHAP. The review can then only be undertaken by the Council (Administrator in the current structure) or a delegate who is not subordinate to the Georges River IHAP. This means that the GRC IHAP cannot review an application it has previously determined.

26. The options available to Council would be;

· Have the matter assessed and referred directly to Council for determination.

· Formulate a specific Section 82A Review Panel

· Utilise the service of IHAP panels from another or Sydney Council.

27. Since the formation of the IHAP, there have only been two (2) Section 82A review applications referred to the panel for consideration. These were for 37 Ogilvy Street, Peakhurst and 8 Lily Street, Hurstville. In both instances, as the applications were determined by a previous Council, the applications for review were referred to the IHAP for a recommendation to be made to the Administrator who ultimately determined the applications.

28. Given the small number of Section 82A Applications received by each of the former two Councils over the past year and the subsequent number of applications that may not be able to be determined by the IHAP, there does not appear to be any benefit at this stage in setting up an additional S82A IHAP Panel.

29. As the time limit for the processing of Section 82A application is limited to six months from the date of the original determination, they need to be lodged and processed quickly after the original determination.

30. It is suggested that Council approach other Sydney Councils who currently have an IHAP Panel and investigate entering into an arrangement for the referral and review of applications that have been lodged for review of determination where the original application was determined by the Georges River IHAP. This would still mean that any referral to an external IHAP Panel would require a recommendation which would then be referred back to Council for adoption as an external panel will not have the delegation to determine an application. Any such arrangement will be reported back to the Executive Team for endorsement, with the IHAP Charter and Guidelines amended accordingly.

31. Given the time constraints for Section 82A Reviews, any application received by Council under this provision will only be for applications that have been determined by Georges River Council. Where the application was determined under delegation by the assessing officer or Director Planning & Environment, we can continue the current practice which is to have the application reviewed by the existing IHAP with a recommendation then made to the Administrator for determination. It is only where the original application was determined by the IHAP, will there need to an alternative measure implemented. This will be until such time as an arrangement is endorsed with another IHAP. In this instance, the matter can be reported by the Director of Planning and Environment directly to Council or have the report reviewed by an external consultant before reporting back to Council.

32. The amended IHAP and Charter were referred to Council’s General Counsel for review and compliance with the relative legislation. As part of this review, General Counsel has formed the opinion that Council would be best to implement a separate IHAP Review Panel, which would not be subordinate to the current IHAP Panel and will be able to deal with reviews of determination from this panel.

33. These views have been noted and will be considered as part of the investigation into the establishment of a Section 82A Review process as per the recommendations of this report.

Financial Implications

34. Within budget allocation.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1	IHAP Guidelines Final Council 6 March
Attachment View2	IHAP Charter Final Council 6 March

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 18

Item: CCL016-17 Summary of Development Applications lodged and determined

Author: Manager – Development Assessment, Tina Christy

Directorate: Office of Environment and Planning

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) That the information on development applications lodged and determined for November 2016 - January 2017 be received and noted.

Executive Summary

1. A snap-shot of Georges River Council’s development applications over the past 3 months is contained within this report.

2. The information includes details on numbers received and determined, a breakdown of application types, mean and median time-frames, the estimated value of applications determined and the number of applications that have been with Council and under determination for more than 40 days. This information will be prepared monthly and enable review of trends in assessment timeframes.

This report also provides information being undertaken by the Environment and Planning Directorate to reduce the number of outstanding applications.

Report

3. Georges River Council was proclaimed on 12 May 2016, combining the former Hurstville and Kogarah City Councils. The development application determination numbers and time-frames for the past three (3) months are set out below.

Month	Applications Received	Applications Determined	Outstanding Applications	Apps – with Council over 40 days <= 100 days	Apps – with Council over 100 days
Nov	91	84	315	78	148
Dec	105	76	347	100	125
Jan	48	42	357	142	153

4. To note - Outstanding Applications relates to applications that:

· have just been lodged with Council

· are under neighbour notification

· are under assessment

· are awaiting determination via the relevant planning pathway.

5. These figures are based on the gross turn-around times and include development applications, s96 modification applications, and s82A review of determinations (included in the DA figures). The gross determination figure has been used to ensure any anomalies in the data sets from the two previous Councils are assimilated.

6. There has been an increase in the number of applications greater than 40 days in December and January due to the influx of applications received in November and December and the “domino” effect. Usually December has a rush of applications leading to Christmas.

7. The Appendix, which has a detailed breakdown of each development type, the value of work for each type, the numbers received and determined and the mean determining times for each category.

8. A summary of the key elements within the Appendix tables are:

· The major category of developments determined were, Residential New and Residential new second occupancy.

· Residential development (not including multi-unit or Senior’s housing) totalled represents 43% of the estimated building cost of development being determined. This has been a consistent rate for the past few months.

· The number of applications for these smaller-scale residential developments represents 72% of the total applications determined for those 3 months, which also is consistent with the past few months.

· The average determination time for development applications is slowly decreasing as the older applications are determined and staff get used to new processes.

· The total number of outstanding applications has increased by the end of the year due to the high volume of applications received in November and December. This is an expected spike which occurs annually.

9. Council staff are focussing on improved ways to reduce the number of outstanding applications.

· One new introduction is the “Clearance Program” which will focus on reducing the back-log of applications, not necessarily fast-track

· All undetermined applications will be put into 3 categories with those identified as being able to be determined immediately being given to this team and priority being given to them from the admin support.

· This program will be trialled for 3 months however reviewed monthly.

· This program projects a reduction of 100 applications within the 3 month trial period.

· The program will support the overall DA team goal, to reduce the overall number of undetermined applications to no greater than 240 applications at any one time. This target is commensurate to staffing levels.

· Council staff are also working towards harmonising the processes and procedures between the former Hurstville and Kogarah Councils. The current procedures are being investigated to see which can be stream-lined, amended, etc; with the aim of improving all processes and reducing overall times.

Financial Implications

10. Within budget allocation.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Applications statistics

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 22

Item: CCL017-17 Community Consultation on the Former Oatley Bowling Club site - Progress Report

Author: Executive Manager, Rebekah Schulz

Directorate: Office of the General Manager

Matter Type: Environment and Planning

Recommendation

(a) That the progress report on the community consultation process for the former Oatley Bowling Club site is received and noted.

(b) That respondents to the community survey are sent an update on the community consultation process contained in this report.

Executive Summary

1. At a Council Meeting on 7 November 2016, it was resolved that Georges River Council would undertake extensive community consultation on Planning proposal and future uses of the former Oatley Bowling Club site. This report provides an update on the community consultation process and the next steps in undertaking an independent peer review of the consultation process and results.

Background

2. At a Meeting of Council on 7 November 2016 it was resolved:

a. That Council not proceed with the 2014 resolution of the former Hurstville City Council to rezone the site to residential to facilitate a 7-9 storey, mixed use residential and seniors housing development.

b. That it be noted that if the Planning Proposal proceeds to Gateway determination, any plan making (re-zoning and reclassification) is unlikely to occur before December 2017, and would require the prior approval of the Council elected in September 2017.

c. That the Planning Proposal to reclassify the site from ‘community’ land to ‘operational’ and to rezone the site to SP2 Infrastructure with the designated land use of seniors housing (nursing home) and community facilities be amended to apply only to that part of the site which would accommodate the seniors housing (aged care component) and ancillary support requirements, i.e. approximately 50% of the site.

d. That extensive public consultation commence immediately and a report be submitted to Council in March 2017 detailing the outcomes of the public consultation (including any proposed amendments to the Planning Proposal arising from such consultation) prior to any Gateway submission to the NSW Department of Planning and Environment.

e. That an independent peer review of the community consultation results ((d) above) be undertaken.

f. That the Planning Proposal be assessed by an independent expert who will make recommendations to the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel for endorsement or otherwise prior to any Gateway determination.

g. That if the Planning Proposal proceeds, i.e. after independent assessment, approval by IHAP and Department of Planning and Environment, the reclassification Public Hearing be undertaken by a former Judge of the NSW Land and Environment Court or a person with equivalent standing and experience, and that a post Gateway exhibition report be prepared by an independent consultant for consideration by the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel and the newly elected Council panel prior to forwarding to the Department of Planning.

Consultation Process to Date

3. As indicated in point (d) above, it was resolved that Council would undertake extensive community consultation on future uses of the former Oatley Bowling Club site. The consultation is additional to that which is legally required to be undertaken as part of the Planning Proposal gateway process. Council is committed to ongoing community consultation on the Planning Proposal for this site. The community consultation was undertaken by an independent facilitator between November 2016 and February 2017.

4. Elton Consulting, with extensive experience in communications and community engagement, was engaged as the independent facilitator to undertake the community consultation process. The consultation comprised three (3) community information and feedback sessions, a community survey and a phone survey.

5. The community information and feedback sessions were held on Wednesday 23 November and Saturday 26 November 2016. The independent facilitator designed the sessions to provide residents with an opportunity to find out more about the Planning Proposal for the former Oatley Bowling Club site. The sessions were an opportunity for the community to talk to Council staff and experts in a range of areas. The independent facilitator captured feedback from members of the community.

6. A community survey was available in hardcopy format at the information sessions and on Council’s website. The independent facilitator developed the survey to explore, amongst other things:

a. If the provision of aged care (seniors housing), as identified by the community and former Hurstville City Council since 2006, in the Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2021 and the Hurstville Community Strategic Plan 2025, continued to be a priority for the Georges River community;

b. Preferences for the types of seniors housing proposed at the former Oatley Bowling Club site;

c. Options for community facilities proposed for the site; and

d. Ideas for improving access to the adjacent Myles Dunphy Reserve.

7. The independent facilitator captured contact details from interested survey respondents who expressed a desire to be updated on the proposed development in the future.

8. The independent facilitator also arranged a telephone survey to be conducted with 501 randomly selected residents from the Georges River Local Government Area.

9. In the interests of transparency, Council also publicly released the OBC Planning Proposal in order to obtain community feedback early in the rezoning process. Submissions on this document closed on 5 February 2017 and are currently being reviewed by the independent facilitator.

Current Situation

10. The independent facilitator has advised Council that since the closure of the survey on 5 February 2017, analysis of the collected data has begun and at the time of writing this report the independent facilitator was finalising the report on the results of the community consultation.

11. At the Meeting on 7 November 2016, Council resolved “that an independent peer review of the community consultation results be undertaken”. Following receipt of the final Community Consultation Report, an independent consultant will undertake a peer review of the consultation process and results.

12. It is expected that the Report and the peer review of same will be tabled to Council in April 2017. The report is expected to provide the results of the information sessions, surveys and phone surveys.

