Administrative Centre

30 Frances St

Randwick 2031

Tel: 02 9399 0999

Fax 02 9319 1510

DX 4121 Maroubra Junction

general.manager@randwick.nsw.gov.au

INCORPORATED

AS A MUNICIPALITY

22 FEBRUARY 1859

PROCLAIMED AS

A CITY JULY 1990

 

24th February, 2006

 

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING

 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT AN ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANDWICK WILL BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, TOWN HALL, 90 AVOCA STREET, RANDWICK, ON TUESDAY, 28TH FEBRUARY, 2006 AT 6:00 P.M.

 

1           Council Prayer

 

2           Apologies

 

3           Minutes

 

CONFIRMATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, 13TH DECEMBER, 2005.

 

4           Declaration of Pecuniary & Non-Pecuniary Interests

 

5           Addresses to the Council by the Public

 

6           Mayoral Minutes

 

6.1                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 1/2006 - CLEAN UP AUSTRALIA DAY - GRACEPOINT CHRISTIAN CHURCH - WAIVING OF FEES.

2

 

6.2                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 2/2006 - SYDNEY AIRPORT MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN PROPOSALS.

4

 

6.3                      

MAYOR'S MINUTE 3/2006 - WAIVING OF FEES - SURFING NSW,  MAROUBRA SURFERS ASSOCIATION AND SOUTHEND BOARDRIDERS INC.

14

 

6.4

MAYOR'S MINUTE 4/2006 - YOUTH AND SENIORS WEEK 2006 - REQUEST FOR DONATION OF 250 NATIVE SEEDLINGS.

16

6.5

MAYOR’S MINUTE 5/2006 – WAIVING OF FEES FOR FILMING OF NON-COMMERICAL SHORT DRAMA AT YARRA BAY BEACH FOR TROPFEST.

18

6.6

MAYOR’S MINUTE 6/2006 - MAHON POOL AND THE MAROUBRA BEACH PLAN OF MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW.

20

6.7

MAYOR’S MINUTE 7/2006 - CLOVELLY PUBLIC SCHOOL - REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION AND DISMANTLING OF BANNER ON COUNCIL FLAGPOLES.

21

 

 

 

7           General Manager's Reports

 

7.1                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 1/2006 - COMMUNITY GRANTS, DONATIONS AND SUBSIDIES. (DEFERRED.)

23

 

7.2                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 2/2006 - AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL.

104

 

7.3                      

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 3/2006 - DEC 2005 QUARTER REVIEW - 2005-08 MANAGEMENT PLAN.

107

 

 

8          Director City Services' Reports

 

8.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 4/2006 - AUSTRAL STREET, MALABAR - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FOOTPATH.

109

 

8.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 5/2006 - NAMING OF RESERVE ON THE CORNER OF ALISON AND WANSEY ROADS, RANDWICK "GEORGE DAN RESERVE".

114

 

8.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 6/2006 - ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF THE COMMON INDIAN MYNA.

116

 

8.4                      

 DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 7/2006   PROPOSED PLACE NAME OF AN AREA LOCATED AT 1613 ANZAC PARADE, LA PEROUSE.

118

 

8.5                      

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 8/2006 - BARDON PARK FLOODLIGHTS.

122

 

 

9           Director Governance & Financial Services' Reports

 

9.1                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 5/2006 - CODE OF CONDUCT AND RELATED POLICIES. (DEFFERED)

124

 

9.2                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 6/2006 - REVIEW OF COUNCILLORS' EXPENSES & FACILITIES POLICY. (DEFERRED)

138

 

9.3                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 7/2006 - ACQUISITION OF LITERARY INSTITUTE.

159

 

9.4                      

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 8/2006 - LOCAL GOVERNMENT REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL - SPECIAL DETERMINATION.

163

 

 

9.5                      

 

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 9/2006 - DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY.

 

165

9.6

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 10/2006 – DISQUALIFICATION FROM CIVIC OFFICE

168

9.7

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 11/2006 – WYLIES BATHS SUB-LEASING.

173

9.8

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES' REPORT 12/2006 – ANNUAL PERE RECEVUEUR MASS – WAIVING OF FEES.

176

9.9

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES’ REPORT 13/2006 – E-BUSINESS STRATEGY FOR RANDWICK CITY COUNCIL – UPDATE.

178

9.10

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES’ REPORT 14/2006 – ADVICE FROM DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT – MAROUBRA BEACH PAVILION TENDER.

184

9.11

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES’ REPORT 15/2006 – 2005/06 BUDGET – REVIEW AS AT 31 DECEMBER 2005.

187

9.12

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES’ REPORT 16/2006 - REVIEW OF CODE OF MEETING PRACTICE.

191

 

 

10         Director City Planning Reports

 

10.1                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 5/2006 –

67 THE CORSO, MAROUBRA.

235

 

10.2                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 6/2006 - 

16R ST PAULS LANE, RANDWICK.

249

 

10.3                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 7/2006 –

3 HAMILTON STREET, COOGEE.

251

 

10.4                      

DIRECTOR, CITY PLANNING REPORT 8/2006 –

199-203A MALABAR ROAD, SOUTH COOGEE.

266

 

 

11         Petitions

 

11.1                      

Petition received from The Free Beach Action Group regarding nude bathing at Congwong Beach & Little Congwong Beach, La Perouse. (To be separately circularised)

274

 

12         Motions Pursuant to Notice

 

12.1                      

Notice of Rescission Motion by Councillors Bastic, Procopiadis & Sullivan – Ordinary Council Meeting, Tuesday, 13th December, 2005 – Item 7.4 – General Manager’s Report 64/2005 - Review - Des Renford Aquatic Centre.

274

12.2

By Councillor Procopiadis - Coastal Councils Meeting.

274

12.3

By Councillor Bastic – Code of Meeting Practice.

