27 january 2016 council meeting agenda without confidential · considerations and implications of...

Council Meeting Agenda

Agenda Paper

for the

Ordinary Meeting of Council

To be held at the Council Chambers, Civic Centre, Boxshall Street Brighton

on

Wednesday, 27 January, 2016 at 7:00pm

Mayor: Cr James Long BM JP Councillors: Cr Alex del Porto

Cr Bruce Lowe Cr Laurence Evans Cr Heather Stewart Cr Michael Heffernan Cr Felicity Frederico

Bayside City Council Ordinary Council Meeting - 27 January 2016

of 106

Members of the Gallery Your attention is drawn to Section 92 of Council’s Governance Local Law No 1. Section 92 The Chair’s Duties and Discretions In addition to other duties and discretions provided in this Local Law, the Chair – (a) must not accept any motion, question or statement which is derogatory, or

defamatory of any Councillor, member of Council staff, or member of the community. (b) may demand retraction of any inappropriate statement or unsubstantiated allegation; (c) must ensure silence is preserved in the public gallery during any meeting (d) must call to order any member of the public who approaches the Council or

Committee table during the meeting, unless invited by the Chair to do so; and (e) must call to order any person who is disruptive or unruly during any meeting. An Authorised Officer must, if directed to do so by the Chairman, remove from a meeting any Councillor or other person who has committed such an offence. Your cooperation is appreciated Chairperson of Council


of 106

Order of Business

1. Prayer

2. Acknowledgement of Original Inhabitants

3. Apologies

4. Disclosure of any Conflict of Interest of any Councillor

5. Adoption and Confirmation of the minutes of previous meeting

6. Public Question Time

7. Petitions to Council

Nil

8. Minutes of Advisory Committees

8.1 Assembly of Councillors Record ........... Error! Bookmark not defined.

9. Reports by Special Committees

Nil

10. Reports by the Organisation

10.1 Grace Heart Community Church occupancy of Highett Guide Hall, Lyle Anderson Reserve ................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

10.2 Proposed Beaumaris Sports Club at Banksia reserve update no 13 ......................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

10.3 Basterfield Park Tennis Club Loan GuaranteeError! Bookmark not defined.

10.4 Brighton Cricket Club Loan Guarantee . Error! Bookmark not defined.

10.5 Use of Herbicide in Bayside ................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

10.6 Highett CSIRO Site Sale Process UpdateError! Bookmark not defined.

10.7 2015/16 Budget - Variation to BorrowingError! Bookmark not defined.

10.8 Investment Policy ................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.

10.9 November 2015 Financial Report ......... Error! Bookmark not defined.

10.10 VCAT Decisions ................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

10.11 Council Action Awaiting Report ............ Error! Bookmark not defined.

11. Reports by Delegates

Nil


of 106

12. Urgent Business

13. Notices of Motion

13.1 Notice of Motion - 242 - Children's Sensory GardenError! Bookmark not defined.

13.2 Notice of Motion - 243 - Highett Road Level Crossing RemovalError! Bookmark not defined.

14. Confidential Business

14.1 Confidential Attachments: Highett CSIRO Site Sale Process Update .................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.


of 106

1. Prayer

O God Bless this City, Bayside, Give us courage, strength and wisdom, So that our deliberations, May be for the good of all, Amen

2. Acknowledgement of Original Inhabitants

We acknowledge that the original inhabitants of this land that we call Bayside were the Boon wurrung people of the Kulin nation. They loved this land, they cared for it and considered themselves to be part of it. We acknowledge that we have a responsibility to nurture the land, and sustain it for future generations.

3. Apologies

4. Disclosure of any Conflict of Interest of any Co uncillor

5. Adoption and Confirmation of the minutes of prev ious meeting

5.1 Confirmation of the Minutes of the Special meeting of Bayside City Council held on 14 December 2015.

5.2 Confirmation of the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of Bayside City Council held on 15 December 2015.

6. Public Question Time

7. Petitions to Council

Nil


Item 8.1 – Minutes of Advisory Committees of 106

8. Minutes of Advisory Committees

8.1 ASSEMBLY OF COUNCILLORS RECORD

Corporate Services - Governance & Performance Reporting File No: PSF/15/8758 – Doc No: DOC/16/3339

Executive summary

Purpose and background

To formally report to Council on the Assembly of Councillors records in accordance with the Local Government Act 1989.

Key issues

This report fulfils the requirements of reporting an assembly of Councillors to the next practical Ordinary Meeting of the Council in accordance with the Local Government and Planning Legislation Amendment Act 2010.

Recommendation

That Council notes the Assembly of Councillor records submitted as required by the Local Government Act.

Date Name

14 December 2015 Beaumaris Secondary College – Community Sports Club Access

16 December 2015 Access to Council’s Sports Grounds

Support Attachments

1. 14 December 2015 Beaumaris Secondary College - Community Sports Club Access 2. 16 December 2015 Access to Council's Sports Grounds



Considerations and implications of recommendation

Liveable community

Social There are no social implications associated with this report.

Natural Environment There are no environmental impacts associated with this report.

Built Environment There are no environmental impacts associated with this report.

Customer Service and Community Engagement

There are no Customer Service and Community Engagement impacts associated with this report.

Human Rights

There are no human rights implications associated with this report.

Legal

There are no legal implications associated with this report.

Finance

There are no financial implications associated with this report.

Links to Council policy and strategy

There are no policy implications associated with this report.

Bayside City Council Ordinary Council Meeting - 27 January 2016Attachment 1



of 106

9. Reports by Special Committees

Nil


Item 10.1 – Reports by the Organisation of 106

10. Reports by the Organisation

10.1 GRACE HEART COMMUNITY CHURCH OCCUPANCY OF HIGH ETT GUIDE HALL, LYLE ANDERSON RESERVE

Corporate Services - Commercial Services File No: PSF/15/8762 – Doc No: DOC/15/222447

Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to decide the approach to the surrender of the Highett Guide Hall in Lyle Anderson Reserve. In 1985 Council entered a lease with the Girl Guides Association of Victoria (Guides) to use the Highett Guide Hall (Premises) for Guiding purposes for a term of 9 years at a rental of $2p.a. Since 1994 Council has unsuccessfully sought to enter a new lease with the guides.

In April 2014 the Guides advised Council that it no longer required the Premises as it had not been used for Guides purposes since 1994. In 2009 the Guide District Manager provided a letter to the Grace Heart Community Church (Church) to use the Premises as long as needed to undertake outreach work in the local community. No approval was sought or obtained from Council as required to enter such arrangement. The Lyle Anderson Reserve is identified as needing significant upgrade and is in an area with an undersupply of community open space.

Key issues

The Guides are in breach of its lease with Council by providing an informal sublease without consent. On surrender of the lease the Guides are required to provide vacant possession or demolish the building and make good the land. The Guides have proposed surrender of the lease to Council and have requested Council takes on the current tenant. The informal nature of the arrangement in place and limited oversight by Guides has created issues with the ownership of improvements that make surrendering the lease more complicated for the Guides.

The Church is a non denominational Christian Church and a not for profit registered charity. The Church reports that it works with government and non-government agencies to assist the disadvantaged. The Premises is used throughout the week for community support related activities including counselling, youth programs, advocacy, community lunches and food bank along with Church related activities.

The Church advised it has spent approximately $50,000 along with significant inkind support to maintain the building. This has included installation of a kitchen, electrical upgrades, treatment of termite damage and repairs to the roof. The Church has requested the building be transferred to its ownership and that it take on a land only lease from Council. It has advised that the location near social housing is critical to delivery of its services.

The building sits on public open space which would not normally be used for the delivery of social support services. Whilst the Church appears to provide valuable services to the nearby community this location is not considered appropriate for such use.

Should Council resolve to provide continued occupancy of the site by the Church this should be facilitated through a land only lease and clearly on the basis that the maintenance and renewal of the building is sole responsibility of the Church.



Recommendation

That Council:

1. gives written notice to the Guides to surrender the lease at Lyle Anderson Reserve and deliver vacant possession of the Premises by no later than 30 June 2016; and

2. works with the Grace Heart Community Church to assist to find suitable alternative accommodation.

Support Attachments

Nil




Liveable community

Social The Church provides a wide range of social support services and an alternative site would need to be found to ensure these services continue.