13. The independent facilitator will also identify if amendments to the Planning Proposal may be warranted as a result of the Community Consultation Report and the submissions received. This will be subject to a report to Council in April 2017.

Financial Implications

14. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

16/1212

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 25

7. Finance and Governance

Item: CCL018-17 Operational Plan 2016-2017 Performance Report July 2016 - December 2016

Author: Coordinator Integrated Planning, Jessica Lee

Directorate: Office of the General Manager

Matter Type: Finance and Governance

Recommendation

(a) That the attached Operational Plan 2016-2017 Performance Report July 2016 – December 2016 be approved.

(b) That the Operational Plan 2016-2017 Performance Report July 2016 – December 2016 be published on Council’s website for the community to access.

Executive Summary

1. The July – December biannual review of performance made against Georges River Council’s Operational Plan 2016-2017 is submitted for the information of Council and the community.

Background

2. The Local Government Act (1993) requires Councils to prepare and adopt an annual Operational Plan and submit regular progress reports to Council on progress against the Operational Plan.

3. Georges River Council’s Operational Plan 2016 – 2017 is based on the Community Strategic Plans developed with the constituents of the former Hurstville and Kogarah City Councils. The Operational Plan was developed and approved in July 2016 following the 12 May 2016 Proclamation, bringing together Hurstville and Kogarah City Councils as Georges River Council. A Delivery Program for Georges River Council will be developed following the adoption of the new Council’s Community Strategic Plan.

4. Council’s one year Operational Plan 2016-2017 sets out the strategic and financial objectives for the year. It also details the goals and various performance measures for Council’s five themes and three priority areas:

Priority Areas:
Stronger Councils
Corporate
Office of the General Manager

Due to the amalgamation many priorities relate to merging past council systems, resources and services for example the Stronger Councils priority area relates to benchmarks set by the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) for all merged councils.

Themes:

Assets and Infrastructure

Environment and Planning

Community and Culture

Corporate Services and Support

Transformation and Change

Progress Update

5. In this reporting period Council marked its first 100 days of operations since the new Georges River Council was officially established in May 2016. While merging systems and processes has been a priority, Georges River Council has ensured all services are ‘business as usual’.

Significant achievements over the first reporting period include:

Stronger Councils

· 4 expanded range of payment options implemented – rates, sundry debtors, tree applications and annual fire safety statements can now be paid at both Service Centres.

· Average correspondence response time of 13 days

· 100% of capital projects delivered on time and within +/- 5% of budget

Corporate

· 100% of complaints acknowledged with a response within the agreed timeframe of 2 days.

· Extension of the voluntary pensioner rebate scheme

· 64% reduction in lost time injury (LTI) days compared to the average of the former Council’s for the same time period last year.

Office of the General Manager

· 103 formal meetings held between community groups and the Administrator and/or General Manager to discuss issues that matter to the community

· Average of 2.75 speakers at Council Meetings. Speaking at a Council Meeting is one method enabling the community to be involved in Council decision making

· Minimum of 10% of Council Meetings and consultation held in each Ward

· Less than 15% of Council resolutions made at meetings closed to the public Confidential items related to the senior staff structure, commercial leases, tenders and voluntary planning agreements

· Over 93% of legal cases determined in accordance with Council’s corporate and strategic objectives

· Establishment of an Internal Audit function with dedicated resourcing

· Significant community consultation initiatives were adopted including rotating Council meetings through the local government area, holding consultation sessions and through online and face to face consultation on local development plans

Assets and Infrastructure

· 1,200 graffiti tags removed with approximately 80% of tags removed within 72 hours

· 3,600 trees planted or given away to the community.

· Adoption of the Asset Management Policy which establishes a framework for the management of Georges River Council’s infrastructure assets valued at over $1billion and supports the principles for asset management planning required by the Community Strategic Plan

· Construction of the new Lily Street Bridge

· Footpath maintenance works completed at George Street, Mortdale; Basset Street, Hurstville; Pearl Street, Hurstville; Penshurst Street, Penshurst; Inverness Street, Penshurst and Park Street, Peakhurst

· Kerb and guttering maintenance works completed at Thurbon Street, Peakhurst; Durkin Place, Peakhurst; Oleander Crescent, Peakhurst; Holley Road, Beverly Hills; Milsop Place, Mortdale; Georges Street, Mortdale; Jacques Avenue, Peakhurst around Peakhurst Park; Keppel Avenue, Riverwood; Cook Street, Mortdale; Cook Lane, Mortdale; Pearl Street, Hurstville; Melvin Street, Beverly Hills; Clarendon Road, Peakhurst; Clarke Street (north), Peakhurst; Elwin Street, Peakhurst; Kingsway, Kingsgrove; Kings Place, Kingsgrove and Bradman Street, Narwee

· Drainage maintenance works completed at Sunlea Avenue, Mortdale; Bradman Street, Narwee; Kemp Street, Mortdale and Cedar Street, Lugarno

· Asphalt maintenance works completed at Inverness Street, Penshurst; Bradman Street, Narwee; Rose Street, Hurstville and Forest Road, Hurstville

· Installation of floodlighting in Peakhurst Park

· Savings of over $250,000 in road resheeting and an expansion of the capital works program.

Environment and Planning

· Less than 1% missed waste contract services per quarter with 100% of customer requests actioned within 48 hours

· 100% of swimming pool compliance certificates issued within 42 days

· 13 heritage grants issued with a total value of $50,000

· Establishment of Economic Development Advisory Committee which aims to encourage economic growth in the region, develop and promote partnerships and business networks in the local area, identify economic development project opportunities and actions and attract new business, investment and jobs to the local area. The Economic Development Advisory Committee also advises Council on the development and implementation of Council’s Economic Development Strategy

· Establishment of St George Business Chamber with commitment made to deliver eight annual events for businesses in the Georges River local government area

· 4,799kg of rubbish collected by Georges River Combined Councils Committee

· Recipient of $10,000 grant for Back to Business Week

· A new section 94A Plan was exhibited

· The new Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) was established and has already determined more than $20,000,000 in development applications and assessed 3 planning proposals. The IHAP provide a consistent and transparent approach to the implementation of planning rules and assessment of applications, guaranteeing a high level of professional service to the community.

· A review of the Independent Hearing and Assessment Panel (IHAP) commenced to ensure the efficient and effective operation of the assessment process.

Community and Culture

· Increased library computer bookings by 15%

· 45 one-off library programs delivered including author talks and special events

· 25,417 people attended events and programs across the Georges River library service

· Over 95% utilisation across all childcare centres

· 38 organisations supported through $200,000 of funding from the Georges River Community Grants program

· 27 organisations supported through $1,000,000 of funding from the Stronger Communities Fund Grants program

· 25 events held in Hurstville Entertainment Centre venues with 56,153 attendees

· Establishment of the online Economic Profile Id tool for the community to access economic information about the Georges River local government area

Corporate Services and Support

· 88,594 hits to the Georges River Council website

· Finalisation of a Contracts Register which is available on Council’s website

· Adoption of a Risk Management Framework

· Adoption of key Human Resources policies including the Learning and Development Policy, Equal Employment Opportunity Policy, Recruitment Policy, Grievance and Complaint Resolution Policy, Drug and Alcohol Policy, and Sponsored Study Policy

· Review of Council’s property portfolio and update of the Land Register

· Plan of Management adopted for Central Plaza

· Hurstville Civic Precinct Planning Proposal and Masterplan submitted for statutory determination

Transformation and Change

· 165 tasks on the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) Comprehensive Action Checklist completed

· 4 Georges River Council amalgamation initiatives adopted by other Council and State Government agencies. This has included reporting mechanisms, organisational structure rules and transition guidelines.

· Establishment of Implementation Advisory Committee (Georges River Council’s Local Representative Committee) which considers and provides advice on strategic actions of the Council

· New Executive team structure adopted

· Development of a staff vision statement for Georges River Council

Related reports

6. A separate report outlining Council’s financial performance against the Operational Plan for the period July 2016 – December 2016 has been prepared for the March 2017 Council meeting by the Chief Financial Officer.

Financial Implications

7. No budget impact for this report.

File Reference

D17/20769

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Operational Plan 2016-2017 Performance Report July 2016 - December 2016 Attachment

Georges River Council - Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017

CCL018-17 Operational Plan 2016-2017 Performance Report July 2016 - December 2016

[Appendix 1] Operational Plan 2016-2017 Performance Report July 2016 - December 2016 Attachment

Page 30

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 186

Item: CCL019-17 Transformation and Change Program Progress Report

Author: Director Transformation and Change, Marissa Racomelara

Directorate: Transformation and Change

Matter Type: Finance and Governance

Recommendation

(a) That the progress report on the Transformation and Change Program is received and noted.

Executive Summary

1. This report provides an overview on progress on the Transformation and Change Program for the period 12 May to 31 December 2016. The program is comprised of actions from the Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC) and organisational priorities defined in the Implementation Plan, while financial reporting to the Office of Local Government (OLG) is also required.

2. Progress against DPC Milestones and actions has remained strong with significant gains made. Overall 98% of 179 deadlines were met.

3. Progress against organisational priorities as detailed in the Transformation and Change Implementation Plan has been satisfactory with 82% of 113 milestones delivered on schedule.

4. Reporting to the OLG on the New Council Implementation Fund and the Stronger Communities Fund has been completed.

5. Highlights of the program are outlined in the New Councils Progress Report (Attachment 1)

Background

6. The work required to effectively integrate the former Kogarah and Hurstville Councils is defined in a number of guidances and plans issued by DPC and OLG and further refined in Council’s Operational Plan and Transformation and Change Implementation Plan.

DPC Game Changer Projects

7. The ‘game changer projects’ are a relatively new and informal request from DPC and there is no formal adoption or approval process to select projects. The three projects agreed on by Georges River Council are outlined in table 2 below. These are existing projects that fall under the Implementation Plan “Core Projects” category. This means that they cut across all project streams and therefore have organisation wide impacts.

Project Name	Summary
Customer Service Improvements	· Goal is to create a customer friendly council through face to face and online services supported by an improved customer service culture. · Includes the Customer Orientation, Digitisation, Easy to do Business, E-Planning, Customer Service Charter, Service Centre integration and other projects.
Community Infrastructure	· Goal is to improve the number, location and usage of community infrastructure. · Includes projects such as the Major Projects program and grants component of the Stronger Communities Grants, as well as five year infrastructure programs supported by improved asset management and project delivery
Process Improvements	· Goal is to reduce red tape and bureaucratic processes internally to improve productivity and increase efficiency thereby delivering cost savings and improving speed and ease of service. · Includes projects such as website, online services, payment methods, process mapping and policy development.