274

12.4

By Councillor Sullivan – Clovelly Surf Club.

274

12.5

By Councillors Bastic & Sullivan – STA Land.

275

12.6

By Councillor Matson - Response to Department of Local Government Advice on Pavilion Café Tender.

275

12.7

By Councillor Matson – Management of Wylies Baths by Wylies Baths Trust Inc.

275

 

13         Urgent Business

 

14         Confidential Reports

 

14.1                      

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 9/2006 - COOGEE BEACH TOILET BLOCK REFURBISHMENT TENDER NO T049/05.

276

 

14.2                      

CONFIDENTIAL DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES' REPORT 10/2006 - GALVIN AND FERGUSON STREET, MAROUBRA. ROAD PAVEMENT, KERB AND GUTTER AND DRAINAGE CONSTRUCTION TENDER NO T048/05 .

294

 

 

15         Committee-of-the-Whole

 

16         Report of Committee-of-the-Whole

 

17         Notice of Rescission Motions

 

 

 

 

………………………………

GENERAL MANAGER


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 1/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

CLEAN UP AUSTRALIA DAY - GRACEPOINT CHRISTIAN CHURCH - WAIVING OF FEES

 

 

DATE:

2 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/08286

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A letter has been received from the GracePoint Christian Church to hold their 4th Annual Clean Up Australia Day Community Celebration on Sunday, 5 March, 2006, and requesting Council to waive the fees associated with this event.  Grace Point Christian Church has a vision to make Clean Up Australia Day a family fun day for volunteers in the Coogee Community.

 

Grace Point Christian Church has been appointed the Site Co-ordinator for Coogee Beach by Clean Up Australia.  The Church proposes to hold a family fun day after the clean up including a jumping castle, BBQ, games and prizes for the volunteers

 

ISSUES:

 

Messrs Justin Pagotto and Rob Feeney, members of the event organising committee have written to Council requesting that any Council fees associated with this event be waived. 

 

The fees associated with this event are as follows:

 

Administration Fee                                                                                $   130.00

Supply and remove additional bins (based on 10 by 240L bins)             $   550.00

Jumping castle and associate costs eg  BBQ                                          $   750.00

Food Stall Registration                                                                          $     90.00

 

                                                    TOTAL:                                          $1,520.00

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

In the event that Council accepts the report recommendation, the direct financial implication to Council will be a contribution of $1,520.00 from Council’s 2005/06 Contingency Fund.

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Given that this is a community event it would be consistent with similar community events for Council to support the waiving of fees.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.       Council vote $1,520.00 to cover the fees associated with the ‘2006 Coogee Beach Clean Up Australia Day Festival’ and the funds be charged to the Contingency Fund 2005/06;

 

2.       The event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event; and

 

3.       The Mayor or his representative be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 2/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

Sydney Airport Major Development Plan Proposals

 

 

DATE:

3 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00160

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR      

 

Executive summary:

 

The Sydney Airports Corporation Limited (SACL) has recently placed on exhibition two preliminary draft Major Development Plans (MDPs) based on an approved Sydney Airport Master Plan 20003/04 and the requirements of the Airports Act, 1996.  Both options are for an Aviation and Retail Business Park of between  59,000 and 64,000 sqm, covering an area of 20 hectares, and include bulky goods / homemaker centre, discount and specialty stores  with varying options for supermarket, cinema complex with 1500 seats, office / commercial buildings and parking up to approx 3,150 cars .

 

These proposals are of a significant regional scale and will adversely affect Randwick City’s commercial centres and impact on local and regional traffic.

 

ISSUES:

 

Randwick City Council made a submission on the proposed MDPs and previously made a submission on the Sydney Airport Master Plan 2003/04.  A copy of the submission was reported in the Bulletin on 27 January 2006.  In summary the submission raised the following key concerns:

 

·            Council strongly objects to the non-airport related retail/commercial uses proposed in both draft MDPs, including retailing, bulky goods, supermarkets and cinemas. These uses are not required or suitable for airport users. Council also queries the validity of these uses on-site, given that under the Airports Act 1996 a lessee must not carry out substantial non-airport trade or financial activities.

·            The proposed uses amount to the creation of a substantial general purpose and regional shopping centre, with adverse economic and social impacts on the surrounding areas:

 

The retail/commercial proposals would have significant adverse economic impacts on the surrounding region, including on Randwick’s local commercial centres.

In drawing users from local centres and threatening their viability, the proposals would also have adverse social impacts given that these other centres function as community hubs.

·        The MDPs do not provide sufficient analysis of the transport and traffic impacts beyond the airport site.  The Ground Travel Plan, required under the approval of the previous MDP for commercial development and multi storey parking, is yet to be prepared and Council is yet to be consulted on its progress.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

I would like to reiterate Council’s concern with the proposed MDPs in which the land uses proposed are not related to the core airport function and in particular have the potential to significantly impact on the economic viability of our local commercial centres.  Additionally the traffic generation is likely to impact on the surrounding local and regional road networks.  I note the relevance of the information for our local Submission to SACL re Sydney Airport MDPsChambers of Commerce.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

a)         That Council notes the key concern for our community as raised in Council’s submission on the preliminary draft Major Development Plans (MDP’s), and

 

b)         That Council forward copies of the Randwick City Council submission to the local Chambers of Commerce.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Submission to SACL re Sydney Airport MDPs

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Submission to SACL re Sydney Airport MDPs

 

Aviation and retail business park

(including offices)

 

Aviation and retail business park

(including cinemas and supermarket)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Randwick city council

 

January 2006

 

 


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Randwick City welcomes the opportunity to review and provide comments on the two concurrent / alternative Major Development Plans for the future use of the southeast precinct of Sydney Airport.  Randwick City Council previously made a submission on the Sydney Airport Master Plan 2003/04 in October 2003.  Our submission raised concerns relating to a number of directions within the Master Plan.  Broadly these included:

·     The propensity of the Airport to look at the site in isolation of the region

·     The privatisation of the airport site operating within the Commonwealth Airports Act and thus effectively retaining Commonwealth powers

·     Impacts of the forecast growth including increased use of flight corridors, noise and consideration of LTOP

·     Traffic and parking implications

·     Sustainability considerations (including environmental, social and economic)

·     The proposed retailing / commercial components of the plan being unacceptable unless they are ancillary to the airport uses.