The return of accessible open space would have social benefits for the local community.

Natural Environment Should the Guides demolish the building and make good the site additional open space will be provided.

Built Environment Vacant possession provides Council time to assess the future of the building in accordance with the quantum of potential works required. An external audit identifies the condition as fair.


Council has had ongoing discussion with the Guides since 1994 in relation to the lease at the site. Council officers have had many discussions with the Church during 2015. Enforcing the lease could result in local community angst and negative feedback in relation to Council decision making. Council has received several letters of support for the Church.

Human Rights

Not applicable to this report.

Legal

The Guides are in breach of their lease through an informal subtenant arrangement. The Guides will need to evict the Church to meet the terms of its lease. The Church has advised it may seek compensation from the Guides for breach of the agreement.

One month written notice to Guides is required to terminate the lease.

Finance

Currently no income or expenditure is made against the Premises. A full condition audit of the building would be required to quantify current and future maintenance and renewal costs, however it is not proposed Council assume any such responsibility. A community lease would generate $303 pa plus 5% annual increases.


The report is presented in line with managing Council’s Leasing Policy 2008. A key principle is to provide an equitable and transparent process for dealing with Council’s leased and licensed assets.



Options considered

Option 1 Council provides a land only lease to the Church on surrender by Guides

Summary The Church is seeking a continuation of the arrangement with the Guides where they own the building and lease the land. This would require negotiation between all parties to transfer ownership of the building and strike a new lease with the Church.

Benefits Lease in place, with clarity of maintenance and renewal of the facility.

Clarity of ownership of improvements through legal agreement.

Church continues to operate as it has.

Guides do not have to return Premises with vacant possession and resolves any legal issue of improvements between the Church and Guides.

Issues May create a precedent should other tenants breach lease agreements in the future by subletting without Council consent.

Council has limited control over the facility and land into the future.

Any future changes in direction of the Church that reduce the community benefit may be difficult to address if Church owns the building asset, therefore such terms would be reliant on the lease over land provisions.

Limits capacity to address open space issues and may limit future upgrades to Lyle Anderson Reserve.

The building is not currently a Council asset. In accordance with the Leasing Policy an open and transparent expression of interest process would normally be undertaken to determine potential community uses. This option removes a broader expression of interest process.

Option 2 Council enters a standard community lease with Church on surrender by Guides

Summary Council gives notice to the Guides to surrender the lease and the building is transferred to Council. A new lease is negotiated with the Church to occupy the building.

Benefits The Church continues to provide outreach to the local community from this location.

Legal lease is in place which is clear on responsibilities and enforceable.

Income from community rental of $303 pa. plus 5% annual increases.

Issues May create a precedent should other tenants breach lease agreements in the future by subletting without Council consent.

Requires a service agreement in place to ensure the Church continues to provide outreach services, particularly into the future if leadership or focus of Church changes.



Ownership of improvements must be sorted out with the Guides and the Church or this will be an ongoing issue.

Requires a maintenance agreement in place which retains the responsibility for all maintenance with the Church otherwise additional costs to Council will occur.

The full condition of the property has not been assessed so it is not completely clear what Council may be taking over should Council be responsible for any maintenance costs in the future.

A lease may limit consideration on open space and future upgrades to Lyle Anderson Reserve.

The building is not currently a Council asset. In accordance with the Leasing Policy an open and transparent expression of interest process would normally be undertaken to determine potential community uses. This option removes a broader expression of interest process



10.2 PROPOSED BEAUMARIS SPORTS CLUB AT BANKSIA RESE RVE UPDATE NO 13

Corporate Services - Recreation, Events & Community Partnerships File No: PSF/15/8751 – Doc No: DOC/15/221811

Executive summary


The Beaumaris Sports Club Pavilion Project (the Project) aims to bring together three clubs; football, cricket and tennis into a single pavilion facility at Banksia Reserve. The Project has been initiated by the clubs and Council has taken a leadership role in partnership with the Beaumaris Sports Club (BSC) to deliver the Project.

This report provides Council with an update on the Beaumaris Sports Club pavilion project including confirmation of an initial BSC contribution, Council’s formal approval of a loan guarantee to BSC and the town planning permit amendment process.

Key issues

Beaumaris Sports Club Contribution

At its meeting of 25 August 2015, Council resolved that it ‘notifies Beaumaris Sports Club that it is required to transfer $150,000 in cash to Council before the 30 December 2015’. At the time of writing this report Council had not yet received payment of this initial BSC contribution.

Council has confirmed in writing to BSC that all cash contributions provided by BSC will be held in a restricted reserve for project construction costs and will be returned to BSC in the event that project construction does not proceed.

Town Planning Amendment

Project designs were revised to ensure compliance with the planning permit and inclusion of all components such as landscaping, car parking and the Disability Discrimination Act and Building Code requirements. Following design changes in response to these regulatory requirements and site constraints, Council’s Statutory Planning Department advised that an amendment to the permit was required.

An amendment was lodged and reported to the Planning and Amenity Committee Meeting in December 2015. Council resolved to approve the amendment to the permit and a Notice of Decision was issued on 7 December 2015. Council was advised by VCAT on 11 January 2016 that no appeals were received and subsequently issued an amended permit on 12 January 2016.

Loan Guarantee

Council has approved in-principle to act as loan guarantor for an amount of $700,000. This in-principle support is contingent on total building costs not exceeding $5 million.

Prior to awarding a contract Council will need to formally approve the loan guarantee. Council’s Loan Guarantee Policy requires a minimum Club contribution of 20% of total project construction costs. The agreed funding model details the BSC’s total Club



contribution of $845k (excluding external grants) or approximately 17% of the expected project construction costs. A total project construction cost exceeding $5 million will further reduce this total Club contribution percentage.

At the time of drafting this report, Beaumaris Sports Club had not provided evidence from Bendigo Bank of a Loan Forgiveness for an additional $300,000 loan (not guaranteed by Council) submitted as part of a revised funding model. BSC advised on 11 January 2015 that they have entered into a formal process with Bendigo Bank to obtain this loan forgiveness and expect to reach agreement in a matter of days. The outcome of this process will be confirmed prior to Council providing formal approval of a Loan Guarantee.

Detailed Design and Project Costs

There remains some risk concerning the costs of the current design and while Council has worked with representatives of BSC to reduce these costs, the inclusion of funding partner requirements and meeting DDA, Town Planning and Building Code conditions has resulted in a Quantity Survey cost estimate in excess of the proposed $5 million total project budget.

It is recommended that Council prepares a list of construction project items that can be omitted or negotiated with tenderers to ensure total project costs do not exceed $5 million. The outcome of this cost management exercise will be detailed in a report to be presented to Council following the tender process.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. progresses to the tender phase of the Beaumaris Sports Club pavilion project;

2. notifies Beaumaris Sports Club that it is required to transfer $62,360 held by the Australian Sports Foundation to Council following the issue of a Building Permit;

3. holds this $62,360 and other Beaumaris Sports Club contributions in a restricted reserve for project construction costs, to be returned to the Beaumaris Sports Club in the event that project construction does not proceed;

4. considers formal approval of Council’s Loan Guarantee prior to the awarding of a construction contract for the Beaumaris Sports Club pavilion project, subject to the total project costs not exceeding $5 million and confirmation of Bendigo Bank loan forgiveness;

5. notifies the Beaumaris Sports Club that maximum total project costs of $5 million will be allocated for the construction of the Beaumaris Sports Club; and

6. prepares a list of construction project items for omission or negotiation with tenderers to ensure the total project costs do not exceed $5 million.

Support Attachments

Nil




Liveable community

Social The Beaumaris Sports Club will provide positive benefits for young people and adults through their participation and engagement in sport and recreation activities at Banksia Reserve.

Natural Environment Council is committed to effective partnerships in order to achieve positive environmental outcomes through environmentally sustainable design principles, which have been incorporated within the design development process.

Built Environment The BSC pavilion final design is fully accessible and includes a number of design elements befitting such a high profile facility.


Discussions and meetings are continuing with BSC representatives regarding fundraising, project costs and design planning.

Further community consultation has been undertaken as part of the Town Planning Permit amendment process.

Human Rights

All building and landscaping design elements comply with the Disability Discrimination Act ensuring that the Beaumaris Sports Club and surrounds will be accessible to all people regardless of their ability.