DPC Net Benefits Targets

8. The adopted savings target for the period May 2016 to September 2017 is $2.3 million. A breakdown is provided below. As at 20/01/17, council had generated savings of $1.43m, of which almost $1million has been reallocated to service enhancements and $0.34m will be quarantined for future reallocation. The tables below provide a summary of these movements.

Savings Targets by September 2017
Category	Amount ($m)
Net savings on back office efficiencies*	1.8m
Net savings on materials and contracts	0.3m
Net savings on councillors remuneration	0.3m
Grand total	2.3m

Identified Savings
Item	Amount
Foxtel subscription	5,040
Mayoral Community Fund	20,000
Citizenships Ceremonies	17,900
Insurance Premiums	273,835
Auditors Remuneration	26,980
Mayoral / Councillor Allowances - former councils	616,610
Councillor’s IT, Phone and Facilities	153,600
Strategic Workshop – Hurstville Councillors weekend away	20,000
Road Re-sheet Contract negotiations	250,000
Id Profiler combined subscription	5,400
S34 agreements court time	24,000
Intranet Maintenance	20,000
subtotal	1,433,365

Reallocated Expenditure and Service Enhancements
Item	Amount
Implementation Advisory Committees	265,000
iHAP	200,000
Pensioner Rebate	250,000
Road Resheet reinvestment	250,000
Economy Id subscription	20,000
*Quarantined Savings for future reallocation*	343,755
Subtotal	1,328,755
*Note: the difference between Identified Savings and Reallocated expenditure is due to minor variances in a number of operational budgets across the organisation*

DPC Major Milestones and Comprehensive Action List

9. DPC provided all newly merged councils with guidance on timeframes for key milestones and a more detailed action list. Progress on these items is reported via the monthly DPC reports which also include additional sections on community sentiment, media, staff engagement and other items.

Period	Complete	In Progress	Total	% Complete
Milestones 12 May – 30 September 2016	28		28	100%
Milestones 1 October – 31 December 2016	5	1	6	83%
Actions 12 May – 30 September 2016	137		138	99%
Actions 1 October – 31 December 2016	6	1	7	86%
Totals	176	3	179	98%

10. In regard to the three items in progress, the first relates to harmonised Privacy Management Plans which is a high priority for the Governance and Risk Unit. In the meantime, Council is operating under the plans of the former councils. The second is the completion of the branding and image project for which we have recently completed community consultation while the third item was a minor administrative matter that has since been finalised.

OLG New Council Implementation Fund and Stronger Communities Fund

11. The $10 million New Council Implementation Fund (NCIF) has been received and a draft project allocation plan endorsed. The first report was due to OLG on 31 January 2017 and has been receipted. Expenditure to date has been within defined allocations.

12. The Stronger Communities Fund (SCF) is comprised of two components: Community Grants and Major Projects. The Community Grant application process has been completed and the successful 27 community organisations separately reported to Council. The Major Projects component has recently been on exhibition for community consultation and the results are tabled separately.

Transformation and Change Implementation Plan

13. The Implementation Plan was adopted by Council in November 2016. It acts as a governance mechanism for the Transformation and Change Program which is comprised of three tiers: Program Management, Core Projects and Project Streams:

Implementation Program Summary

· Program Management

§ Risk Management

§ Communications

§ Financial Management

§ QA and Benefit Realisation

§ Reporting and Project Control

· Core Projects

§ Policy Project – Policy Framework, template, guidelines, register and harmonisation prioritisation model and implementation of the above

§ Savings and Service Enhancement Register – Collation and analysis of savings and reallocation of funds to priority projects

§ Service Delivery Reviews – Review of all services (internal and external)

§ Staff Engagement – Working groups, events, internal communications

· Project Streams

§ Core Corporate Services

§ Information Management

§ Governance

§ Finance

§ People and Culture

§ Risk and Legal

§ Community Facing Services

§ Communications

§ Community services

§ Customer Service

§ Operations

§ Place Services

§ Regulation

14. Across the 11 streams there were 113 milestones due for completion by December 2016.

Tasks to establish the Program Management Office (PMO) were completed in a manner exceeding expectations and well ahead of many other merged councils. By June 14, 2016, the PMO was fully equipped and staffed. For the period from proclamation until the end of December 2016, 82% of milestones were completed on time.

Next Steps

15. Program Management will be a key focus in the near term. This will include the establishment of reporting processes for budgets, organisational savings and financial reporting on grants. The recent recruitment of a Senior Business Analyst will support this process.

16. Core projects will become a priority as the workload shifts from basic integration that supports the delivery of services to longer term projects designed to position Council as one of the most effective in NSW. Service delivery reviews will be a team project, led by the Program Coordinators, in which all services performed by council will be reviewed.

17. Council will begin to realise benefits of the program with customers seeing improved customer service, reduced red tape, easier to understand policies, a new website and the first roll out of enhanced and new services.

18. Staff will also continue to be affected as new applications come online to manage finances, undertake corporate reporting, manage delegations and improve processes. A detailed change program focussing on staff training and development will be required, and supporting this, improved internal communications will be paramount.

Financial Implications

19. Within budget allocation.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Stronger Communities

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 192

Item: CCL020-17 Advice on Court Proceedings - February 2017

Author: General Counsel, Jenny Ware

Directorate: Office of the General Manager

Matter Type: Finance and Governance

Recommendation

(a) That the information be received and noted.

Executive Summary

1. Advice on Council’s Court Proceedings for the period 24 January 217 to 27 February 2017 is contained within this report.

Background

2. The current Court Proceedings for the reporting period are broken down as follows:

Land and Environment Court Appeals

· 8 x Class 1 (Merit/DA)

· 2 x Class 2 Appeal (Appeal against Order now S56A Appeal & Tree Dispute)

· 5 x Class 4 Proceedings

Local Court

· 13 x Prosecutions

District Court

· 1 x Defamation Proceedings

Total Costs

· Total costs to date for the 2016/17 financial year are $394,880.00 [$235,839 (Hurstville) and $159,041.00 (Kogarah)].

· Total legal costs recovered to date for the 2016/17 financial year are $54,814.00 [$35,219.00 (Hurstville) and $19,595.00 (Kogarah)]. Therefore net legal costs for Court proceedings for the 2016/17 financial year are $340,066.00.

Historical Costs

· Total costs for 2015/16 financial year were $897,624.00 [$815,167.00 (Hurstville) and $82,457.00 (Kogarah)];

· Total costs for 2014/15 financial year were $1,468,351.00 [$1,401,608.00 (Hurstville) and $66,743.00 (Kogarah)].

New Matters

3. Two new matters were received during the reporting period: one tree prosecution (Chu) and one s56A Appeal (Tanious).

Finalised Matters

4. The Court handed down judgment in CC Builders with consent granted to amended plans. Judgment was handed down in Chu in Council’s favour with fines imposed of $6,000 plus $500 Prosecutor’s costs.

Current Table

5. The Court Proceedings current for the reporting period for Council are set out below. The external costs include both external legal and consultants’ fees.

No.	Property Address / Applicant / Proceedings Number	Description of Matter	Status / Critical Dates	External Costs to Date Up to 2015/16 FY	External Costs to Date From 2016/17 FY
Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 1 Appeals
1	799 Forest Road PEAKHURST Applicant: CC Builders (NSW) Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 155689 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2015/0457 for demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a multi dwelling housing development including six dwellings.	Judgment handed down on 16 February 2017. Consent granted to amended plans.	$8,720.00	$40,691.25
2	58 Lawrence Street PEAKHURST Applicant: Mehedin Abdul-Rahman Proceedings No. 162874 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2016/0051 for demolition of existing dwellings and structures and subsequent construction of a multi dwelling housing development comprising seven dwellings, basement car parking and associated landscaping.	Matter resolved by way of amended plans and S34 Agreement. Payment of $10,000 costs received 23 February 2017.	$0	$17,031.50
3	58 and 60 Blackshaw Avenue MORTDALE Applicant: Marion McDowell and Associates Proceedings No. 241879 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against Council Order for demolition of existing unauthorised structure.	Matter stood over to 7 March 2017. Applicant undertaking building works. Stormwater management to be resolved.	$0	$9,950.80
4	66 Mulga Road OATLEY Applicant: Foxground Property Investments Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 290679 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of development application DA2015/0035 for demolition of existing structures and construction of new two storey childcare centre for 51 children with basement car parking.	Council experts considering amended plans following conciliation. Matter listed before Court on 15 March 2017.	$0	$18,880.08
5	399-403 Princes Highway CARLTON Applicant : Michael Murr Proceedings No. 336689 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against refusal of DA 75/2016 for 5 storey residential flat building containing 22 units and strata subdivision.	S34 conference listed for 15 February 2017 terminated following inability to resolve matter. Proceedings now fixed for contested hearing on 24 and 25 May 2017.	$0	$4,642.23
6	8-10 Princes Highway KOGARAH Applicant: Outdoor Systems P/L Proceedings No. 344564 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of Section 96 application to delete conditions relating to a digital advertising sign.	Matter listed for hearing on 14 – 16 March 2017. RMS joined to proceedings. Council filed submitting appearance as it has no objection to application.	$0	$4,965.50
7	832-836 King Georges Road & 51 Connells Point Road, SOUTH HURSTVILLE Applicant: Cash Warwick Pty Limited Proceedings No. 380571 of 2016	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal for demolition of existing dwellings and construction of 1 x 7 and 1 x 5 storey residential flat buildings.	S34 Conference listed for 6 April 2017.	$0.00	$0.00
8	25 Old Forest Road, LUGARNO Applicant: George Antoniou Proceedings No. 2826 of 2017	Class 1 Appeal against deemed refusal of child care centre for 45 children.	Matter listed for S34 Conciliation on 4 May 2017. External traffic and acoustic consultants briefed.	$0.00	$0.00
Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 4 Proceedings
1	84D Roberts Avenue MORTDALE Parties: Romanous Developments Pty Ltd Proceedings No. 40883 of 2013	Court orders entered on 24 July 2015 for Class 4 proceedings requiring remediation works under supervision of independent site auditor.	Recent Council investigations have revealed non-compliance of site audit and respondents’ lawyers notified. DAs for wall and bridge assessed. Council engineer assessing engineering plans.	$283,921.51	$2,405.50
2	37 Boronia Street KYLE BAY Parties: Mrs Megan McOnie Proceedings No. 40940 of 2015	Class 4 commenced in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders relating to a non-compliant swimming pool fence, overgrown vegetation and unhealthy swimming pool water.	Court Orders in support of Council’s Notices/Orders were provided on 21 April 2016. Application for substituted service on Respondent commenced. Pool secured by Council December 2016.	$20,658.60	$5,575.65
3	159 The Promenade SANS SOUCI Parties: Gary Beers Valerie Beers Leonie Beers Proceedings No. 325776 of 2016	Class 4 commenced in relation to failing to remove overgrown vegetation from rear of property.	Inspection on 31 January 2017 revealed compliance with orders. Matter completed.	$0	$5,477.00
4	5 MacLaurin Street, PENSHURST Parties: Emanuel Mifsud & Crystina Mifsud Proceedings No. 377447 of 2016	Class 4 commenced in relation to clearing of articles and matter.	Respondents have failed to comply with Court orders. Contempt proceedings to commence and new LG Act orders to issue.	$0.00	$16,498.25
5	105 Forest Road & 1A Hill Street, Hurstville Parties: Australian Consulting Builders	Court orders entered on 5 August 2016 relating to cleaning up of property at 105 Forest Road. Related adjoining property also in disrepair. Subject to continual monitoring.	Court proceedings to re-commence if non-compliance not rectified by end of February.	$11,806.33	$5,583.55
Land and Environment Court Proceedings – Class 2 Appeals
1	1 Arnold Street PEAKHURST Parties: Mofeed Louis Tanious Proceedings No. 2017/32320	Class 2 commencing in relation to failing to comply with Council Notices/Orders concerning keeping of poultry at the premises. Orders upheld by Court with extension of time to comply to 25 April 2017.	Further S56A lodged by applicant and listed for directions on 1 March 2017.	$0	$15,325.00
2	7B Tottenham Place, BLAKEHURST Applicant: Dr Eric Solo Proceedings No. 359122 of 2016	Class 2 Appeal – Tree Dispute Application.	Council has advised applicant it has no objection to removal of trees. Awaiting outcome from Court.	$0	$0
Local Court Proceedings
1	13-17 Peake Parade PEAKHURST Parties: Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd	Appeal against PIN for breaches of development consent. Defendant pleaded not guilty.	Matter part heard on 20 May and 26 October 2016. Magistrate requires further submissions. Stood over to 10 May 2017.	$221.50	$5,959.50
2-6	13-17 Peake Parade PEAKHURST Parties: Oxford (NSW) Pty Ltd	Appeals against five PINs for breaches of development consent and one water pollution offence under POEO Act.	Defendant pleaded guilty to 4 offences, 1 withdrawn. Magistrate has ordered written submission evidence on sentencing. Listed on 10 May 2017.	$190.00	$3,924.00
7-12	25 Koorabel, 25A Koorabel, 25B Koorabel Street LUGARNO Parties: Daoud & Daoud Developments Pty Ltd	Appeals against six PINs issued for carrying out development not in accordance with development consent.	Matter listed for hearing for on 6 April 2017. Council to submit brief by 6 March 2017.	$0	$3,956.80
13	6 Freeman Avenue, Oatley Parties: Hout Chu	Appeals against 3 PINs issued for carrying out development without consent, causing damage to 3 significant trees.	Defendant pleaded guilty. Matter heard on 14 February 2017. Council obtained fines against Mr Chu of $6,000 and $500 Prosecutor’s costs.	$0	$0
District Court Proceedings
1	Con Hindi v Michael Watt No. 99504 of 2016	Proceedings commenced against former Council staff member for defamation by former Mayor Hindi.	Plaintiff has formally withdrawn defamation allegation. Proceedings dismissed and Plaintiff to pay Defendant’s costs.	$9,608.17	$10,554.70