 

Our submission on the two Major Development Plans reinforces and reiterates these Master Plan concerns. In summary, it is noted in relation to the MDPs that:

 

·  Council strongly objects to the non-airport related retail/commercial uses proposed in both draft MDPs, including but not limited to general purpose retailing, bulky goods, supermarkets and cinemas. These uses are not required or suitable for airport users. Council also queries the validity of these uses on-site, given that the Airports Act 1996 precludes non- airport related activities (Clause 31).

·  The proposed uses amount to the creation of a substantial general purpose regional shopping centre, with adverse economic and social impacts on the surrounding areas:

The retail/commercial proposals would have significant adverse economic impacts on the surrounding region, including on Randwick’s local commercial centres. I

In drawing users from local centres and threatening viability of these centres, the proposals would also have adverse social impacts given that these other centres function as community hubs.

·  These regional economic impacts will be compounded in future years, if either MDP is approved, given the additional retail/commercial expansion area identified in the master plan to the north of General Holmes Drive

·  The proposals do not accord with the recently released Sydney Metropolitan Strategy. The draft MDPs should be prepared in the spirit of cooperation with State and local governments, rather than working in conflict with the long term planning objectives for this City.

·  The MDPs do not provide sufficient analysis of the transport and traffic impacts beyond the airport site. While the traffic and parking implications of either MDP (in addition to the expected growth in Airport traffic) will be significant, there is scant attention given to encouraging public transport, walking or cycling, or combinations of these, as an alternative to the private car.  The Ground Travel Plan required under the Master plan is yet to be prepared and Council is yet to be consulted on its progress. The Ground Travel Plan should be prepared prior to any determination of these MDPs.

·  Design of the proposed MDPs is inadequate. While there is no objection to the physical scale of the proposed buildings, Council strongly opposes the scale of the intended uses within the buildings, and also raises concern that the design of buildings in both the MDPs focus on maximising advertising space and should instead be based on good design principles.

·  A risk assessment for Airport operations and navigation is considered essential and should be undertaken for these proposals.

 

Council recognises that some commercial development of the Sydney Airport site is important to its successful long term operations. However, given the above comments and the details discussed in this submission, Council considers that neither of the current MDPs are acceptable options for development and should be rejected by SACL or substantially revised to address the above matters and re-exhibited for further public comment.

 

Sufficient background information, including the Ground Travel Plan in particular, must also be undertaken prior to any determination of these and future MDPs for the site, to show how these critical issues can be addressed. Randwick City also requests that Sydney Airport Corporation Limited (SACL) engage with local Councils in the preparation of the Ground Travel Plan as required by the previous Major Development Plan (April 2005) consent conditions. 

 

SCOPE OF THE SUBMISSION

 

This submission is based on a review of the two concurrent / alternative proposals for major retail development within the south east precinct of Sydney Airport, land mostly vacant and currently used for fire response and training.

 

It is noted that the closing date for submissions is 30 January 2006 and as Council does not meet until 8 February 2006, this submission has been forwarded directly to SACL.  Should Councillors wish to provide additional comments, these will be forwarded separately to SACL.

 

SUBMISSION COMMENTS

 

The two Major Development Plan (MDP) options for the development of the south-east sector can be described as follows and are hereon referred to as Option A (offices) and Option B (cinema / supermarket):

 

option A - Aviation and Retail Business Park (including offices)

This proposal includes two functional precincts:

-    a retail precinct having a gross leasable floor area of 59,000m2 including an outlet centre, bulky goods/homemaker centre and a discount store and parking spaces for 2,575 cars;

-    an office precinct with four two-storey buildings for office/commercial uses with a total gross leasable floor area of 8,840 m2 and parking spaces for 233 cars.

 

Option B - Aviation and Retail Business Park (including cinemas and supermarket)

This proposal includes:

-    an integrated retail complex having a gross leasable floor area of 62,390m2 including an outlet centre, bulky goods/homemaker centre, supermarket and food specialty shops, and a cinema complex with a total capacity of 1,500 seats;

-    parking spaces for 3,145 cars.

 

most of the following comments relate to the suitability of a broad retail / commercial proposal, regardless of the specific components and are discussed as follows, with references to the appropriate option as required:

Core airport uses and suitability

 

Randwick City strongly objects to the proposed non-airport related retail basis of the MDPs.  SACL’s core business is considered to be the management and operation of Sydney Airport which, it is acknowledged, is undertaken through an organisational structure focused on two broad business groups – Aviation and Commercial as is the current trend.  The MDPs states that the Commercial revenue in 2004 accounted for 51% of Sydney Airport’s total revenue. Randwick City notes the Airports Act, 1996 Clause 31 (2) requires the airport site to be used as an airport and through Clause 32 the Airport-operator company must not carry on non-airport business as follows:

 

Airports other than joint-user airports

(1)     An airport-operator company for an airport (other than a joint-user airport) must not carry on substantial trading or financial activities other than:

(a) activities relating to the operation and/or development of the airport; or

(b) activities incidental to the operation and/or development of the airport; or

(c) activities that, under the regulations, are treated as activities incidental to the operation  and/or development of the airport.