Legal

Council has signed a funding agreement with Sport and Recreation Victoria to deliver the Project. The BSC has agreements in place with AFL Victoria, Cricket Australia, Cricket Victoria and Tennis Victoria and equipment/product suppliers for funding and equipment contributions.

Finance

BSC have been unable to provide evidence of a formal commitment from Bendigo Bank regarding the ‘loan forgiveness’ included within the Beaumaris Sports Club’s business model.


Improvement to sport and recreation facilities is supported by a number of key strategy and policy documents including the Council Plan 2013-2017, Bayside 2020 Community Plan, Open Space Strategy 2012, Recreation Strategy 2013, Sportsground Pavilion Improvement Plan 2013 and Wellbeing for All Ages and Abilities Strategy 2013 - 2017.



10.3 BASTERFIELD PARK TENNIS CLUB LOAN GUARANTEE

Corporate Services - Finance File No: PSF/15/8759 – Doc No: DOC/16/227

Executive summary


For Council to consider a request from the Basterfield Park Tennis Club Inc for Council to act as guarantee for a loan up to $40,000 for a period of 4 years.

The Basterfield Park Tennis Club is converting three porous tennis courts at Basterfield Park in Hampton East to synthetic grass and upgrading the perimeter fencing as part of its court renewal program.

Basterfield Park Tennis Club has six courts. The three hard courts were updated in 2009 and the conversion of the remaining three porous courts to synthetic grass will complete the renewal program. The conversion of these courts to synthetic grass will reduce future maintenance costs and water usage, as well as provide a more attractive playing surface for recruiting and retaining players.

Key issues

Assessment of the application against the loan guarantee policy criteria

Policy Criteria Assessment

i) Where it is demonstrated that the project will provide essential services or a clear benefit to the community.

� The Club has over 135 members.

ii) The Applicant will provide a minimum of 20% of the capital cost of the project excluding government grants and other external funding.

� The total cost of the project is $98,260. The club is contributing 39% of funding for the project with a $38,260 cash contribution, has secured a grant from Bayside City Council of $20,000 and is seeking a loan guaranteed from Council of $40,000.

iii) The guarantee term is within the Council agreed benchmark terms (Refer Loan Guarantee Policy).

� The loan term is 4 years which is within the maximum allowable term for loans < $50,000

iv) The Applicant has completed and agreed to all items in the Loan Guarantee Compliance Statement.

� Compliance statement has been signed as part of the application

v) Borrowings are only to be used for the construction and/or acquisition of capital assets on Council owned or controlled land that will be vested in and ultimately controlled by Council.

� The asset is to be constructed on Council Land and will be owned by Council

vi) The Applicant is a “not for profit” organisation and has an incorporated status.

� Confirmed

vii) The life of the asset exceeds the life of the loan guarantee

� Expected useful life of the asset is 25 years and exceeds



the life of the 4 year loan term

viii) The term of the loan shall not exceed the term of the existing lease agreement. The lease agreement refers to the agreement between Council as landlord and the community organisation.

• Current lease expires 30 June 2020. A new lease will be negotiated 12 months prior to the expiry of the current agreement.

ix) The loan must not include a redraw facility

• To be a condition of the loan agreement on execution of documents

Subject to confirming that the final loan agreement conditions exclude a redraw facility and the renewal of the lease which expires in 2020 the application meets the policy criteria.

All applicable documentation has been received including copies of quotes for works to be completed, the last two year’s financial statements, financial model covering the 4 year loan period, and a signed loan guarantee compliance statement.

Assessment of the business model by the evaluation review panel

In accordance with Council’s loan guarantee application procedure a review panel consisting of the Director Corporate Services, Director Community Services and Manager Finance have conducted a review of the application based on the evaluation criteria including the capacity of the organisation to repay the loan. As part of the evaluation, the panel reviewed the 5 year financial model prepared by A W Osborne & Associates Public Accountants on behalf of the Basterfield Park Tennis Club.

The Evaluation panel has concluded that the information received including last two year financial statements as well as the 5 year business model covering the term of the loan supports the club’s view that they are in a strong financial position and will be able to service the loan over the 4 year period from the annual financial surplus generated by the club.

Recommendation

That Council

1. acts as loan guarantor for the Basterfield Park Tennis Club Inc for $40,000 for a maximum of 4 years to assist with the funding of the court replacement project; and

2. authorises the necessary loan guarantee documentation being signed and affixed with the Bayside City Council common seal.

Support Attachments

Nil




Liveable community

Social The endorsement of this loan guarantee by Council, in support of Basterfield Park Tennis Clubs proposal to fund part of the project from a loan guaranteed by Council will have positive benefits for the community.

Natural Environment The conversion of the current porous courts to synthetic grass will reduce the Club’s reliance on potable water.

Built Environment The conversion of these en-tout-cas courts to a more durable synthetic surface will reduce ongoing maintenance issues and provide a longer lasting playing surface.


Club representatives, Tennis Victoria facility development staff and key internal stakeholders have been consulted during the planning of these works.

Human Rights

A synthetic playing surface provides greater access to all members of the community regardless of their age or ability.

Legal

The loan guarantee documentation requires Council’s Common Seal. This requires a specific resolution of Council.

Finance

Council’s Loan Guarantee Policy requires Council’s loan guarantee commitments to be in the order of 1.5% of the annual revenue of rates and charges. Loan guarantees are measured on the basis of the outstanding balance of loans guaranteed by Council. The threshold based on the 2015/16 rates and charges budget is $1,235,000. The balance of approved outstanding loan guarantees at 30 June 2015 is $211,748. A loan guarantee for the Beaumaris Sports Club of $700,000 has also been approved but has not yet been drawn. Council has the capacity to approve additional loan guarantees of $324,000 before reaching the threshold. Therefore this request from the Basterfiled Park Tennis Club can be accommodated within the Council Policy Limit.


The loan guarantee application has been considered in accordance with Council’s Loan Guarantee Policy and Loan Guarantee Application Procedure.



10.4 BRIGHTON CRICKET CLUB LOAN GUARANTEE


Executive summary


For Council to consider a request from the Brighton Cricket Club Inc. for Council to act as guarantee for a loan up to $37,500 for a period of 7 years.

The Brighton Cricket Club is installing turf practice wickets at a total cost of $111,500. These practice wickets were not replaced when Bayside City Council re-laid the south oval in 2014/15. The old turf practice wickets which were unable to be maintained during the drought years had fallen into disrepair were not replaced. The current practice facilities consist of four hard wickets built by the club a number of years ago.

The Brighton Cricket Club (BCC) was formed in 1842 and is located at the bottom end of South Road Brighton. The facilities are co-tenanted with both junior and senior football clubs over winter and the Brighton Beach Bowls Club (separate facilities). BCC has four senior teams in the Victorian Sub-District Cricket Associa tion (turf wicket competition). With the four senior teams playing on turf wickets the club requires turf practice wickets. The creation of the girls under 13 team will also place considerable pressure on the capacity of the current hard wicket nets.

Key issues

Assessment of the application against the loan guarantee policy criteria

Policy Criteria Assessment

i) Where it is demonstrated that the project will provide essential services or a clear benefit to the community.

� BCC has four senior teams in the VSDCA (turf wicket competition), fifteen junior teams in SECA, a number of participants between the ages of 6 and 10, and will next season field a girls under 13 side in local competition.

ii) The Applicant will provide a minimum of 20% of the capital cost of the project excluding government grants and other external funding.

� The total cost of the project is $111,500. The club is contributing 36% of funding for the project with a $40,000 cash contribution, has secured grants from Cricket Australia and Cricket Victoria totalling $34,000 and is seeking a loan guaranteed from Council of $37,500.

iii) The guarantee term is within the Council agreed benchmark terms (Refer Loan Guarantee Policy).

� The loan term is 7 years. While the loan term is 2 years greater than the benchmark set by Council for loans < $50,000, the risk is considered low.



iv) The Applicant has completed and agreed to all items in the Loan Guarantee Compliance Statement.

� Compliance statement has been signed as part of the application

v) Borrowings are only to be used for the construction and/or acquisition of capital assets on Council owned or controlled land that will be vested in and ultimately controlled by Council.

� The asset is to be constructed on Council Land and will be owned by Council

vi) The Applicant is a “not for profit” organisation and has an incorporated status.