6. The cost savings to date by virtue of S34 delegations are as follows:

Month	Savings
July	$34,000.00
August	$24,000.00
September	$0
October	$16,000.00
November	$32,000.00
December	$0.00
January	$48,000.00
February	$0.00
Total	$154,000.00

Financial Implications

7. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

09/1077

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 199

Item: CCL021-17 Investment Report as at 31 December 2016

Author: Financial Accountant and Risk Management, Rindayi Matienga

Directorate: Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type: Finance and Governance

Recommendation

(a) That the Investment Report as at 31 December 2016 be received and noted.

Executive Summary

1. This report details Council’s performance of its investment portfolio for December 2016 and compares it against key benchmarks. The report includes the estimated market valuation of Council’s investment portfolio, loan liabilities, and an update on Council’s legal action against various parties.

2. Council’s annual rate of return is 3.25%, which is 1.07% above benchmark. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sale of investments totals at $2.53 million is $56,400 above 2016/17 budget.

Background

3. Council’s Responsible Accounting Officer, is required to report monthly on Council’s Investment Portfolio and certify that the Investments are held in accordance with Council’s Investment Policy and Section 625 of the Local Government Act.

Investment Performance Commentary

4. Council’s performance against the benchmark for returns of its investment portfolio for December 2016, are as follows:

	1 Month	2 Month	12 Month
Portfolio	0.24%	0.64%	3.25%
Performance	0.15%	0.44%	2.18%
Excess	0.09%	0.20%	1.07%

Notes

(i) Portfolio performance is the rate of return of the portfolio over the specified period

(ii) The Performance Index is the rate of return of the market (comparable securities) over the specified period

(iii) Excess performance is the rate of return of the portfolio in excess of the Performance Index

5. Council’s investment portfolio as at the end of December was as follows:

Security Type	Market Value $000's	% Total Value
Cash at Bank	6,451	5.90%
11am Cash	6,840	5.90%
31 Day Notice Account	1,004	0.60%
ASX Listed Fixed Rate Security	2,032	1.22%
Covered Floating Bond	998	0.60%
Fixed Rate TCD	1,036	0.62%
Floating Rate Deposit	3,003	1.80%
Floating Rate Note	57,350	34.43%
Floating Rate TCD	3,016	1.81%
Term Deposit	80,755	48.49%
Managed Funds	7,537	4.53%
Total Cash Investment	170,022	100.00%

Investment Properties	15,100
Total Investments	185,122

Council’s Investment Properties Portfolio

6. Council’s investment properties updated as at the end of December were as follows:

7. The investment property valuations listed above have been undertaken in accordance with the revaluation process to ‘fair value’ by an independent valuer, in compliance with the Australian Accounting Standards.

8. Council continues to utilise the Federal Government’s current guarantee ($250,000) investing in Term Deposits with a range of Authorised Deposit Taking Institutions (ADI’s) on short to medium term investments (generally 30 days to 180 days maturity) where more competitive rates are available.

9. Council’s income from investments is above budget, due mainly to Council receiving more funds from Section 94 contributions, with investment income for General Revenue remaining steady.

Legal Issues

10. Council was participating in the IMF class action regarding Lehman Brothers Australia Liquidation. The IMF class action matter is now finalised.

Loan Liability

11. Council’s loan liability as at 31 December 2016 was $2.875 million which represents the balance of $5 million ten (10) year loan drawn down on 16 November 2012 for Jubilee Park upgrade in Mortdale. Next repayment of $125,000 is due 28th March 2017. The outstanding balance on this facility is at a variable interest of 194 basis points over 3 month BBSW. At the current 3 month BBSW rate, the interest rate payable is 3.72% pa.

12. Council receives a 4.00% pa subsidy under the NSW Government’s Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme funding agreement for this Jubilee Park upgrade facility. It is intended to continue this financially-advantageous arrangement through to full term in 2022.

Policy Limits

13. The following graph shows the limits, as a percentage of total cash investments, of the amount by periods, as allowed under Council’s policy, and comparing them to the amounts actually invested, as a percentage of the total cash investments.

14. It shows that the funds invested are within the limits set in the Investment Policy

Investment Income

15. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sales of investments totals $2.53 million being $56,400 above current budget projections.

Certificate by Chief Financial Officer (Responsible Accounting Officer): Rob Owens

16. Investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Minister’s Guidelines, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

Analysis of Investments

17. The following graphs show analysis of the total cash investment by:

Investment Duration

Investment Term	Market Value	% Total Value	Policy Limits %
0 to < 1 Year	67,632	40	100
1 to < 3 Years	46,683	27	70
3 to < 5 Years	55,708	33	50
> 5 years	0	0	25
Portfolio Total	170,022	100.00%

18. Council’s portfolio is very liquid, with 39% of assets maturing within 12 months. FRNs, funds and fixed bonds also provide additional liquidity in an emergency.

Type of Investments

19. Council’s investment portfolio is mainly directed to term deposits, which account for approximately 49% of total investments. Yields have steadily contracted, while tracking bond market volatility in the short term.

20. Bank Floating Rate Notes (FRN) offer liquidity and a higher rate of income accrual, which is highly recommended by our Investment Advisors (CPG Research & Advisory) going forward.

21. The following are the types of investments held by Council:

a) At Call refers to funds held at a financial institution, and can be recalled by Council either same day or on an overnight basis.

b) A Floating Rate Note (FRN) is a debt security issued by a company with a variable interest rate. This can either be issued as Certificates of Deposit (CD) or as Medium Term Notes (MTN). The interest rate can be either fixed or floating, where the adjustments to the interest rate are usually made quarterly and are tied to a certain money market index such as the Bank Bill Swap Rate.

c) A Fixed Rate Bond is a debt security issued by a company with a fixed interest rate over the term of the bond.

d) A managed fund is a professionally managed investment portfolio that individual investors can buy into, purchasing 'units' rather than shares. Each managed fund has a specific investment objective. This is usually based around the different asset classes (cash, fixed interest, property and shares). The money you invest is used to buy assets in line with this investment objective. When you invest in a managed fund, you are allocated a number of 'units'. The value of your units is calculated on a daily basis and changes as the market value of the assets in the fund rises and falls.

* These managed funds have been grandfathered since the NSW State Government changed the list of Approved Investments as a result of the Cole enquiry (which was reflected in the Ministerial Order dated 31/7/2008).

Credit Rating

22. Credit ratings are generally a statement as to an institution’s credit quality. Ratings ranging from A1+ to NR (Short Term) & AAA to BBB- (long term) are considered investment grade.

23. A general guide as to the meaning of each credit rating that Council deals with is as follows:

Short-term

A1+: the best quality companies, reliable and stable. An obligor has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments.

A1: Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, many positive investment attributes but also elements susceptible to adverse effects of changes in economic conditions.

A2: Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but also speculative characteristics or lack of protection against changes of economic conditions.

B1: Moderate capacity to meet financial commitments, also in good economic conditions.

Unrated: This category includes unrated Authorised Deposit-Taking Institutions (ADI’s) such as some Credit Unions and Building Societies to the extent not Commonwealth-guaranteed. No rating has been requested, or there is insufficient information on which to base a rating.

Long-term

AAA: the best quality companies, reliable and stable. An obligor has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments.

AA: quality companies, a bit higher risk than AAA. An obligor has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments. It differs from the highest-rated obligors only to a small degree.