 

Thus Randwick City queries the validity of these MDPs to permit these retail activities which would appear to be non-airport business.  The current airport based retail is approximately 23,000 sqm (MDP section 2.3) and services air travel patrons and employees with convenience and tourist related retail, critically, located generally at or near the terminals.  Both MDP proposals represent an almost three fold increase in the retail / commercial floorspace, removed from the terminal areas and clearly changes the emphasis to a regional and general retail and non-airport related focus.  By way of comparison the MDP proposals represent a bulky goods / retail complex approximately three times the size of the Moore Park Super Centre, within 8kms of the airport site.  This is considered an exploitation in the scale of the retail / commercial uses facilitated within the Airport Act, where the core business function should, and is legislated to be, an airport.

 

Proposed commercial / office components may be considered appropriate where related to the landside functions and activities of the airport and its business partners.  The general retail, bulky goods retailing and supermarket uses, however, are not supported.  In particular a supermarket and cinema are not acceptable uses.  Supermarkets are essential to our local centres and Randwick City strongly opposes the introduction of these uses on the airport site.  This does not imply that Randwick City favours Option A (offices) over Option B (cinema / supermarket) as both options contain extensive bulky good and general retailing.

 

The south-eastern precinct of the airport is removed from the main airport traffic area (i.e. the terminals) and is also some 1.5kms from the main public transport opportunities (rail and bus) which service the airport precinct.  The likelihood of any airport patron using the proposed retail / commercial area is limited, especially given the land uses proposed such as bulky goods, supermarkets and the like, which are not convenience or essential demands for airport patrons.  Rather the intention of the southeast precinct, as clearly stated in the MDPs and the target trade area details, is to draw regional residents into the airport retail / commercial site from an area which extends as far north as the Sydney CBD and Woollahra, covering all of Randwick City, as far west as Bankstown and south beyond Miranda (Option B (cinema / supermarket)).

 

This is clearly a ‘substantial’ retail centre beyond the scale of the surrounding local areas, and definitely beyond the scope of the objectives of Clause 32 of the Airports Act.  Whilst it is acknowledged the Airport Masterplan 2003/04 identifies this area for mixed use, the scale and uses proposed cannot be described as ‘incidental’ or ‘relating to’ the operation and/or development of the airport, where the primary purpose is air travel and related services.  As such, the suitability of the MDPs as proposed, and the permissibility, is therefore questioned. 

 

Further expansion

 

The MDPs suggest the further substantial non-airport retail in the future, which is unacceptable for this site.  The MDPs proposals fall, as stated,  within the South-east Precinct, a broad area nominate for Mixed Use - 1 development, in the Sydney Airport Masterplan 2003/04 which covers a substantial area both north and south of General Holmes Drive  and access to the M5.  The subject concurrent MDPs are proposed for the section south of General Holmes Drive on a site of approximately 20 hectares.   

 

Of great concern is the MDPs allusion to a future similar form of development, of a potentially greater size than the current proposal within the south-east precinct and north of General Holmes Drive.  This is reflected in the same mixed use zoning also given to this substantial area and the MDPs reference to additional [road] traffic access points to the site and a future bridge over General Holmes Drive connecting the two substantial land parcels Figure 3.1 and Section 2 of Option B (cinema / supermarket). 

 

This potential future expansion could effectively result in a six fold increase (or greater) of retail / commercial space than is currently provided at Sydney Airport.

By comparison, the Sydney CBD retail/commercial floor space increases by approximately 70,000 m2 annually.  This current proposal of between 63,890 – 67,840 m2 (total areas) is approaching the annual Sydney CBD floor space increase (City of Sydney Commercial Monitor).

 

Greater Sydney Metropolitan Strategy context and cumulative impacts

 

The proposed MDPs do not sufficiently address their regional impacts.  The Greater Sydney Metropolitan Strategy (Metro Strategy) has recently been released.  Though the MDP was prepared prior to the release of the Metro Strategy, the directions of the strategy have been on the table for some time.  The MDP makes reference to Direction 6 of the draft Metro Strategy to Strengthen Employment Centres and Precincts, now forming the ‘Centres and Corridors Strategy’.  The Metro Strategy identifies the key commercial centres and nominates the Sydney Airport / Port Botany area as a ‘specialised centre’ and part of the airport to CBD corridor.  As the state’s biggest transport hub and gateway to the ‘global arc’, this area is a significant specialist centre in its own right, without the additional retail focus drawing from the surrounding key commercial centres. 

 

Recognising the consent role of the Federal Government for Sydney Airport, the Metro strategy states the aim to work with the Federal Government to ensure the core economic role of Specialist Centres and specifically states development at Sydney Airport [and Bankstown] should not have unforseen impacts on other centres and on transport networks (Sydney Metropolitan Strategy Centres and Corridors Strategy Action B3.3.4).  As a centrally located specialist centre and one of the largest sites in Sydney, it is crucial that the future airport development be considered in the context of the greater Sydney Metropolitan Strategy and not in isolation as a retail / commercial enclave.  This is of particular importance when what is essentially a regional retail / commercial development on the airport site is considered and assessed under Commonwealth ‘aeronautical’ legislation and in isolation of State and local planning development controls / legislation which apply for any similar retail or commercial development.

 

These proposed uses should be located in / near large residential populations, accessible to general and frequent public transport and within centres.  In particular supermarkets are crucial to the long term viability of neighbourhood and local centres.  It is noted there is increasing pressure on the availability and supply of industrial land surrounding Port Botany and the Airport and the trend towards residential / mixed use development is reducing industrial land within this corridor.  Indeed, CB Richard Ellis (report 2004) find that within the CBD to Airport corridor the supply demand ratio for office floor space is 2.7:1, whilst the industrial supply demand ratio is 0.5:1.  The MDPs do not include any commercial / retail needs analysis for the locality and as such there is limited analysis of the impacts.  It follows that freight, land side supply and industrial uses may be more suitably accommodated on the airport site.