� Confirmed

vii) The life of the asset exceeds the life of the loan guarantee

� Expected useful life of the asset is 25 years and exceeds the life of the 7 year loan term

viii) The term of the loan shall not exceed the term of the existing lease agreement. The lease agreement refers to the agreement between Council as landlord and the community organisation.

Seasonally allocated under Council’s Sportsground Allocation Policy. The Club has been the summer tenant of Brighton Beach Oval since 1887.

ix) The loan must not include a redraw facility

• To be a condition of the loan agreement on execution of documents

Subject to confirming that the final loan agreement conditions exclude a redraw facility the application meets the policy criteria.

All applicable documentation has been received including copies of quotes for works to be completed, the last two year’s financial statements, a 7 year financial model covering the loan period, and a signed loan guarantee compliance statement.

Assessment of the business model by the evaluation review panel

In accordance with Council’s loan guarantee application procedure a review panel consisting of the Director Corporate Services, Director Community Services and Manager Finance have conducted a review of the application based on the evaluation criteria.

The Evaluation panel has concluded that the information received including last two year financial statements as well as the 7 year business model covering the term of the loan supports the club’s view that they are in a strong financial position and will be able to service the loan over the 7 year period from the annual financial surplus generated by the club.

Recommendation

That Council

1. acts as loan guarantor for the Brighton Cricket Club Inc for $37,500 for a maximum of 7 years to assist with the funding of the turf practice wicket project; and

2. authorises the necessary loan guarantee documentation being signed and affixed with the Bayside City Council common seal.

Support Attachments

Nil




Liveable community

Social The endorsement of this loan guarantee by Council, in support of Brighton Cricket Clubs proposal to fund part of the project from a loan guaranteed by Council will have positive benefits for the community.

Natural Environment Not applicable to this report.

Built Environment The design and location of the new nets will complement the existing synthetic practice net structure, further enhancing the built cricket facilities at the Brighton Beach Oval site


Club representatives, Cricket Victoria facility development staff and key internal stakeholders have been consulted during the planning of these works.

Human Rights

The turf practice facilities will be offered for use to other Bayside Clubs thus providing greater community access to cricket training facilities

Legal

The loan guarantee documentation requires Council’s Common Seal. This requires a specific resolution of Council.

Finance

Council’s Loan Guarantee Policy requires Council’s loan guarantee commitments to be in the order of 1.5% of the annual revenue of rates and charges. Loan guarantees are measured on the basis of the outstanding balance of loans guaranteed by Council. The threshold based on the 2015/16 rates and charges budget is $1,235,000. The balance of approved outstanding loan guarantees at 30 June 2015 is $211,748. A loan guarantee for the Beaumaris Sports Club of $700,000 has also been approved but has not yet been drawn. Council has the capacity to approve additional loan guarantees of $324,000 before reaching the threshold. Therefore this request from the Brighton Cricket Club can be accommodated within the Council Policy Limit.


The loan guarantee application has been considered in accordance with Council’s Loan Guarantee Policy and Loan Guarantee Application Procedure.

Bayside City Council Ordinary Cou ncil Meeting - 27 January 2016


10.5 USE OF HERBICIDE IN BAYSIDE

Environment and Infrastructure - Environmental Sustainability & Open Space File No: PSF/15/8761 – Doc No: DOC/16/916

Executive summary


To update Council on the use of herbicide in Bayside following trials of alternate weed control methods. Herbicide, in particular Glyphosate (Roundup) is used worldwide for the control of weeds in municipal situations such as public parks, kerb and channel and car parks. It is freely available and used extensively in home gardens and the agriculture industry to control weeds in crops. There is significant literature available discussing risks to humans from ingestion of crops sprayed with glyphosate. However, there is limited information discussing risks to humans from the application of Glyphosate in a municipal or home garden context. Council’s existing Open Space and Infrastructure Services contracts permit the use of herbicide for the control of weeds throughout Bayside. Glyphosate is currently used in the following applications (consistent with Option 1 – Status Quo):

• edges and pathways; • garden beds; • playgrounds; • sportsground reconstruction; • bushlands; • foreshore; and • kerb and channel. Weed control using glyphosate is cost effective and was introduced to reduce labour costs and minimise manual handling injuries that result from manual weed removal. The costs for weed control would be significantly higher without the use of herbicides such as glyphosate. Glyphosate kills weeds and prevents regrowth in a single targeted application delivered from a vehicle via pressurised pump or employee carrying a backpack or hand held sprayer. Glyphosate is a registered product approved for use by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) for the purpose of weed control. It is applied by Council’s service providers in an approved manner in accordance with the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and relevant statutory requirements by appropriately trained and supervised staff. A risk assessment regarding its use has been completed. In response to a petition received by Council on 28 January 2014, Council trialled steam and Pine Oil for weed control with various success (refer to Attachment 1 for a summary and analysis of alternative weed control methods). Where access allows, steam has proven to be an effective control but costs significantly more than the use of glyphosate. Pine Oil has proved to be ineffective for weed control and also costs significantly more than glyphosate. Glyphosate remains the most effective and cost efficient method of weed control.



Key issues

Council Resolution

Council at its 16 December 2014 meeting resolved:

That Council:

1. investigates the costs required to implement steam as a weed control method to all Council maintained playgrounds, kindergartens and kerb and channel and refers these costs to the 2015/16 new initiatives budget for consideration;

2. continues to control weeds in approved methods while seeking to reduce reliance on herbicide as a means of weed control; and

3. advises the lead petitioner of the outcomes of this report.

Budget A New Initiative bid for $135,000 per annum to control weeds by steam will be presented for Council consideration as part of the 2016/17 budget process. This bid is to control weeds by steam in all Council maintained playgrounds, kindergartens and the Sandringham Athletics Track. It is intended that the application of glyphosate will be continued for use in all other situations (consistent with Option 2 – Recommended Option).

Previous investigation into the broad use of steam (in accessible areas) has identified that an additional budget allocation of approximately $650,000 would be required if this were implemented. This sum is inclusive of a $300,000 saving from Council’s existing kerb and channel spraying contract. To continue to implement current weed control methods does not have any impact to established service budgets.

World Health Organisation – Assessment of Human Health Risk

On 20 March 2015, the World Health Organisation (WHO) published an evaluation of formulations that contain glyphosate, such as ‘Roundup’. The WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has assessed these formulations as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’.

The APVMA has updated its website to advise that ‘in collaboration with the Office of Chemical Safety in the Department of Health, APVMA is examining the findings published by IARC on 29 July 2015 to determine whether any regulatory action is necessary, including whether glyphosate should be formally reviewed’. This review is currently being conducted and is expected to be completed by 30 June 2016.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. continues to control weeds using approved methods while seeking to reduce reliance on herbicide as a means of weed control;

2. consider a New Initiatives bid for $135,000 to use steam as a weed control method at Council maintained playgrounds, kindergartens and Sandringham Athletics Track as part of the 2016/17 budget process;

3. reviews the findings (when available) of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority examination of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s findings; and

4. receives a report to a future Council Meeting presenting options for weed control at such time as the findings of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority are known.



Support Attachments

1. Weed Control Methods


Liveable community

Social Community concern and awareness of the use of chemical control agents in public places is growing and there is an expectation within the community that Council demonstrates best practice in this regard.

Natural Environment Community concern and awareness of the use of chemical agents in public places is growing and there is an expectation that council demonstrates best practice in this regard. There is a risk that herbicide use within the environment can have detrimental impacts, particularly if chemicals are not applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications and relevant Material Safety Data Sheet. Where possible, Council manages this risk by seeking to minimise the use of chemicals in the environment.

Built Environment The effective control of weeds is essential for the optimal performance of infrastructure and enhances the visual amenity of the built environment.


Following receipt of a petition regarding the use of herbicide in Bayside, Council has implemented steam and pine oil trials for weed control purposes. Since receipt of the petition, Council has received 17 requests from residents to use chemical free methods of weed control in response to flyers generated by an organisation known as ‘the weeds network’.

Human Rights The use of herbicide and the trial of alternative methods of weed control are not considered to breach or infringe upon human rights as described in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Legal The use of Herbicide (glyphosate) is registered for weed control in Australia and is approved by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. Chemicals such as herbicides are applied in Bayside by trained staff in accordance with the relevant Material Safety Data Sheet issued by the manufacturer to manage risk to users and the community.