A: economic situation can affect finance. An obligor has strong capacity to meet its financial commitments but is somewhat more susceptible to the adverse effects of changes in circumstances and economic conditions than obligors in higher-rated categories.

BBB: medium class companies, which are satisfactory at the moment. An obligor has adequate capacity to meet its financial commitments. However, adverse economic conditions or changing circumstances are more likely to lead to a weakened capacity of the obligor to meet its financial commitments.

22. The credit quality of Council’s portfolio is relatively high with approximately 75% of assets rated ‘A’ or higher. The ‘AAA’ assets represent the deposit investments covered by the Federal Government’s Financial Claims Scheme (FCS).

23. The remaining 25% rated ‘BBB’ or ‘unrated’ reflects the attractive deposit and Floating Rate Notes (FRN) investments with the regional and unrated ADIs.

Council’s Investment Powers

24. Council’s investment powers are regulated by Section 625 of the Local Government Act, which states:

• A council may invest money that is not, for the time being, required by the council for any other purpose.

• Money may be invested only in a form of investment notified by order of the Minister published in the Gazette.

• An order of the Minister notifying a form of investment for the purposes of this section must not be made without the approval of the Treasurer.

• The acquisition, in accordance with section 358, of a controlling interest in a corporation or an entity within the meaning of that section is not an investment for the purposes of this section.

25. Council’s investment policy and strategy requires that all investments are to be made in accordance with;

• Local Government Act 1993 - Section 625

• Local Government Act 1993 - Order (of the Minister) dated 12 January 2011

• The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 – Sections 14A(2), 14C(1) & (2)

• Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1993

• Investment Guidelines issued by the Department of Local Government

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Investment Portfolio as at 31 December 2016

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 216

Item: CCL022-17 Investment Report as at 31 January 2017

Author: Financial Accountant and Risk Management, Rindayi Matienga

Directorate: Office of the Chief Operating Officer

Matter Type: Finance and Governance

Recommendation

(a) That the Investment Report as at 31 January 2017 be received and noted.

Executive Summary

1. This report details Council’s performance of its investment portfolio for January 2017 and compares it against key benchmarks. The report includes the estimated market valuation of Council’s investment portfolio, loan liabilities, and an update on Council’s legal action against various parties.

2. Council’s annual rate of return is 3.3%, which is 1.29% above benchmark. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sale of investments totals at $2.89 million is $124,600 above 2016/17 budget.

Background

Investment Performance Commentary

4. Council’s performance against the benchmark for returns of its investment portfolio for January 2017, are as follows:

	1 Month	2 Month	12 Month
Portfolio	0.36%	0.75%	3.30%
Performance	0.16%	0.44%	2.01%
Excess	0.20%	0.31%	1.29%

Notes

1 Portfolio performance is the rate of return of the portfolio over the specified period

2 The Performance Index is the rate of return of the market (comparable securities) over the specified period

3 Excess performance is the rate of return of the portfolio in excess of the Performance Index

5. Council’s investment portfolio as at the end of December was as follows:

Security Type	Market Value $000's	% Total Value
Cash at Bank	4,839	2.72%
11am Cash	5,340	3.00%
31 Day Notice Account	1,004	0.56%
ASX Listed Fixed Rate Security	2,040	1.15%
Covered Floating Bond	1,004	0.56%
Fixed Rate TCD	1,041	0.59%
Floating Rate Deposit	3,005	1.69%
Floating Rate Note	56,443	31.73%
Floating Rate TCD	3,025	1.70%
Term Deposit	77,459	43.55%
Managed Funds Trust	7,566	4.25%
Total Cash and Investments	162,765

Investment Properties	15,100
Portfolio Total	177,865	100.00%

Council’s Investment Properties Portfolio

6. Council’s investment properties updated as at the end of December were as follows:

9. Council’s income from investments is above budget, due mainly to Council receiving more funds from Section 94 contributions, with investment income for General Revenue remaining steady.

Legal Issues

10. Council was participating in the IMF class action regarding Lehman Brothers Australia Liquidation. The IMF class action matter is now finalised.

Loan Liability

11. Council’s loan liability as at 31 January 2017 was $2.875 million which represents the balance of $5 million ten (10) year loan drawn down on 16 November 2012 for Jubilee Park upgrade in Mortdale. Next repayment of $125,000 is due 28th March 2017. The outstanding balance on this facility is at a variable interest of 194 basis points over 3 month BBSW. At the current 3 month BBSW rate, the interest rate payable is 3.72% pa.

Policy Limits

14. It shows that the funds invested are within the limits set in the Investment Policy

Investment Income

15. Income from interest on investments and proceeds from sales of investments totals $2.89 million being $124,600 above current budget projections

Certificate by Chief Financial Officer (Responsible Accounting Officer): Rob Owens

16. Investments have been made in accordance with the Local Government Act, Minister’s Guidelines, Regulations and Council’s Investment Policy.

Analysis of Investments

17. The following graphs show analysis of the total cash investment by:

Investment Duration

Investment Term	Market Value	% Total Value	Policy Limits %
0 to < 1 Year	61,156	38	100
1 to < 3 Years	45,782	28	70
3 to < 5 Years	55,827	34	50
> 5 years	0	0	25
Portfolio Total	162,765	100%

18. Council’s portfolio is very liquid, with 36% of assets maturing within 12 months. FRNs, funds and fixed bonds also provide additional liquidity in an emergency.

Type of Investments

20. Bank Floating Rate Notes (FRN) offer liquidity and a higher rate of income accrual, which is highly recommended by our Investment Advisors (CPG Research & Advisory) going forward.

21. The following are the types of investments held by Council:

a) At Call refers to funds held at a financial institution, and can be recalled by Council either same day or on an overnight basis.

c) A Fixed Rate Bond is a debt security issued by a company with a fixed interest rate over the term of the bond.

Credit Rating

22. Credit ratings are generally a statement as to an institution’s credit quality. Ratings ranging from A1+ to NR (Short Term) & AAA to BBB- (long term) are considered investment grade.

23. A general guide as to the meaning of each credit rating that Council deals with is as follows:

Short-term

A1+: the best quality companies, reliable and stable. An obligor has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments.

A1: Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, many positive investment attributes but also elements susceptible to adverse effects of changes in economic conditions.

A2: Adequate capacity to meet financial commitments, but also speculative s or lack of protection against changes of economic conditions.

B1: Moderate characteristic capacity to meet financial commitments, also in good economic conditions.

Long-term

AAA: the best quality companies, reliable and stable. An obligor has extremely strong capacity to meet its financial commitments.

AA: quality companies, a bit higher risk than AAA. An obligor has very strong capacity to meet its financial commitments. It differs from the highest-rated obligors only to a small degree.

23. The remaining 25% rated ‘BBB’ or ‘unrated’ reflects the attractive deposit and Floating Rate Notes (FRN) investments with the regional and unrated ADIs.

Council’s Investment Powers

24. Council’s investment powers are regulated by Section 625 of the Local Government Act, which states:

• A council may invest money that is not, for the time being, required by the council for any other purpose.

• Money may be invested only in a form of investment notified by order of the Minister published in the Gazette.

• An order of the Minister notifying a form of investment for the purposes of this section must not be made without the approval of the Treasurer.

• The acquisition, in accordance with section 358, of a controlling interest in a corporation or an entity within the meaning of that section is not an investment for the purposes of this section.

25. Council’s investment policy and strategy requires that all investments are to be made in accordance with;

• Local Government Act 1993 - Section 625

• Local Government Act 1993 - Order (of the Minister) dated 12 January 2011

• The Trustee Amendment (Discretionary Investments) Act 1997 – Sections 14A(2), 14C(1) & (2)

• Local Government (Financial Management) Regulation 1993

• Investment Guidelines issued by the Department of Local Government

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Investment Portfolio as at 31 January 2017

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 248

Item: CCL024-17 University of Wollongong Jubilee Oval

Author: Executive Manager Jubilee Stadium and Facilities, Luke Coleman

Directorate: Community and Culture

Matter Type: Finance and Governance

Recommendation

(a) That Council receives the report and endorses the outcome of the review and adopts Option C to bring the management of Jubilee Oval in house;

(b) Notes the transition of existing contractual arrangements are to be novated as indicated;

(d) Gives delegated authority to the General Manager to negotiate and approve commercial terms in respect to the hire of University of Wollongong (UOW) Jubilee Oval to the St George Illawarra Dragons.

Executive Summary

1. At the meeting on 7th November 2016, Council resolved that a review would be undertaken to consider the options for the future management of University of Wollongong (UOW) Jubilee Oval.

2. Several priorities were taken into consideration including;

a. Developing a master plan for the precinct to maximise commercial opportunities in procuring other events and encouraging other football codes;

b. Providing access to UOW Jubilee Oval and accommodating future commercial arrangements with the St George Illawarra Dragons for 2017 and beyond;

c. Maximising community benefit and encouraging partnerships with sporting, health and medical communities; and

d. Ensuring costs associated with maintaining and operating the facility are prudently managed and budgeted for accordingly in future.

Background

3. At the Council meeting on 7^th November 2016, Council resolved that:

(a) In recognising the existence of a strong local supporter base, Council continue its long standing commitment to St George Illawarra Dragons and provide access to UOW Jubilee Oval for the 2017 NRL Season and beyond for games and training requirements as requested by the Dragons.

(b) That Council review management options for UOW Jubilee Oval to maximise community benefit, encourage partnerships with sporting, health and medical communities, to provide opportunities for community participation and to ensure costs associated with maintaining and operating the facility are met in future years.

(c) That a report be submitted to a future Council Meeting detailing the outcomes of the above review and future commercial arrangements with the Dragons for 2017 and beyond

Future Management Considerations

4. Council considered three options for the management of the facility;

Option A

Do nothing and continue with existing arrangements;

Option B

Enter into a contract with Venues NSW to provide management services for the facility at a fee; or

Option C

Engage the appropriate staff and bring the management of the venue in house.

5. The current licence arrangements with the Dragons have come to a conclusion. No further long term arrangements are in place to provide the range of facilities and services to maximise UOW Jubilee Oval as a Council asset or to provide access to the wider community for sporting or other events.

6. An approach was made to Venues NSW who declined to engage in any future management arrangements.

7. In consideration of the above, Council determined that the most appropriate solution was to bring the management of the facility in house.

8. Council has appointed an Executive Manager, Jubilee Oval and Facilities, together with Operational, Events and Marketing staff and engaged the current Grounds staff which will ensure continuation of the service.

9. The Executive Manager will affect the transition of the control and management of the facility with the Dragons, negotiate the new hire agreement, procure suppliers such as cleaning, security and events staff and manage the events at the Jubilee Oval.