 

It is unacceptable to note that the MDPs do not consider the cumulative impacts of the direct airport activities and the additional forecast growth arising from the proposed retail / commercial uses in the context of growth forecast in the Metro Strategy, the objectives of the ‘Centres and Corridors Strategy’ of the Metro Strategy i.e. the Airport to CBD corridor growth zone and the expansion of Port Botany.  All future growth in the region is heavily traffic generating and within a locality already subject to heavy traffic.  The impact of this additional regional traffic on the surrounding residential neighbourhoods has not been adequately considered in the proposal, yet is likely to have a significant impact on those residents and the ability for traffic to flow through the surrounding localities.  The MDPs acknowledge the existing limited available road network capacity in the week day peaks. 

 

Ground travel plan

 

The MDPs do not provide sufficient analysis of the proposed transport and traffic impacts beyond its site.  As a condition of consent for the Sydney Airport Master Plan 2003/04 a Ground Travel Plan is to be prepared in consultation with relevant local and state authorities by October 2006.  The ground travel plan has been required to address the growing traffic concerns identified in the previous MDP for multi level car parking and commercial facilities (approved April 2005).  The current MDP proposals further increase the traffic generation and thus local and regional traffic concerns within the surrounding communities.  The current MDPs refer to commencement of a ‘scoping study’ for the Ground Travel Plan, though to date no information has been released or consultation with Randwick City occurred.  The scant references to addressing the ground travel plan is limited to public transport within the airport site through section 2.5, which states consideration for the provision of the following infrastructure for the site:

•    a public bus stop at the entrance of the site

•    bus and coach access and parking facilities

•    pedestrian access and links

•    cycleway and on-site bicycle parking.

 

The Option B (cinema / supermarket) MDP explicitly describes the choice of location based on surrounding “heavy” traffic found in section 2.2.3, which states the land is attractive for the proposed uses for reasons including:

 

·     “Direct access to the regional/arterial road system which provides excellent road connections to the Sydney metropolitan area;

·     Land with  a visual exposure to passing traffic both on airport in aircraft (a typical daily throughput at Sydney airport is about 66,000 passengers) and on nearby heavily-trafficked arterial roads”

 

Given the nature of the land uses proposed, consideration in the context of a ground travel plan is essential to this assessment process.  This Plan should be completed as a priority and a basis for analysis of acceptable land use and intensity.  Bulky goods retailing, cinemas and supermarkets are most likely to be accessed by private vehicles from a wide regional area, impacting significantly on Randwick City and other nearby local government areas.   It is clear that the airport MDP proposals rely on State and Local governments bearing the additional infrastructure costs arising from the flow on impacts from the proposal.

 

Randwick City considers the above measures do not meet the intention of the required Ground Travel Plan.  Rather the Plan should assess and consider strategies for the management of regional traffic growth, especially in view of extensive the identified target trade areas, and cumulative growth impacts surrounding the airport and Port Botany locality.   In line with the principles of the State Government’s “Right Place for Business and Services” Policy and Section 117 Directions (Sydney Metropolitan Strategy Centres and Corridors Strategy Action B4), it is considered the appropriate location of land uses, within centres and fully accessible by public transport, better serves to manage traffic impacts than token bus stops for retail uses which clearly will not be patronised by public transport users due to the nature of the bulky goods sold.  Public transport needs to be given priority in terms of employees and those customers not seeking bulky retail purchasing.  Other modes including rail, light rail, cycling and walking and combination rail / bus should also be adequately addressed and encouraged.  Randwick City requests that they be fully consulted on the progress and directions of the Ground Travel Plan which should address infrastructure needs, costing and funding.  These MDPs should be deferred until the ground Travel Plan is finalised.

 

Design

 

It is clear from this description that the proposed development is vehicular based and any strategy to address other transport modal splits is a token measure.  Additionally the location has explicitly been chosen for the high visual opportunities, particularly to General Holmes Drive, for extensive external building advertising, as represented in the elevations 3.6 and 3.7 of the Option B (cinema / supermarket) MDP.  Any proposal should be redesigned to focus on good design principles rather than on maximising advertising space.

 

Airport operations and navigation

 

A number of concerns arise in relation to the development of the south-eastern precinct and the resulting large numbers of people, unrelated to air travel, accessing the airport site.

 

The south eastern precinct is located between the two north / south runways, just south of the east / west runway and surrounded by extensive aircraft taxiways.  The safety implications, in the event of an aircraft accident on takeoff or landing, on the location of a large retail complex immediately at the end of the 16L/34R runway is questioned.  The MDPs provide no risk assessment as would normally be required of development posing potential risk.  This risk assessment is considered crucial to the full and effective assessment of the proposals.

 

Similarly the location, wedged within the limits of the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) (height), Terminal Area Radar (TAR), Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) and control tower sightline ‘developable envelope’ leaves no margin for error in either calculations of impact on navigational aids or unforseen circumstances.

 

Given these limited ‘developable envelopes’ it is unlikely the future use of the site will change once retail / commercial is established.  The increasing size of aircraft and required height clearance may restrict future aviation uses on the site and should be fully addressed. 

 

CONCLUSION

 

Randwick City recognises that some commercial development of Sydney Airport is a component of a successful business plan, however, both MDPs propose substantial trading or financial activities unrelated and incidental to the core airport functions as required by Clause 32 of the Airports Act, 1996 and are unrelated to the core use as an airport as required by Clause 31 (2).  These are unacceptable in their current form and should be refused.

 

The scale and impacts of the type of land uses proposed are not adequately assessed, as is required for an MDP.  The MDPs are generally limited to assessing the natural environmental impacts and have not fully addressed the social or economic impacts.  The MDPs consider the target trade areas and consider a percentage impact on broad retailing categories but have not assessed the true impact of the proposal on the surrounding local or regional centres and commercial areas.  It is considered appropriate that this economic assessment is required prior to any determination of the MDPs.  It follows then that MDPs cannot conclude that there is a high degree of confidence with which the impacts of the action are known and understood as stated in Table 5.1 (Option B (cinema / supermarket)).