Finance The trials of steam technology and pine oil have been funded from the existing Open Space Service operational budget at a cost of $32,400. This amount was made available by delaying other maintenance activities such as mulching and garden bed renovation. A New Initiatives bid for $135,000 has been submitted for Council’s consideration as part of the 2016/17 budget process for steam weeding in Council maintained playgrounds, kindergartens and Sandringham Athletics Track. There are no resource or financial



implications to continue control of weeds using glyphosate, which is currently included within the existing service Contracts.


The Council Plan 2013 – 2017 contains the following goals and strategies which are relevant to this matter for the protection and enhancement of Bayside’s open space and natural environment.

Goal 4 – A sustainable natural environment. In particular Strategy 4.1.1 Working with the community and our partners to achieve positive environmental outcomes for the Bayside community.

Strategy 4.1.2 Protecting and enhancing foreshore, natural reserves and open space for the enjoyment of all our community.

Strategy 4.1.4 Protecting and enhancing vegetation (increase indigenous plant usage) on private and public land.

Strategy 7.1.4 Ensuring Council is delivering the most efficient mix of services in the most efficient way possible. The introduction of steam to control weeds in locations where exposure to children is highest while continuing the use of glyphosate in other municipal applications demonstrates this.

Strategic Objective 3.1 Protecting and enhancing amenity, liveability and neighbourhood character.



Options considered

Option 1 – Continue the use of herbicides – Status Quo

Summary Continue to control weeds using herbicide with approved methods while seeking to reduce reliance on herbicide and review advice when available from the APVMA regarding the suitability of glyphosate for use in municipal situations.

Benefits Glyphosate is a cost effective, registered and approved product for weed control.

Issues Continued use of chemicals for weed control in Bayside.

Recent International Agency for Research on Cancer assessment that formulations containing glyphosate are ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’. The Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority are currently reviewing whether any regulatory action is necessary.

Option 2 – Limited use of steam as an alternate met hod of weed control – Recommended Option

Summary Continue to control weeds using herbicide with approved methods while seeking to reduce reliance on herbicide. Seek to control weeds using steam in all Council maintained playgrounds, kindergartens and the trial area of the Sandringham Athletics Centre and submit a New Initiatives bid for consideration in the 2016/17 budget process.

Benefits Reduces chemical application in Bayside, in particular areas of high attendance by children.

Issues Increases Council’s operating budget for provision of open space services.



10.6 HIGHETT CSIRO SITE SALE PROCESS UPDATE

City Planning and Amenity - Urban Strategy File No: FOL/15/285 – Doc No: DOC/16/7461

Executive summary


The purpose of this report is to provide an update on the CSIRO’s planned sale process for its Highett site, an overview of draft legal agreements to facilitate the transfer of land for open space to Council and the current demolition activities on site. CSIRO has commenced actions to dispose of the site. The sale process will commence in early 2016 with a view to having the property transacted and settled by the end of May 2016.

Council and community advocacy led to successfully securing the retention of 4 hectares of the 9.2 hectare site for public open space as part of the Commonwealth’s decision to sell the site in December 2014. Council subsequently reaffirmed its position during 2015, resolving an approach to legal negotiations to facilitate the transfer of open space (Confidential Attachment 3) and its preferred planning controls to support the residential development of the remaining site.

CSIRO has been provided with draft legal instruments prepared in accordance with Council’s resolution of 24 March 2015 to facilitate and secure the transfer of the open space to Council. In response to the direction provided by Council’s resolution, timeframes have been established in the agreements to ensure the land is transferred to Council promptly, while ensuring sufficient time is provided for the sale process and site preparation. As the location and dimensions of the 3 hectare parcel are relatively clear, a reduced timeframe has been applied to this parcel to ensure it enters into Council ownership sooner. An overview of these legal agreements is provided at the legal section of this report and the draft agreements provided at Confidential Attachments 1 and 2. The CSIRO are currently reviewing the draft agreements and are expected to provide a response prior to the January 2016 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

As part of sale preparations, the CSIRO has commenced the process to demolish 27 buildings across the site, generally within its northern section. These buildings contain contaminants, such as asbestos, and specialist contractors have been engaged. The CSIRO’s contractors have provided community notice and a community information session was held in October 2015 regarding the demolition process. Demolition of the 27 buildings is scheduled to commence in the coming weeks. Following consultation, questions have been put to the CSIRO regarding varying expectations for the extent of demolition. Namely, that there was an expectation that the Commonwealth had resolved that all buildings should be demolished. Previous Council decisions have reaffirmed that the land transferred to Council should be free of buildings, remediated and in a condition suitable for public open space. The CSIRO has now briefed the Minister of Industry, Innovation and Science, Christopher Pyne regarding the required extent of demolition, and the Minister will make a determination. The CSIRO has advised that the demolition of all buildings across the site will add a further 12 months to site preparations.



Key issues

Execution of Legal Agreements

• With the sale process expected to commence early in the new year (Jan / Feb) it is important that Council is in a position to execute the legal agreements, ensuring the process for the transfer of open space is clear to all parties and secured.

• From initial discussions with the CSIRO, it is expected that there are limited areas of contention.

• To enable the execution of the agreements to occur expeditiously, to ensure Council is position to participate in the sale process, the CEO should be authorised to execute the agreements with the CSIRO.

Building Demolition

• The retention of buildings, particularly in the southern part of the site is potentially at odds with Council’s position, as it would present Council with additional costs for their removal and inhibit site preparation and environmental audits.

• The matter is currently under consideration by the Minister, and it may indeed be decided that all buildings will be demolished.

• The CSIRO expects the Minister to make a decision on this matter prior to the 27 January 2016 Council Meeting. Therefore any action should be suspended until Council has a clear understanding of the Minister’s decision.

Recommendation

That Council:

1. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to execute the Deed of Agreement (Confidential Attachment 1 to Item 14.1) with the CSIRO;

2. authorises the Chief Executive Officer to execute the Section 173 Agreement with the future owner of the CSIRO site upon settlement (Confidential Attachment 2 to Item 14.1); and

3. receives further advice once the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science has made a decision regarding the demolition of buildings on site before taking further action.

Support Attachments

Nil




Liveable community

Social Highett has the lowest provision of open space per capita of any suburb within the Bayside municipality. The provision of high quality open space in the Highett neighbourhood will be of significant benefit to the surrounding community, both current and future. The one hectare of open space will facilitate active and passive recreation and community connectedness, whilst the three hectares will be highly values by current and future generations.

Natural Environment The CSIRO Highett site contains vegetation of regional significance, forming part of the Highett Grassy Woodlands vegetation community. The provision of three hectares of open space for conservation purposes will protect, enhance and showcase the Grassy Woodlands and enable regeneration of locally indigenous species and fauna.

The legal agreements are drafted to ensure that any land transferred to Council is prepared so that it is suitable for its purpose as public open space, including any necessary environmental remediation.

Built Environment The legal agreements provide the opportunity for the future owner of the site to negotiate the location and dimensions of the open space with Council, to enable improved urban design and public realm outcomes. The agreements provide for a default position and powers for Council if these negotiations are not successful.


The CSIRO and its contractor undertook community notice and consultation in October 2015 in advance of building demolition on-site.

Human Rights

The implications of this report have been assessed and are not considered likely to breach or infringe upon the human rights contained in the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.

Legal

Draft legal agreements have been prepared (Confidential Attachments 1 & 2) and provided to CSIRO. The agreements have been prepared in accordance with Council’s resolution of 24 March 2015.

The key purpose of the Deed between Council and CSIRO is to:

• Enshrine by way of agreement with Council the Commonwealth’s decision and CSIRO’s commitment to provide 4 hectares of land from the site for public open space;

• Establish a secondary process to ensure the transfer of the land, and access to it, in the event the Commonwealth does not sell the site;

• Require any necessary environmental remediation works and provision of a Statement of Environmental Audit to ensure the land is suitable for public open space purposes; and



• Require, as part of the Commonwealth’s land sale and transfer process, that the future owner of the site enters into a Section 173 Agreement with Council to fulfil the Commonwealth’s obligations.