10. The Executive Manager will be expected to maximise commercial opportunities through procuring other events and delivering outcomes for the use of the facility for other football codes, together with the development of a master plan for the precinct, to provide positive outcome for the community.

Future Hire Agreement

11. Negotiations have commenced with the Dragons for an all-inclusive fee (hire fee plus costs) to establish commitment of the Club for the 2017 season and beyond.

12. The agreement will include the number of Dragons home games to be played at UOW Jubilee Oval and the number of years of commitment from the Dragons.

13. The Dragons have some commercial agreements which will not expire for various periods as below and will require resolution with the rights to revert to Council. The Executive Manager is currently in negotiation with the Dragons for the transition of these agreements in order to facilitate the game-day operation for the 2017 season.

14. These rights include the following:-

Contract	Current Arrangements	Preferred Solution
Ticketing	Ticketek Further two years	Novation of existing Contract to Council
Naming Rights	UOW until end 2017	Naming Rights to Council end of 2017
Catering	Venues Live Further two years	Proposal from Venues Live for a 1 + 1 agreement
Pourage	Coke and Carlton United Breweries further two years	A per litre average calculation to be included in the hire fee

Financial Implications

15. A budget is being prepared to meet the requirements for the remainder of the 16/17 financial year and business analysis is underway to establish the requirements for future years.

Legal Implications

16. Council has engaged Henry Davis York to provide legal advice, prepare documentation for hire agreements and assist in the negotiation and interim contractual arrangements between Council and the Dragons.

File Reference

< Enter Records Reference Number Here >

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 251

8. Assets and Infrastructure

Item: CCL025-17 Property Matter - Leasing of Former Kogarah City Council Civic Buildings

Author: Property Portfolio Manager, Bernard Morabito

Directorate: Office of the General Manager

Matter Type: Assets and Infrastructure

Recommendation

(a) That the report be received and noted.

(b) That the General Manager be delegated authority to negotiate and enter lease agreements for the various commercial office spaces and car parking located at 2 Belgrave Street (including the former Council Chambers) and 84 Railway Parade, Kogarah as dictated by the market but not exceeding a term of 20 years inclusive of any option periods.

Executive Summary

1. The decision of the New South Wales Government to amalgamate Kogarah and Hurstville City Councils to form Georges River Council has resulted in the former Kogarah City Council Civic Centre becoming vacant as staff relocate to the Civic Centre in Hurstville. The relocation of staff to Hurstville will result in several commercial lease opportunities for Council. This report serves to provide Council and the community with an update of those lease opportunities that may have the potential to earn Council a rental income in excess of $800,000 per annum.

Background

2. On 12 May 2016 the New South Wales Government proclaimed the former areas of Kogarah City Council and Hurstville City Council as that now known as Georges River Council.

3. As a result of the amalgamation, Georges River Council was required to bring the two (office) work forces together. Due to the substantially larger size of the Hurstville Civic Centre, it was decided that staff currently located within the former Kogarah Civic Centre would be relocated within the Hurstville premises on completion of the re-fit of the building.

4. With the impending relocation of staff and the recent announcement by the Premier that Georges River Council has no plans to de-amalgamate, a commercial opportunity now exists to lease over 2,500 square metres of the former Kogarah Civic Centre buildings including the associated car parking spaces.

5. A variety of commercial leasing spaces will be made available (in stages) as staff relocate to Hurstville. The spaces available are described in the table below with the relevant floor plans annexed to this report:

Address	Description	Area
84 Railway Parade, Kogarah	Ground floor retail shop with first floor commercial office space. Currently advertised for Lease. Available from 1 April 2017.	240 square metres
Level 1 – Shop, 2 Belgrave Street, Kogarah.	Former Customer Service Centre suitable for commercial office space. Extensive fit-out. Currently advertised for Lease. Available from 1 May 2017.	350 square metres
Ground Floor and Mezzanine – Council Chambers, Belgrave Street, Kogarah.	Commercial office space fronting directly on to plaza Currently advertised for Lease. Available from 1 April 2017.	166 square metres
First Floor – Council Chambers, Belgrave Street, Kogarah.	Commercial office space in original condition. Some works required to make area lease ready. Advertising to commence in March with availability from June 2017.	993 square metres
Second Floor – Council Chambers, Belgrave Street, Kogarah.	Commercial office space in original condition. Some works required to make area lease ready. Advertising to commence in March with availability from June 2017.	994 Square metres

6. Council is advised that it is proposed to relocate the existing Customer Service Centre on level 1 of the Shop at 2 Belgrave Street, to within the Kogarah City Library. It is anticipated that the relocation will be completed with minimal disruption to services prior to 1 May 2017.

7. As part of the leasing process, Georges River Council may need to spend monies in order to make the building more attractive to market. A condition assessment report has been undertaken for the council chambers and is currently being reviewed in order to determine the costs associated with commercial occupation and to formalise an asset management plan.

8. Depending on tenancy needs and tenure, it is proposed to make some allowances for required works and upgrades through appropriate leasing incentives. However, where this is not possible, a further report will be submitted to Council outlining the cost of essential works that may be required to be undertaken, prior to letting the building and that are the responsibility of the landlord.

If fully leased, it is anticipated that the commercial space has the potential to earn Council an income of between $800K to $1M per annum.

Financial Implications

9. Within budget allocation.

File Reference

16/1978

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1	Lease Plan - 2 Belgrave Street
Attachment View2	Lease Plan - 84 Railway Parade
Attachment View3	Lease Plan - Belgrave Street - Council Chambers Building

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 259

Item: CCL026-17 Tender for the Construction of the Jubilee Park Adventure Playground

Author: Manager Project Delivery, Michelle Whitehurst

Directorate: Assets and Infrastructure

Matter Type: Assets and Infrastructure

Recommendation

(a) That the report be received and noted.

(b) That the separate report on this agenda relating to Tender for the Construction of Jubilee Park Adventure Playground be considered in closed session, in accordance with the provisions of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, Section 10A (2) (c) as it is considered the information, if disclosed, confers a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

Executive Summary

1. This report is presented to Council to select a preferred Contractor for the Construction of Jubilee Park Adventure Playground.

Background

2. In 2012, Council resolved to apply (and was successful) for the NSW Government Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme loan. This loan was a low interest loan of 4% per annum which, over a period of 10 years on a $5 million loan, would save Council $1.14 million in interest for the life of the loan. As outlined in the Council report dated 7 March 2012, principle repayments of the loan would be derived from:

· Lease of former Oatley Bowling Club suite for aged care / seniors housing;

· Sale of Council land currently occupied by Mortdale Community Services.

3. In 2013, following extensive community consultation, the former Hurstville City Council adopted the Jubilee Park Plan of Management. This Plan of Management outlined clear guidelines for the management of the Jubilee Park including the development of the Mortdale Community Centre.

4. The adopted Plan of Management included the following key elements for the site:

a. Community Centre

b. Multipurpose field for mini-soccer, basketball, etc.;

c. Netball courts (existing);

d. Children’s playground;

e. Areas for external exercise equipment;

f. BBQ areas;

g. Bicycle and running track;

h. Car parking area;

i. Wetlands / landscaping

5. In 2016, the Mortdale Community Centre was opened which incorporated Jubilee Community Services and multipurpose meeting rooms.

6. As part of the Georges River Council 2016/2017 Operational Plan and Budget, a key action in Assets and Infrastructure is as follows:

“1.15 Upgrade and improve Council’s open space, recreational facilities and related assets.”

In addition, Jubilee Park is identified as a ‘Priority 1’ Project under the Hurstville Section 94 Plan 2012.

7. Accordingly, tender documentation was prepared and tenders were called in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 for the Design and Construction of Jubilee Park Adventure Playground.

8. The tender called for an experienced Contractor to undertake the following works:

a. Construction of nature play / sensory paths

b. Children’s bike track

c. Toddler Play Area

d. Junior swings and flying foxes

e. Giant basket swing

f. Netball court

g. Multi court

h. Picnic / BBQ areas

i. Walking track

j. Outdoor gym equipment

k. Landscaping, lighting, seating and bin enclosures

A copy of the concept plan is attached for your information.

9. The tender closed at 2.00pm, Tuesday 31 January 2017 and three (3) conforming submissions were received from the following companies:

a. Glascott Group

b. Quality Management and Constructions Pty Ltd trading as QMC Group

c. Regal Innovations Pty Ltd

10. A tender assessment panel was formed comprising:

a. Manager Project Delivery

b. Open Space Projects Manager

c. Sport and Recreation Officer

d. Council Consultant from Playce Pty Ltd

11. Submissions were assessed as outlined in the confidential report.

Financial Implications

12. Outside budget allocation – total budget for works is $2,722,004 to allow for a 15% contingency for latent conditions.

13. Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012

The Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012 levies contributions for the embellishment of ‘Jubilee Park’ and ‘Adventure Playground Areas’. Under the Plan, the works are to be funded from section 94 contributions as well as Council contributions on behalf of the existing community.

The table below shows the cost of each component of the project as per the Tender and the proposed allocation of Section 94 funds and Council funds.

The Section 94 Plan cost estimate for the Jubilee Park embellishment works is $1,340,355. As shown in the table below the cost of the works in Tender for Jubilee Park is $861,082.

The Section 94 Plan cost estimate for Adventure Playgrounds is $6,065,707. As shown in the table below the cost of the works in Tender for the Adventure Playground component is $1,505,879.

Item	Amount	Funding Split	Source of Funding
Adventure Playground	$1,505,879	$1,069,174 $272,222.36	71% to be sourced from s94 Open Space (Adventure Playground) 29% to be sourced from Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme
Remaining Contract Works for Jubilee Park	$863,082	$611,368 $249,714	71% to be sourced from s94 Open Space (Jubilee Park) 29% to be sourced from Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme
Contingency	$355,044	$109,053 $245,991	To be sourced from Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme Local Infrastructure Renewal Scheme To be sourced from Working Capital Surplus
Total Budget	$2,722,004

The current balance in the Section 94 Plan “open space” account is approximately $10,662,642.

Section 94 Working Party

The Section 94 Working Party considered the proposed project and the allocation of the section 94 funds at its meeting on 22 February 2017. It was noted that the proposed project is consistent with the Hurstville Section 94 Development Contributions Plan 2012. The Working Party endorsed the allocation of the section 94 open space funds to the proposed project.

File Reference

SF17/113

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Jubilee Park Adventure Playground Concept Plan

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 277

Item: CCL030-17 Stronger Communities Fund Projects

Author: Acting Director Community and Culture, Margaret Le

Directorate: Community and Culture

Matter Type: Community and Culture

Recommendation

(a) That the outcome of the community consultation process for the Stronger Communities Fund Projects as list in this report is received and noted.