 

The MDPs should be substantially revisited and revised, in consultation with State and local governments and on the basis of a completed Ground Travel Plan.  Being one of the largest sites and employment generators in the Airport to CBD corridor, the future development and impact of this development should be fully considered in the context of the State Sydney Metropolitan Planning Strategy and the local planning frameworks.

 

It is considered that the Ground Travel Plan should be completed, with full consultation with local and state authorities as required, prior to the approval of additional traffic generating development.  Randwick City strongly requests to be consulted throughout the preparation of the Ground Travel Plan.

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 3/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES - SURFING NSW,  MAROUBRA SURFERS ASSOCIATION AND SOUTHEND BOARDRIDERS INC

 

 

DATE:

13 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/08302

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

An application has been received from Mr Mark Windon on behalf of  Surfing NSW, Maroubra  Surfers Association and Southend Boardriders Inc, to use Maroubra Beach to host their local boardriders competitions, Regional Titles and State Open Titles over the winter months. 

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Windon explained in his letter that the children that enter these competitions are all local children and it gives them the opportunity to enter a competition at an entry level stage.  The Regional Titles includes 10% of surfers from each region who have gone through an elimination stage to reach the State Open Titles.  

 

Maroubra Surfers Association and Southend Boardriders Inc. are both non-profit organisations and Mr Windon is requesting that due to the nature of these events that the appropriate fees be waived:

 

Application Fee:                                                                                   $     88.00

Amateur Sports Hire fee (19 competitions) ($396.60p/d)                      $7,535.40

TOTAL                                               $7,623.40

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $7,623.40 which will be charged to the Contingency Fund 2005/06.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that these events would be very beneficial to the local children in the community.

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.       Council vote $7,623.40 to cover the fees associated with Surfing NSW, the Maroubra Surfers Association and Southend Boardriders Inc and funds be charged to the Contingency Fund 2005/06;

 

2.       The event organisers undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event; and

 

3.       The Mayor or his representative be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 4/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

YOUTH AND SENIORS WEEK 2006 - REQUEST FOR DONATION OF 250 NATIVE SEEDLINGS

 

 

DATE:

15 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07689

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR      

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The 2006 Seniors Week takes place from 2nd to 9th April. This national, annual event

celebrates older people’s contribution in making their local communities better places to reside.

 

On Friday 7th April, the Kooloora Community Centre is organising a celebration for both young and older women at the Centre at Malabar. The timing this year coincides with Youth Week.

 

ISSUES:

 

Council is organising a stall at the Kooloora Community Centre on the celebration day offering a wide range of Council information.  In addition, Council has been approached to donate 250 seedlings to hand out.

 

The seedlings are available from the Council Community Nursery.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is $375.00, which may be charged to the Contingency Fund 2005/06.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Seniors Week and Youth Week provide a great opportunity to acknowledge the contribution and talents of people living in Randwick City and it is considered that the event, being organised by the Kooloora Community Centre, will be very beneficial.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1.       Council vote $375.00 to cover the costs associated with the provision of the 250 seedlings from the Council Community Nursery and funds be charged to the Contingency Fund 2005/06;

 

2.       The event organiser undertake to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the event; and

 

3.       The Mayor or his representative be given the opportunity to address the event on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 5/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

WAIVING OF FEES FOR FILMING OF NON-COMMERCIAL SHORT DRAMA AT YARRA BAY BEACH FOR TROPFEST.

 

 

DATE:

8 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07608

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR     

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

By letter dated 7 December, 2005, Mr Warwick Burton, Post Production Supervisor of “Pacific”, ” a 7 minute drama filmed on Yarra Bay Beach on Monday 19 and Tuesday 20 December, 2005, seeks assistance with associated filming fees.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Burton advises that “Pacific”, is a non-commercial project financed by filmmakers who assembled a talented and experienced team who offered their services in kind. They did not have exclusive use of the beach and were mindful of visitors who were not at all inconvenienced.

 

The filming crew had minimal impact on the local environment at Yarra Bay and the Yarra Bay Sailing Club offered its facilities to the filming team.

 

“Pacific” is initially intended for the national film festival “Tropfest 2006” and will be entered into national and international film festivals in the coming months.

 

The initial request was unable to be put before Council in December and is therefore now a request for a refund.

 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council’s associated fees totalling $1,370.00 ($685.00 per day) may be funded from the Councillors’ Contingency account.

                               

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As “Pacific” has been supported by the members of the cast and crew donating their time, it would seem appropriate to support this request.

 

The producer, writer/director and lead actor are residents of Randwick City and also seek Council’s support.

 

The company is happy to recognise Council’s support in the form of a logo and title credits at the end of “Pacific”. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a.       the fees associated with filming at Yarra Bay Beach on Monday 19 and Tuesday 20 December 2005 and amounting to $1,370 be refunded; and

 

b.       the Council’s logo and Randwick City Council be mentioned in the title credits.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 6/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

MAHON POOL AND THE MAROUBRA BEACH PLAN OF MANAGEMENT OVERVIEW 

 

 

DATE:

3 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07343

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR   

 

ISSUES:

 

The Maroubra Beach Plan of Management covered the beach and open space areas from Jack Vanny Reserve in the North to Arthur Byrne Reserve in the South. Whilst much of the works identified in the plan have been undertaken, it is timely that a further review of the Plan of Management be undertaken to determine priorities for new and outstanding works and to develop future works programmes.

 

As a part of this, consideration needs to be given to include an upgrade of the toilet facilities and the provision of a café at Mahon Pool.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

In recognition of this I propose that Council allocate funds in the 2006-07 budget for engagement of appropriate consultants to undertake review of the Maroubra Beach Plan of Management Overview. 