The key purpose of the Section 173 Agreement, to form part of the contract of sale for the site, to be entered into by the purchaser is to:

• Establish the obligation of the CSIRO onto the purchaser to transfer 4 hectares of land from the site for public open space to Bayside City Council;

• Establish the primary process to facilitate the transfer of land to Council; • Within set parameters, provide the opportunity for the purchaser to negotiate the

location and dimensions of the open spaces with Council (3ha and 1ha contiguous parcels);

• Establish a clear default position and timeframes if agreement cannot be reached; and • Provide Council with appropriate powers in the event the obligations are not satisfied in

accordance with the agreement. The Commonwealth has resolved the sell the land in its entirety subject to its commitment to provide for 4 hectares of public open space. The legal agreements are necessary to facilitate and secure this land transfer, to occur following the sale from the future land owner. The agreements also acknowledge Council’s prior decision of late 2014 that the transfer of the 4 hectares to Council will satisfy any future requirements (pursuant to the Bayside Planning Scheme, the Subdivision Act 1988 and the Planning and Environment Act 1987) for a public open space contribution as part of the development of the remaining 5.2 hectares of the site.

Finance

Costs associated with the preparation and execution of legal agreements are accommodated within the current budget. Funds were also included within the 2015/16 budget to prepare for future masterplanning processes in preparation of Council securing the land for open space. Additional funds will be required in the future to support a masterplanning process for the 3 hectare site in the future.

Once Council takes ownership of the public open space, ongoing operating, depreciation and maintenance costs will be built into its annual budget and strategic resource plan.


Council Plan 2013-17

Securing open space at the CSIRO site is consistent with the following Council Plan strategies:

• 4.1.2, protecting and enhancing foreshore, natural reserves and open spaces for the enjoyment of all our community

• 4.1.4, protecting and enhancing vegetation (increase indigenous plant usage) on private and public land

The proposed provision of open space also supports and implements the directions of the Bayside Open Space Strategy (2012) and the Bayside Housing Strategy (2012).



10.7 2015/16 BUDGET - VARIATION TO BORROWING


Executive summary


This report is to seek Council’s approval to vary the refinancing of borrowing as stated in the 2015/16 Budget from $1.5 million to nil.

At the commencement of the financial year Council’s outstanding loan balance was $11.5 million with $4.2 million of loans due to mature during 2015/16. The 2015/16 Budget included refinancing $1.5 million of maturing loans which would result in a net reduction in borrowings of $2.7 million and a loan balance of $8.8 million at 30 June 2016.

Key issues

Reviewing Council’s loan portfolio involved considering; a) Council’s cash position, b) available funds in the Infrastructure Reserve, and c) the current investment interest rates.

a) Cash Position – Unrestricted Cash

In the latest November Financial forecast, Council’s forecast cash balance at 30 June 2016 is expected to be $58 million which includes $35.5 million of restricted and committed reserves and $22.5 million of unrestricted cash. Council has a sustainable cash balance that will allow the $4.2 million of loans maturing in 2015/16 to be repaid without the need for refinancing $1.5 million as proposed in the 2015/16 budget.

b) Infrastructure Reserve

Council’s discretionary Infrastructure Reserve was set up to quarantine savings from the operational and capital budget to fund replacement infrastructure, held as a contingency to finance projects deemed as “unavoidable”, or to be allocated against the repayment of interest only loans that are to be refinanced. As at 30 June 2015, the balance in the Infrastructure Reserve was $5 million. Therefore there are sufficient funds in this reserve that can be allocated against repayment of refinanced loans, which is $1.5 million in the 2015/16 budget.

Table 1: Current Loan Portfolio including Refinanci ng

Loan No Matures Type

1/7/2015Loan

PrincipalInterest Rates

30/06/2016Loan

Principal1015 29.Mar.2016 Interest Only $2,000,000 6.62% $01016 28.Mar.2017 Interest Only $3,500,000 6.91% $3,500,0001017 28.Feb.2018 Interest Only $2,000,000 8.15% $2,000,0001019 29.Feb.2016 Interest Only $2,000,000 7.24% $01020 28.Mar.2017 Interest Only $1,500,000 7.00% $1,500,0001021 28.Feb.2018 Principal & Interest $502,443 5.15% $319,081

Total $11,502,443 $7,319,0812015/16 Budget - Loan Refinanced $1,500,000

Total include refinanced $8,819,081



c) Current Investment Returns

Council predominantly invests its cash in fixed term deposits as they provide a guaranteed return and are low risk. The current fixed term deposit interest rates are affected by many factors, including monetary and fiscal policies made by the Federal and State Governments and the Reserve Bank of Australia, along with international money market and foreign monetary policy.

In the last 12 months, Australia has experienced record low interest rates which in turn has impacted on the returns on Council’s investment. The latest interest rates offered by Banking Institutions used by Council are as follows:

Current term deposits rates range from 2.60% to 3.02%. These returns are lower than the cost of borrowing which is greater than 5.0%. Therefore not refinancing $1.5 million by using funds from the infrastructure reserve achieve net savings of $29,700 per annum based on an interest differential of 1.98%.

Recommendation

That Council utilises $1.5 million from the Infrastructure Reserve in place of a $1.5 million refinanced loan as budgeted in 2015/16 to achieve $29,700 net savings per annum over the life of the refinanced loan.

Support Attachments

Nil

Table 2: Fixed Term Deposit Interest Rates - 18 Dec 2015

Institution SP rating 3 months 6 months 9 Months 12 Months +Bank A AA-/A-1+ 3.00% 3.02% 2.98% 2.98%Bank B AA-/A-1+ 2.95% 2.97% 2.97% 2.97%Bank C AA-/A-1+ 2.70% 2.65% NA 2.60%Bank D A+/A-1 2.95% 3.00% NA NABank E A-/A-2 2.60% 2.80% 2.90% 2.95%Bank F A-/A-2 2.85% 2.95% 3.00% 2.95%

Interest Rates




Liveable community

Social Council’s investment policy and Infrastructure Reserve are each designed to ensure funds are maximised to support the provision of improved capital works infrastructure or a reduction in loan servicing costs in the operating budget.

Natural Environment There is no impact to the natural environment.

Built Environment There is no impact to the built environment.


There is no impact to customer service and community engagement.

Human Rights

There is no human rights implications for this report.

Legal

There are no legal considerations.

Finance

After utilising $1.5 million from the infrastructure reserve, Council’s cash balance at 30 June 2016 is expected to be $58 million.


This report is consistent with the principles outlined in the Investment Policy to be adopted in the January 2016 Council meeting.



10.8 INVESTMENT POLICY


Executive summary


The purpose of this report is for Council to consider and adopt the Investment Policy. The current Investment guidelines were developed and approved on 25 July 2008. The investment guidelines reflect the requirements of Section 143 of the Local Government Act 1989 (LGA) and Ministerial announcements which prescribe the approved investments under the act. Funds are currently invested in accordance with these guidelines.

It is appropriate however that Council’s investment approach is reflected in a policy approved by Council and included in the policy register and reviewed on a regular basis.

Key issues

The intent of this policy is to provide the framework for the investment of funds in accordance with the requirements of the LGA.

The policy provides mandatory rules and specific guidelines for Council officers to follow in managing cash flow requirements and investing surplus funds.

The objective of the policy is to ensure funds are invested in approved products having regard to the risk and the rate of return available for that particular approved investment type giving priority to preservation of capital, liquidity, and return on investment.

As well as the requirements of S143 of the LGA outlined in the previous Investment Guidelines the new Policy also includes the provision for

• Applicable mandatory accounting standards to be applied

• The internal control environment

• Management of liquidity risk

• Enhanced reporting to Council to include the achievement of returns against applicable investment benchmarks and performance against budget

• Approved investments list

• Authorised investments announced by the Minister for Local Government

Recommendation

That Council adopts the Investment Policy - January 2016, as attached to the report and revokes the previously approved Investment Guidelines.

Support Attachments

1. Investment Policy - January 2016 PDF




Liveable community

Social One of the criteria in the policy for the selection of Fund managers is access to socially responsible investments. The term socially responsible investing refers to practices that seek to avoid harm by screening companies included in an investment portfolio. Socially responsible investing encourages corporate practices that promote environmental stewardship, consumer protection, human rights and diversity.

Natural Environment There are no environmental implications regarding the adoption of this policy.

Built Environment There are no built environment implications regarding the adoption of this policy.