(b) That Council adopt the Stronger Communities Fund Projects as listed in this report.

(c) That Council use funds from its Asset Reserve to fund the projected shortfall if needed, as the cost estimates in this report are preliminary only and that detailed designs will occur following Council approval of the major projects.

(d) That Council receive regular reports (at least quarterly) on the progress of the projects to ensure that both Council and the public are made aware upon each projects’ completion.

Executive Summary

1. At the Council Meeting on 5 December 2016, it was resolved that Georges River Council will undertake community consultation on the Stronger Communities Fund Projects.

2. The community consultation period was 14 December 2016 to 17 February 2017.

3. Council received 7 responses from the community which were all in favour of the Major Project Program.

4. The purpose of this report is to recommend endorsement of the Major Project Program following the outcome of community consultation and to proceed with the work program.

Background

5. The Stronger Communities Fund was established by the NSW Government to provide merged councils with funding for the delivery of projects that improve community infrastructure and services.

6. The program is divided into two categories:

a) Community Grants Program – allocation of $1 million in grants to community organisations for projects that build vibrant local communities. These funds have already been allocated by Council to community organisations and was the subject of a report presented to Council at its meeting held on Monday 7 November 2016.

b) Major Project Program – allocation of $9 million to larger scale priority infrastructure and services that deliver long term economic and social benefits to communities.

7. Council is committed to fund projects that deliver new or improved infrastructure or services to the community that meet the following criteria:

· That have been through a community consultation process;

· That demonstrate a social and/or economic benefit to the community;

· That consideration to issues of sustainability and equity across the broader community have taken place;

· That demonstrate project feasibility and value for money, including full life cycle costs;

· That do not have funds allocated by the former Kogarah or Hurstville Councils;

· That given consideration to the processes and procedures outlined in the capital expenditure review guidelines issued by the Office of Local Government.

8. Council at its meeting held on 5 December 2016 resolved that the following list of projects be placed on public exhibition to allow the community the opportunity to comment and that the Stronger Communities Fund Panel and the Implementation Advisory Committee also be included in that consultation process:

Project name	Major Projects Grant	Start Date	Finish Date	DA required?
Community Amenities Building - Peakhurst Park (Eastern end), Peakhurst	$800,000	August 2017	September 2019	No
Gannons Park Stormwater Harvesting & Irrigation Project, Peakhurst Heights	$1,000,000	August 2017	June 2019	No
Community Amenities Building - Riverwood Park, Riverwood	$800,000	August 2017	September 2018	No
Community Amenities Buildings - Renown Park, Penshurst	$1,200,000	August 2017	September 2018	No
New or upgraded public toilet facilities at Oatley Memorial Gardens – including disabled toilet	$250,000	May 2017	December 2017	No
Community Pavilion Amenities Building - Harold Fraser Oval, Kogarah Bay	$1,100,000	August 2017	September 2018	No
New Public Toilet Facilities - Carss Bush Park, Carss Park	$350,000	May 2017	December 2017	No
Georges River Aquatic Facilities Refurbishment Program	$1,000,000	June 2017	September 2017	No
Sports Amenities Building – Claydon Reserve	$600,000	August 2017	September 2017	No
Customer Service Hubs (Stage 1: Kogarah Library - roof replacement, customer service one-stop-shop and technology upgrade; Stage 2: public Wi-Fi in Kogarah, Beverley Hills and Riverwood Town Centres; Stage 3: Roll-out of Wi-Fi in other town centres)	$1,500,000	April 2017	December 2017	No
Town Centres’ Place-Making and Economic Development Program (Public domain works, job expo, business attraction and investment, activation of centres, retail strategy, footway dining projects, shop-front makeovers and easy-to-do-business program)	$1,100,000	April 2017	June 2019	No
Shade Structure – Carss Cottage Museum Carss Bush Park	$40,000	April 2017	July 2017	No

Table 1: Major Project Allocations form the Stronger Communities Grant – Major Projects Program

9. The community consultation period was 14 December 2016 to 17 February 2017 and included the following avenues: letters to community groups, Stronger Communities Fund Panel and the Implementation Advisory Committee; weekly advertisements in the local newspaper; Council’s website and social media platforms.

10. Seven community responses were received in support of the following projects: New Public Toilet Facilities at Carss Bush Park, the shade structure at Carss Cottage, Community Pavilion Amenities Building - Harold Fraser Oval, as well as letters of overall support for the full list of projects.

11. Of the seven respondents, two raised the matter of the positioning of the proposed new public toilet facilities at Carss Park. The suggestions put forward for a change of location has been considered by Council officers, and the Council-proposed position remains the preferred option.

12. All matters raised within the responses will be further considered during the detailed designs of the projects.

Financial Implications

13. The listed projects will be funded by the $9 million Stronger Communities Grant – Major Projects Program.

14. Additional non-budgeted funds of $740,000 will be funded from Council’s Asset Reserve if needed as the cost estimates are preliminary only at this stage. Detailed designs will occur following Council approval of these major projects.

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 280

Item: CCL031-17 Council Owned and or Managed Facilities Policy - Venue Hire Grant Funding Program

Author: Manager Community and Cultural Development, Scott Andrew

Directorate: Community and Culture

Matter Type: Community and Culture

Recommendation

(a) That the Council Owned and/or Managed Facilities Policy - Venue Hire Grant Funding Program which aims to provide equitable and transparent access to grant funding, attached to this report, be endorsed.

(b) That an ad hoc round of Venue Hire Grant applications be opened following the adoption of the new policy to accommodate any venue hire subsidy requests within the remaining 2016-2017 financial year.

(c) That an extraordinary round of Venue Hire Grant applications be opened following the adoption of the new policy for the 2017-2018 financial year, prior to the commencement of the ordinary round of funding.

(d) That following the determination and notification of the first round applicant approvals of the Venue Hire Grant Funding Program, a consultation session is delivered to obtain applicants’ feedback on the process for future improvements to the policy.

Executive Summary

1. This report is presented to Council to seek endorsement for the Council Owned and/or Managed Facilities Policy - Venue Hire Grant Funding Program to be adopted. This policy will replace the Concessional Rental Policy and the Waiving of Fees for the Use of Council’s Community Halls for Charitable or Non-Profit Community Organisations Policy of the former Councils.

2. Council has reviewed the range of subsidies, waivers, donations and sponsorships allocated under the policies of the former Hurstville and Kogarah Councils. To address the range of contributions made to community groups, Council is working towards a suite of policies that adequately address community need, meet the requirements of Section 356 of the Local Government Act and ensure equity and transparency in the assessment of community requests for subsidies, waivers, donations and sponsorship. Upon review, it was deemed that a critical priority was the development of a policy, the Venue Hire Grant Program, to provide equitable and transparent access to funding for community groups seeking to utilise Council facilities at subsidised rates.

3. The Venue Hire Grant Funding Program is the first in a series of programs planned to be developed under the Council Owned and/or Managed Facilities Policy. Other funding programs (Stage Two) might include:

· Rental subsidies and long term leases

· Use of crown lands and open space

· Sportsground allocations and hire

4. Following implementation of the Council Owned and/or Managed Facilities Policy, further policy development (Stage 3) is planned to implement a Donations and Sponsorship Policy.

5. The Venue Hire Grant Funding Program is designed to provide a subsidy to not-for-profit organisations providing services, activities, events or programs in Council’s venues that deliver benefits to the local community. In determining not-for-profit status, Council officers will be guided by the definitions provided by the Australian Taxation Office and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

6. The Venue Hire Grant Funding Program is designed to be run in conjunction with Council’s Community Grants Program.

7. The Council Owned and/or Managed Facilities Policy has been developed with input from community organisations who have previously hired Council facilities for a discount rate, and Council staff working in the areas of Community Services, Sports and Recreation, Library Services, Entertainment, Property, Events Management and Customer Service.

8. The draft Council Owned and/or Managed Facilities Policy was placed on public exhibition from 14 December 2016 until 8 February 2017, with members of the public invited to make submissions on the draft policy.

9. Three community consultation sessions were held between November 2016 and January 2017 in which members of the public could ask questions, provide feedback and make suggestions about the development of the draft policy.

Background

10. The former Councils both offered discounted and free venue hire arrangements for community groups and not-for-profit organisations utilising Council owned and managed facilities.

11. Former Kogarah Council provided this through its Waiving of Fees for the Use of Council’s Community Halls for Charitable or Non-Profit Community Organisations Policy. This policy permitted permanent hirers to apply for free hire of Council’s venues for up to ten hours per month. Kogarah Council also offered a special rate for community groups hiring its venues through a tiered rate structure in their fees and charges. Community groups were also occasionally granted additional free hire of Council’s venues over and above the allotted ten hours per month on an ad hoc request basis.

12. Former Hurstville Council provided this through its Concessional Rental Policy which permitted any hirer to apply for free or discounted hire of Council’s venues as part of an annual program whilst also allowing ad hoc submissions. Applications were assessed based on their ability to meet selection criteria in the application form. Hurstville Council did not offer a lower hire fee to community groups through their fees and charges; instead they had a single rate of hire per venue.

13. In addition, both Councils determined applications for venue waivers for parks and property leases on an ad hoc basis at their Council meetings.

14. Funding provided by the former Councils was seldom publicised and relied on hirers knowing about the subsidy options provided within Council’s policies. Successful applicants were not generally required to provide public acknowledgment of the financial support they received from Council or to provide proof that the activities taking place in Council’s venues were indeed benefiting the local community.

15. A new process for managing venue hire waiver requests is needed to ensure Council can consistently and strategically allocate subsidies to community organisations that provide significant benefits to the local community through provision of services, activities and events.

16. A grant program for managing these requests will allow better awareness of Council’s financial support whilst improving Council’s ability to judge the merit of requests for funding.

Methodology

17. Development of the Venue Hire Grant Funding Program, Council Owned and/or Managed Facilities Policy and Venue Hire Grant Funding Program Application Form was accomplished by a working group comprising Council staff from Community Services, Entertainment, Property, Libraries, Sports and Recreation, The Office of the General Manager and Events Management.

18. The working group reviewed the former Councils’ policies for managing requests for discounted and free venue hire and reviewed policies and practices by other Councils including Randwick City Council, the City of Sydney, the City of Ryde, Banyule City Council, Port Adelaide Enfield Council and Townsville City Council.

19. The policy and program have been designed to provide an equitable, efficient and transparent way for Council to manage requests for venue hire subsidies. The policy and program recognise the significance of services provided by community groups to the Georges River community and will provide a process for Council to appropriately assess requests for subsidies against a set of criteria. This will ensure strategic management of Council funds, accurate reporting and public recognition of the support Council gives community organisations and not-for-profits.