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council allocate $3,000 for the amendments to the plan and $30,000 for an architectural concept plan in the 2006/2007 budget for engagement of appropriate consultants to undertake review of the Maroubra Beach Plan of Management Overview and preparation of concept plans where required.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 


 

MAYOR'S MINUTE 7/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

CLOVELLY PUBLIC SCHOOL - REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION AND DISMANTLING OF BANNER ON COUNCIL FLAGPOLES

 

 

DATE:

16 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/07164

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            MAYOR    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Ms Lynne Clerke, Secretary of the Parents & Citizens, Clovelly Public School requests that the school’s banner be displayed at one of the new sites for flagpoles at the southern end of Arden Street at Malabar Road, from 13 March, 2006, advising of the upcoming fete to be held on 2 April, 2006.

 

The wording on the banner is -  “Clovelly Public School Big Day Out Sunday 2 April, 2006.”

 

ISSUES:

 

The Secretary advises that although Clovelly Public School falls within the Waverley Council area, a large percentage of the school children live in Randwick City. Ms Clerke asks for Council to take this into consideration when assessing the request.

 

The Parents & Citizens also ask for the associated fees to be waived as the fete is the school’s major fundraiser for the year and all funds raised go to improving the facilities at the school.

 

Costing is as follows:-

 

Application fee                                     $130.00

Installation and removal of banner                     $561.00

Total                                                                $691.00

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Should Council accept the report recommendation, the financial implication to Council is that $691.00 which will be charged to the Contingency Fund 2005/06.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

It is considered that Council should vote to waive the fees associated with the installation and dismantling of a banner and funds be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2005/2006.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

a)       Council vote to waive the fees associated with the installation and dismantling of a banner on the flagpoles at Arden Street near to Malabar Road and $691.00 be allocated from the Contingency Fund 2005/06;

 

b)       The fete organiser undertakes to appropriately and prominently acknowledge and promote Council’s contribution prior to and during the fete; and

 

c)       The Mayor or his representative be given the opportunity to address the fete on behalf of Council.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

TED SENG

 

MAYOR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 1/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

COMMUNITY GRANTS, DONATIONS AND SUBSIDIES

 

 

DATE:

20 January, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00469

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 13 December 2005, Council resolved:

 

“That Items 7.3, 9.1 & 9.2 be deferred to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council”.

 

Item 7.3 was General Manager’s Report 65/2005 in relation to Community Grants, Donations and Subsidies.  A copy of the report is attached.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That Council consider the General Manager’s Report No. 65/2005. 

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

General Manager's Report 65/2005 - Community Grants, Donations and Subsidies.

 

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 

65/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

Community Grants, Donations and Subsidies

 

 

DATE:

20 January, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00469

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 August 2005 a General Manager’s Report 35/2005 on Council Grants, Donations and Subsidies (Attachment 1) was tabled and consequently Council adopted a number of resolutions (Attachment 2).

 

This report has been prepared in response to these resolutions.

 

It is the role of Council to support community groups and organisations through the provision of a range of grants, donations and subsidies including access to Council owned buildings and rental subsidies. However as the General Manager’s Report 35/2005 documented, there were a number of significant issues with respect to the management of the grants, donations and subsidies schemes that Council must address and these included.

 

·        There were no policies for the provision of grants, donations and subsidies with clear priorities linked to community need and processes that ensure equity, transparency and accountability.

 

·        With the exception of the Section 356 Grants Scheme there are no formal systems for allocating funds including selection criteria, regular assessment and evaluation. Generally grants and subsidies have not been awarded by a contestable process.

 

·        There is no collated data showing the full extent of Council’s provision of grant funding.

 

·        There is no clear link between facility use and the achievement of RCC desired outcomes

 

·        Many deserving community groups who may have high priority needs are not given an opportunity to apply for funding support from Council.

 

·        The basic principles focused on equitable, transparent and effective practices are not met by the schemes in terms of process.

 

·        Traditionally access to a Council owned facility has been provided on an ad hoc and/or historical basis based on needs at a particular time. However broad recreational participation and community services patterns have changed considerably and new groups may need access to community facilities to meet new and emerging needs.

 

·        The lack of review process has meant that some groups perceive they ‘own’ a facility or have perpetual access to it when in fact current community needs may be better met by another group using the facility or the facility could serve a number of users rather than be used exclusively by one.

 

The aim in preparing these policies is not to increase revenue for Council but to deliver equitable, transparent and accountable processes. However, at the same time it had to take into consideration a number of critical management issues, namely;

 

·        Council should not be financially responsible for any of the recurrent costs associated with the use of a building, such as reactive maintenance, utilities, rates, fire protection etc

·        Council needs to ensure that it is being financially responsible in making adequate provision for the future replacement of the building or facility.

 

These various responsibilities are addressed in the Community Facilities Management and Rental Subsidies Policy.

 

In preparing this report and the attached policies:

 

·        Research was undertaken to see how other Councils manage their facilities.

·        A brief survey was undertaken of all child care centres in Randwick City .

 

The report provides background to the issues that were taken into consideration in formulating the policies. It also identifies any implications arising from their implementation.

 

The resolutions resulting from GM’s Report 35/2005 included the development of two policies and the combination of the Small Grants and Community Grants Schemes. These two policies and the guidelines for the combined grants scheme are included in the attachments.

 

ISSUES:

 

1. Policy – Grants, Donations and Subsidies

 

This policy, included as Attachment 3, provides a strong statement of Council’s commitment to supporting community organisations, facilities and activities.

 

It clearly sets out the principles that will guide Council in determining grants, donations and subsidies. These are broad principles that should be referred to whenever decisions are made in regards to the allocation of funds and/or non financial support to any group or individual. Adherence to these principles will support Council in being more equitable, transparent and accountable in determining need and allocating Council’s funds.