There are no customer service implications regarding the adoption of this policy.

Human Rights

There are no human rights implications regarding the adoption of this policy.

Legal

Council must comply with the following in relation to investments

• Local Government Act 1989 (‘the Act’) – Sec 136 requires Council to “manage its financial risks prudently with due regard to economic circumstances’.

• Investments are limited to those identified in Sec 143 of the Local Government Act and those authorised investments as advised by the Minister for Local Government

• Local Government (Planning and Reporting) Regulations 2014.

Finance

There are no financial or resource implications regarding the adoption of this policy.


This policy replaces the Investment Guidelines approved in July 2008. The Investment Guidelines are to be revoked on the adoption of this policy.

Bayside City Council Ord inary Council Meeting - 27 January 2016Attachment 1




10.9 NOVEMBER 2015 FINANCIAL REPORT


Executive summary


This report provides a summary and analysis of Council’s financial performance for five months to 30 November 2015.

The report is designed to analyse actual results against the 2015/16 adopted budget to ensure consistency and compliance with the Adopted Budget, and to measure Council’s overall financial performance.

Please refer to the Detailed Financial Report attached for full analysis.

Key issues

2015/16 Year to date operating Result

The November year to date result is a surplus of $13.5M which is $5.5M favourable to Budget.

2015/16 Forecast operating result

The current forecast for the year represents a surplus of $19.1M which is $1.65M favourable to Budget.

The underlying forecast operating result is favourable to budget by $344k and excludes the following one off or timing items:

• ($1.3M) – 50% Grants Commission funding received in 2014/15 • ($1.2M) – Forecast Capital funding lower than budget • $1.2M – Net proceeds from the sale of Sandringham Child Care Centre. • $0.6M – Refund from Transpacific regarding the carbon tax paid on the waste

disposal contract. • $1.35M – Increase in resort & recreation levy to be transferred to reserves • $254k – Interest income from term deposits forecast to increase due to favourable

operating cash position • $0.3M – Supplementary Rates • $0.1M – Reduction in Workcover premium

Cash and Investments

The cash position of $71.3M has increased by $14.6M from $56.7M and is $19.2M favourable to budget as at November 2015 mainly due to $9.7M greater opening cash balance than budgeted, unbudgeted net cash proceeds from the sale of Sandringham CC $3.43 million, and favourable operating and capital results YTD.

Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) Indicators

Current forecasts indicate that Council will achieve VAGO indicator targets.

Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (LGPRF) Indicators

Current forecasts indicate that Council will achieve LGPRF indicator targets.



Capital Result

The forecasts indicate a carry forward of capital projects worth $1.85M to 2016/17 mainly due to the timing of the Banksia Reserve Pavilion Redevelopment. Including carried forwards, the forecast capital result is favourable by $247k.

Request for Council to approve reallocation of $240,000 capital budget due to the success of the Black Spot funding application.

Council has been successful in receiving funding through the Black Spot road safety program for the traffic signals at the intersection of Reserve Road and Weatherall Road. This funding allows for the reallocation of the Council budget approved for this project. It is proposed that the $240,000 allocated to the signalisation of the Reserve Road and Weatherall Road intersection be reallocated as follows:

• $130,000 Resurfacing Weatherall Road. VicRoads require the approach to the proposed traffic signals to be resurfaced as part of the traffic signal installation. This work was not originally considered within the scope of the signal installation, and is a requirement of VicRoads following a road safety audit that was undertaken after the signals were designed.

• $35,000 Resurfacing Highett Road. Council has allocated funding to upgrade the zebra crossing to traffic lights. VicRoads require the road to be resurfaced on the approaches to the upgraded pedestrian operated signals as part of the project. This work was not originally considered within the scope of the signal installation, but became a VicRoads condition of the approval of the signals after the designs were submitted

• $75,000 Roundabout Safety Improvements St Kilda Street/Ormond Road. This project has been initiated by the City of Port Phillip on a roundabout that straddles the municipal boundary. Bayside's contribution is necessary to complete the roundabout improvements to improve pedestrian access from the Bent Street side of St Kilda Street to Ormond Street.

Recommendation

That Council

• Notes the operating and capital financial report for the five months to 30 November 2015.

• Notes the success of the grant application through the black spot road safety program for the traffic signals at the intersection of Reserve Road and Weatherall Road and as a result approves the reallocation of $240,000 of funds approved in the 2014/15 capital budget for this project to Resurfacing Weatherall Road $130,000, Resurfacing Highett Road $35,000, and Roundabout Pedestrian Improvements St Kilda Street/Ormond Road $75,000 which are urgent traffic projects not included in the 2015/16 budget.

Support Attachments

1. Attachment - November 2015 Financial Report




Liveable community

Social There are no social impacts associated with this report.

Natural Environment There are no natural environmental impacts associated with this report.

Built Environment There are no built environmental impacts associated with this report.


There are no impacts to customer service.

There are no impacts to community engagement.

Human Rights

There are no impacts to human rights.

Legal

Section 138 of the Local Government Act 1989 prescribes that, at least every three months, a financial report of revenue and expenditure be presented to Council.

Finance

The year-end forecast is a surplus of $19.1M which is $1.65M favourable to budget.

The capital result forecast including the anticipated rollover of projects to 2016/17 is $247k favourable to budget.


The monthly financial report is identified within Goal 7 in the Council Plan 2013-2017 Strategic Objective 7.2.2- Reporting regularly to our community on Council’s performance.



10.10 VCAT DECISIONS

City Planning and Amenity - Statutory Planning File No: PSF/15/8755 – Doc No: DOC/16/7727

Executive summary


To inform Council of VCAT determinations received in the month of December 2015.

Summary details for the decisions handed down during the month are provided in Attachment 1.

Month Year

Cou

ncil

Uph

eld

Cou

ncil

Ove

r-tu

rned

Del

egat

e U

phel

d

Del

egat

e O

ver-

turn

ed

Oth

er (

e.g.

Var

ied

or

by

Con

sent

With

draw

n

Total

LGPRF* Outcome

Set

Asi

de

Affi

rmed

July 2015 1 4 1 3 0 1 10 8 1

August 2015 0 0 1 1 2 0 4 1 3

September 2015 0 2 0 2 3 0 7 4 3

October 2015 0 0 2 2 2 2 8 2 4

November 2015 0 2 1 4 0 0 7 6 1

December 2015 1 0 1 6 3 0 11 5 6

TOTAL: 2 8 6 18 10 3 47 26 18

*Local Government Performance Reporting Framework (Data to be reported to State Government)

Key issues

Not applicable

Recommendation

That the report on the VCAT decisions on the planning applications handed down during the month of December 2015 be received and noted.

Support Attachments

1. VCAT Report




Liveable community

Social Not applicable

Natural Environment Not applicable

Built Environment Not applicable


Not applicable

Human Rights

Not applicable

Legal

Not applicable

Finance

Not applicable


Not applicable



Subject Site: 133 Male Street, Brighton

Application No. 5/2015/239/1

VCAT Reference No. P2182/2015

Applicant: Eric Troost

Before: Michael Nelthorpe, Member Date of hearing: No Hearing Date of order: 23 December 2015

Proposal: Partial demolition and alterations and additions to the existing dwelling in a Heritage Overlay and on a lot less than 500 square metres

Officer recommendation: Permit Granted

Council determination: N/A

Appeal type: Conditions

Plans substituted prior to hearing? Yes

VCAT determination: Varied Permit to be issued

LGPRF outcome: Affirmed Subject Site: 8 High Street, Beaumaris



Applicant: Lowe Architecture

Respondents: Beaumaris Conservation Society Inc, Vin Macaro, Owen Magee

Before: J A Bennett, Member Date of hearing: 8 December 2015 Date of order: 22 December 2015

Proposal:

Construction of two double storey dwellings in a Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ3) and removal of 4 native trees in a Vegetation Protection Overlay (VPO3).

Officer recommendation: Permit Refused


Appeal type: Refusal

Plans substituted prior to hearing? No

VCAT determination: Permit to be issued

LGPRF outcome: Set Aside



Subject Site: 30 Black Street, Brighton



Applicant: Metropolis Property Group

Respondents: Ian Bruce Ferguson

Before: Philip Martin, Member Date of hearing: 27 August And 10 December 2015 Date of order: 18 December 2015

Proposal: The construction of a three storey building containing seven dwellings with a basement car park.