20. Consultation regarding the development of a grants program and elements of the draft policy was held with internal and external stakeholders.

Staff consultation:

21. An information session for internal stakeholders was held on Monday 14 November 2016 with staff from Customer Service, Property, Entertainment and Community Services in attendance. At this session participants learnt about the reasons for moving to a grants program, discussed the eligibility, ineligibility, funding priorities, grant timeframes and proposed criteria.

22. Participants at this session felt:

· That affordable and available spaces to hold events/activities are very important for community development

· That the proposed criteria were generally good but that seniors should also be considered a priority community.

· That a community services staff member should be on the panel to assess applications.

23. The working group reviewed some areas of concern and suggestions mentioned by staff at the session and made the following revisions to the planned policy:

Concerns and Suggestions	Revision
That the criteria needed to emphasise the importance of meeting the needs of seniors in the community.	Frail-aged have been added as a priority group in Criteria 9.
That a community services staff member should be on the panel to assess applications	The Manager Community & Cultural Development (or representative) has been added as the Chair of the Assessment Panel.
Concern that community groups would find the application process daunting	No change, however Council will run information sessions to help community groups understand the application process and will also offer training in applying for government grants.
A concern that the time taken to complete a grant application would be more effort than the value of hire for one-off events.	Simplification of the Application Form.
A suggestion to develop a communications strategy to advertise the grant program and the grant information sessions.	Develop a communications strategy to cover advertising of the grant program, information session and training.

Community consultation:

24. Two community consultation sessions were held on Tuesday 22 November with former and current hirers of Georges River Councils managed facilities. Invitations were sent out to 170 community organisations with representatives from 36 groups attending.

25. At these sessions participants were informed of the reason for implementing a grants program and asked their thoughts on the sorts of activities council should and should not support under the program.

26. Participants at the community consultation sessions felt:

· That voluntary, not for profit and community service organisations should be prioritised in the Venue Hire Grant program.

· That activities and services such as migrant services, playgroups, seniors, youth, special events, art, poetry, music and culture were important.

· That Council should not support government departments, political activities and private, profit-driven events.

27. Participants were then given three sample applications based on typical requests Council receives for venue hire waivers and asked to assess them against their thoughts on what activities Council should support. Following this, applicants were provided with the proposed eligibility and ineligibility of the Venue Hire Grants program and its draft criteria matrix for assessing submissions. Applicants were asked to re-determine the three applicants using this information and provide feedback.

28. Following this activity there was some support for long-term community groups to receive grant funding and concern that a Venue Hire Grant program may result in some groups not receiving a grant. The continuing existence of each community group was a major concern to many participants at the sessions. There was also discussion around the amount of time it would take to complete a grant application from the community group’s point of view.

29. Many participants expressed a view that the “value for money” of the event or activity was important in making a decision on who to give a grant to and how much to give. The more information available in an application made it easier to make a decision on each application.

30. A further community consultation session was held on Tuesday 31 January 2017. This session was open to the general public and was promoted through Council’s website and social media streams and in association with the public display of the draft policy, made available online and through Council’s customer service centres, libraries and community centres. 26 members of the public representing 20 community groups attended this session.

31. Participants at the community consultation sessions were provided with draft copies of the policy and application form. A summary of feedback already received by Council was provided as a discussion point, and formal feedback was sought regarding concerns affecting community groups in relation to the program.

32. The draft policy was presented to Council’s Community Development and Services Advisory Committee on Monday 13 February 2017 for further comment and feedback. Committee members felt:

· That the terminology regarding “acquittals” may be confusing and misleading if no money is being exchanged, and should be amended to “progress report” or “project update”

· That allowances be made for smaller community groups who have budgeted for the next few years and as such, have not allocated funds for the cost of venue hire

· That the venue hire application process may be off-putting to community members seeking venue hire subsidies due to the complexity of the form and level of detailed information requested

· That the application form be made as user-friendly as possible, using plain English to accommodate community members who may have English as a second language

· That the requirement for public liability insurance be reviewed as many community groups may not be able to afford this

Development of the Policy following consultation and public exhibition

33. The policy was developed to include feedback from consultation sessions and formal submissions following the public exhibition of the draft policy.
Feedback included:

· Titling the policy document to clarify that grants are only for facilities managed by Council, not for all facilities owned by Council (i.e. council facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools that are operated by private companies are not covered).

· Outlining that government agencies and commercial organisations are ineligible to apply.

· Outlining that events/activities for political purposes such as party meetings, party fundraising or lobbying are ineligible.

· Outlining that seasonal park bookings for sporting associations and clubs are ineligible.

· Outlining that exclusive use of council facilities is ineligible.

· Ensuring the policy contains a contingency for dealing with urgent submissions.

· Clarified expectations of the “Social and Community Benefits” criterion.

· Weighting the “Social and Community Benefits” criterion with twice the value of the other criteria to reflect the importance of this criterion, and placing this as the first criterion in the list.

· Amending the criteria matrix to include an area to discuss longevity of an organisation by recognising established needs in Criteria 10.

· Creating a scale to determine the level of funding applicants might expect to receive based on their rating against the criteria.

· Ensuring that the selection criteria scoring matrix is not so rigorous that it precludes most organisations from being eligible for full or near-full funding, by increasing the scoring range within each category.

· Ensuring that the selection criteria scoring matrix does not favour larger, established organisations over smaller groups whose area of activity may be focussed on one specific need within the community, rather than a wide range of social benefits that only larger NGOs may be able to offer.

· A single round of funding was preferable to a 2-round model, with a small amount of funds (approximately 15-20%) being held in reserve for any new groups or urgent cases to be treated as ad hoc.

· More information around completing risk assessments and grant acquittals, and that templates would be most helpful for these items to save valuable time.

· Some terminology in the draft policy and application form needed clarification, for example the term ‘community development’ and the term ‘subsidised fees’.

· Recognising that not all not-for-profit groups have an ABN and that it would be helpful if this could be eliminated as a requirement of the grant program and instead was an optional field.

· Recognising that not all not-for-profit groups have, or can afford, Public Liability Insurance, and that it would be helpful if Council could extend its own coverage (for a nominal fee) to community groups.

· Providing information on how to lodge a complaint or grievance if a group felt they were unfairly assessed in the grants process

Policy approval and implementation

34. Once the policy has been endorsed and adopted by Council, an information session for community organisations on the grants program will be held to assist applicants in preparing their applications.

35. Council will also provide free training in applying for government grants to members of the community wishing to apply for the grant. Initial grants training sessions have been booked for staff and for the general public in April 2017.

36. Ad hoc applications will be accepted immediately following the adoption of the new policy for any events falling within the current 2016-2017 financial year. Grants will be allocated from available remaining funds within the 2016-2017 budget.

37. An extraordinary round of Venue Hire Grant applications will be opened immediately following the adoption of the new policy, prior to the commencement of the ordinary round of funding. The extraordinary funding round would replace the ordinary funding round for the 2017-2018 financial year only, as the timeline falls outside the proposed ordinary funding round.

38. Ad hoc applications will be accepted throughout the 2017-2018 financial year in order to accommodate the needs of new groups transitioning from the former Councils’ practices to the new grants process.

39. It is anticipated that the ordinary round of grants funding will commence in January 2018 for the 2018-2019 financial year and follow the ordinary funding round timetable as outlined in the policy.

Financial Implications

40. Ad hoc applications for the 2016-2017 financial year will be sourced from the 2016-2017 operational budget. There is presently $28,251.35 remaining in the 2016-2017 Hurstville Concessional Rental operational budget to allocate to activities taking place until 30 June 2017. There is no budget allocated for former Kogarah venues as these subsidies were not accounted for within the Kogarah budget.

41. Budget allocation for the 2017-2018 financial year will be determined in the budget review process. It is anticipated that the full amount of budgeted funds will be allocated to ad hoc applications in the 2017-2018 financial year, whereas in following years, up to 20% will be allocated to ad hoc applications, with the remaining funds allocated to the normal funding round.

42. A budget of $10,000 has been allocated to enable promotion of the policy and provide community training in grant writing. These funds will be allocated from savings found within the current budget.

File Reference

16/1699

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment View1

Council Owned and or Managed Facilities Policy Venue Hire Grant Funding Program

Georges River Council – Ordinary Meeting - Monday, 6 March 2017 Page 299

Item: CCL032-17 Library Services Integrated Library Management System -Tender T16-029

Author: Manager Library Services, Wilma Bancroft

Directorate: Community and Culture

Matter Type: Community and Culture

Recommendation

(a) That the report be received and noted.

(b) That the separate report on this agenda relating to Tender for the Library Service Integrated Library Management System be considered in closed session, in accordance with the provision of Part 1 of Chapter 4 of the Local Government Act 1993, Section 10A (2) (c) as it is considered the information, if disclosed, confers a commercial advantage on a person with whom the Council is conducting (or proposes to conduct) business.

Executive Summary

1. This report is presented to Council to select a preferred supplier for the implementation of the Integrated Library Management System and the migration of existing data from the former Kogarah and Hurstville library networks.

Background

2. At the time of amalgamation the former Hurstville and former Kogarah library services had separate Integrated Library Management Systems (ILMS).

3. As part of the Georges River Council 2016/2017 Operational Plan a review of current Library Management Systems determined that a single system was required to harmonise Georges River Council Libraries.

4. On 2 November 2016 the Executive team resolved to advertise an open tender for an Integrated Library Management System (ILMS) to harmonise the core functions of Georges River Libraries.

5. Accordingly, tender documentation was prepared and tenders were called in accordance with the Local Government Act 1993 for the implementation of the Integrated Library Management System and the migration of existing data from the former Kogarah and Hurstville library networks.

6. The open tender commenced on 6 December 2016 and closed on 17 January 2017. Submissions were received from four suppliers:

a. AIT – Aurora Information Technology

b. Civica

c. Insight Informatics

d. SirsiDynix

7. The evaluation panel was formed comprising of:

a. Manager Library Services

b. Project Leader Transformation & Change

c. Library Coordinator Customer Service and Outreach

d. Coordinator Procurement

e. IMT Operations Officer

f. Coordinator Library and Community Information Services (Bayside Council)

g. Information Services Librarian (Randwick Council)

8. Submissions were evaluated according to a range of agreed criteria and to an objective scale as outlined in the closed report to Council.

Financial Implications

9. Total cost over five (5) years is $360,475. This cost will be offset by the New Council Implementation Funds (NCIF) Grant of $128,500. The remainder is covered within operational budget commencing Year 2 until Year 5 inclusive.

10. The cost of the preferred Integrated Library Management System over five years represents a projected saving of $104,525 compared with what the library was previously spending on the two separate systems.