Officer recommendation: Not Support


Appeal type: Failure to Grant


VCAT determination: Permit to be issued by consent

LGPRF outcome: Affirmed

Subject Site: 172 Beach Road, Sandringham



Applicant: Highett Grove Pty Ltd

Respondents: Ralph and Elizabeth Wilson

Before: Megan Carew, Member Date of hearing: 26 November 2015 Date of order: 17 December 2015

Proposal:

Construction of six dwellings on a lot; Construction of a roof deck in the Design and Development Overlay Schedule 1; Alteration to access to a Road Zone; and Reduction in visitor car parking requirements.

Officer recommendation: Permit Refused


Appeal type: Refusal






Subject Site: 48 Camperdown Street, East Brighton



Applicant: Jeevanie Radhika Mendis

Respondents: Luela Nominees Pty Ltd

Before: E Bensz, Member Date of hearing: 16 December 2015 Date of order: 16 December 2015

Proposal: Construction of two double storey dwellings and a front fence exceeding a height of 1.2 metres

Officer recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit

Council determination: Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit

Appeal type: Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit


VCAT determination: Permit to be issued by consent


Subject Site: 9 Dendy Street, Brighton



Applicant: Jennifer Coghlan-Bell

Before: Geoffrey Code, Member Date of hearing: 14 December 2015 Date of order: 14 December 2015

Proposal: Alterations and additions to an existing dwelling on a lot with an area of less than 500 square metres

Officer recommendation: Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit

Council determination: Notice of Decision to Grant a Permit

Appeal type: Conditions


VCAT determination: Varied Permit to be issued




Subject Site: 30 & 32 Summerhill Road, Brighton East



Applicant: Brightbay Pty Ltd

Respondents: Tim & Michelle Riordan, Joy & David Jenner, HB Luber, Kay Little,

Before: Laurie Hewet, Senior Member Date of hearing: 8 & 9 October 2015 Date of order: 9 December 2015

Proposal:

Construction of four double storey dwellings and two single storey dwellings with attics plus basement car park and construction of a front fence exceeding a height of 1.2 metres



Appeal type: Failure to Grant a Permit


VCAT determination: No Permit to Issue

LGPRF outcome: Affirmed Subject Site: 27 Grant Street, Brighton East



Applicant: Williams Property 1 Pty Ltd

Respondents: Ian and Paula Aspinall

Before: Megan Carew Date of hearing: 5 November 2015 Date of order: 18 November 2015 (Order was received on 10/12/2015)

Proposal: Construction of a dwelling and front fence on a lot less than 500m2









Subject Site: 165-167 Tramway Parade, Beaumaris



Applicant: Brad Muir

Respondents: Nancy De Keijzer and others

Before: Russell Byard, Senior Member Date of hearing: 3 July and 16 and 17 November 2015 Date of order: 4 December 2015

Proposal: Construction of four dwellings and removal of native vegetation






LGPRF outcome: Set Aside Subject Site: 7 Gladstone Street, Sandringham



Applicant: C & G Fallon

Respondents: B Lovelock and M Sinclair & Y Kirit Somaia Before: Michael Nelthorpe, Member Date of hearing: 20 October 2015 Date of order: 7 December 2015

Proposal: Development of four dwellings on a lot in the Neighbourhood Residential Zone; Subdivision









Subject Site: 10 Railway Walk, Hampton



Applicant: Trackside Holdings (Hampton) Pty Ltd

Referral Authority: Melbourne Water

Respondents:

Andthalf Pty Ltd, Andthaln Pty Ltd & Andthala Pty Ltd Gary Sernor, Frank Giordamnis & Suraj Lamichhane Yvonne Thalmann-Anderl Ian & Gayle Murley Steve Nicoll

Before: Geoffrey Code, Member Date of hearing: No hearing Date of order: 2 December 2015

Proposal:

Buildings and works to construct a seven storey building above two basement levels

Use of the land for the purpose of dwellings and an indoor recreation facility (gymnasium)

Removal of easement E-1

A reduction in the car parking requirement

Officer recommendation: Support

Council determination: Support

Appeal type: Section 87A Amendment


VCAT determination: Amended Permit to be issued by consent




10.11 COUNCIL ACTION AWAITING REPORT

Corporate Services - Governance & Performance Reporting File No: PSF/15/8758 – Doc No: DOC/15/221835

Executive summary


This report presents to Council a schedule of actions pending for the period to 31 December 2015.

Key issues

This report contains resolutions of Council that require a further report to Council.

Recommendation

That Council notes the Council Action Awaiting Report.

Support Attachments

1. Council Action Awaiting report January 2016




Liveable community

Social Not applicable to this report.

Natural Environment Not applicable to this report.

Built Environment Not applicable to this report.



Human Rights


Legal


Finance





Item 13.1 – Notices of Motion of 106

11. Reports by Delegates

1. Association of Bayside Municipalities – Cr Frederico

2. MAV Environment Committee – Director Environment & Infrastructure

3. Metropolitan Transport Forum – Director Environment & Infrastructure

4. Municipal Association of Victoria – Cr Frederico

5. Inner South Metropolitan Mayors’ Forum – Cr Long

6. Metro Waste & Resource Recovery Group – Cr Stewart



12. Urgent Business



13. Notices of Motion

13.1 NOTICE OF MOTION - 242 - CHILDREN'S SENSORY GARDEN

Corporate Services - Governance File No: PSF/15/8758 – Doc No: DOC/16/11239

I hereby give notice that I intend to move at the O rdinary Council Meeting to be held on 27 January 2016 at 7:00pm at the Council Chamber s, Civic Centre, Boxshall Street, Brighton the following Notice of Motion:

Motion

“That Council receives a report at the April 2016 Ordinary Meeting detailing:

• The various elements of the successful Ian Potter Children’s Garden (Royal Botanic Gardens) and whether a similar sensory children’s garden could be successfully implemented in Bayside. In addition, the report should:

� Detail space requirements and recommend suitable locations in

Bayside, including the active open space at the Highett CSIRO site;

� Provide indicative costs for this type of project including an itemised costs for the various elements; and

� Identify alternative funding sources including philanthropic funds, donations from local residents or community groups and naming rights.”

Cr Heather Stewart

Support Attachments

Nil

Bayside City Council Ordinary Counci l Meeting - 27 January 2016


13.2 NOTICE OF MOTION - 243 - HIGHETT ROAD LEVEL CR OSSING REMOVAL

Corporate Services - Governance File No: PSF/15/8758 – Doc No: DOC/16/11703

I hereby give notice that I intend to move at the O rdinary Council Meeting to be held on 27 January 2016 at 7:00pm at the Council Chamber s, Civic Centre, Boxshall Street, Brighton the following Notice of Motion:

Motion

“That Council advocates to the Minister for Roads and Road Safety for the urgent inclusion of the Highett Road level crossing as part of the State Government’s Level Crossing Removal Project, and Council also write to Kingston Council seeking their support in advocating for the prioritisation of the removal of the Highett Road level crossing.”

Cr Felicity Frederico

Support Attachments

Nil


of 106

14. Confidential Business

That pursuant to Section 89(2) of the Local Government Act 1989, the Council resolves that so much of this meeting be closed to members of the public, as it involves Council consideration of matters coming within some or all of the following categories listed in Section 89(2) of such Act.

(a) Personnel matters; (b) The personal hardship of any resident or ratepayers; (c) Industrial matters; (d) Contractual matters; (e) Proposed developments; (f) Legal advice; (g) Matters affecting the security of Council property; (h) Any other matter which the Council or Special Committee considers would

prejudice the Council or any person; (i) A resolution to close the meeting to members of the public.

14.1 CONFIDENTIAL ATTACHMENTS: HIGHETT CSIRO SITE S ALE PROCESS UPDATE (LGA 1989 Section 89(2)(d), (f) and (h) contractual matters, legal advice and matters which the Council considers would prejudice the Council or any person.)

As Chief Executive Officer, I hereby declare that the contents of this agenda relating to the closed meeting of the ordinary meeting of Council are deemed confidential and accordingly members of Council are reminded that the contents of the agenda are not to be disclosed to any other party.

Adrian Robb

Chief Executive Officer


of 106

27 january 2016 council meeting agenda without confidential · considerations and implications of...

Documents