 

2. Policy - Community Facilities Management and Rental Subsidies

 

This policy, provided as Attachment 4, will provide Council with a framework for the equitable, efficient and effective management of its community facilities.

 

Council is a direct provider of a number of community services that are supplied to community as a whole. These include libraries, children’s’ playgrounds, the Maroubra Beach skate park and the Des Renford Aquatic Centre.

 

There are however a range of community, sporting and recreational services and facilities that are provided by other organisations which are supported by Council through either the provision of accommodation at highly subsidised rentals or by other grants or subsidies.

 

The Community Facilities Management and Rental Subsidies Policy is based on the premise that community buildings and facilities are public facilities and that users need to provide appropriate and fair levels of contribution. The policy also reflects Council’s role in planning for a sustainable future through better facility management as well as ensuring the management and use of community buildings is consistent with environmental, social and financial sustainability factors.

 

The policy has been written to achieve a more efficient use of existing facilities through flexibility, multiple use and sharing between groups and a more equitable and accountable method of allocation of rental subsidies to the groups that use them.

 

The following sections address a range of issues that were taken into consideration in formulating this policy.

 

2.1 Child Care Centres - Survey

A survey was undertaken of all child care services in our area and 56 responses were received. The services surveyed included long day care; occasional care; home based care, preschools; before and after school care and family day care administration.

 

Table 1: Summary - All Child Care Centres

Type of Centre

Total No.

Commercial

Not for profit

Other – work based etc

Total Places for Children

Long Day Care

38

22

13

3

1617

Home Based Care

7

5

1

1

39

Pre School

8

2

5

1

339

Occasional Care

3

0

3

0

69

TOTAL

56

29

22

5

 

Table 2: Long Day Care Centres – Level of Assistance (as % total number)

 

Type

 

NO

Council assistance

 Council assistance

Less than $1,000 pa

Council assistance

$1,001 to $15,000 pa

Council assistance

$15,001 to $30,000 pa

Council assistance

More than $30,000 pa

Commercial

 

22   (58%)

0

0

0

0

Community

 

7    (18%)

2    (5%)

0

0

4*    (10%)

Other

 

3     (9%)

0

0

0

0

TOTAL

32 (85%)

 

2 (5%)

 

 

4 (10%)

* includes Moverley which is owned and operated by Council

 

Table 3: Long Day Care Centres – Daily Fees

Type

 

Average Fees

Highest

Fee per day

Median Fee

Per day

0-2 years

2 – 5 yrs

0-2 yrs

2-5yr

0-2 yrs

2-5yr

Commercial

 

$72

$57

$85

$67

$64

$57

Community

 

$56

$51

$75

$60

$57

$53

Other

 

$52

$48

$55

$53

$53

$50

 

While it is not possible to provide an extensive analysis due to the fact that not all centres in the City responded and of those that responded not all questions were answered, the following summary is provided.

 

·        Only 2 of the commercially operated long day care centres provided rental figures and these were rents of $72,000 and $84,500 which represents a rental of $1846 and $1432 respectively per child per annum.

 

·        One of the not-for-profit Long Day Care centres stated that whilst their current rent was $10,000 per annum, their landlord, the Department of Education is increasing the rent by 100% to $20,000 in 2006

 

·        In terms of fees only three preschools provided any details with the daily fees and these ranged from $25, $34 and $42.

 

·        75% (6) of the preschools received no assistance at all from Council, one received less than $1000 and one receives $52,000 in a rental subsidy.

 

·        Of the 3 occasional care centres one received less than $1000 in assistance with the other two each receive a $52,000 rental subsidies.

 

·        85% (32) of all long day care centres receive no assistance from Council at all with a further 5% (2) receiving less than a $1000 each. Four centres (10%), which includes the Council operated centre each receive $52,000 in an annual rental subsidy.

 

·        Of the four long day care centres receiving the high level of assistance two charged fees above the average and two below the average

 

·        In addition, once the agreements for the two child care facilities in the new Bundock Street Centre are finalised they will also receive rental subsidies to approximately a total value of $17,500

 

Many of the centres responded to the question that asked what type of assistance would be most beneficial from Council. While there was understandably a range of responses, quite a few nominated access to the community bus, assistance with printing, gardening and free trade waste collection. All were reasonable requests.

 

In the future if a greater degree of equity is achieved in Council’s assistance to childcare centres it could be possible to redirect Council’s funds to an increased number of centres through provision of assistance as requested above.

 

2.2 Child Care Centres – Determining Market Rental Valuation

In establishing the market rental valuation for child care centres the professional valuers would have regard to rental evidence of market value of similar style Community Child Care centres in nearby suburbs and the Greater Metropolitan Area. They would analyse evidence on a rate per square metre of building area basis as well as on a rate per licensed child basis where appropriate, having regard to location, size and quality of improvements.

 

For example as part of the process for determining a fair rental for the three tenants in the new Bundock Street Centre which included both a preschool and two other community services, Council had a market rental evaluation prepared by professional valuers in August 2004

 

The market rental evaluation looked at rental evidence from other similar centres with a number of examples provided including:

·        Coogee Bear Day Care Centre - Annual Gross Rental is $84,500. Licensed for 59 children, shows a rate per child of $1,432 per annum

·        Cremorne Early Childhood Centre - Annual Gross Rental is $26,075 - $175 per m² for a small older style cottage

·        KU Kindergarten in Balmain - current negotiations with the anticipated rental being $110,000 per annum which represents a rental cost of approximately $1830 per child per annum.

 

Research indicates that rentals for child care accommodation varies across Sydney between $1000- $2000 per child per annum.

Depending on the facility, different methods of valuing can be used, that is on the basis of size (rate per m²) or rental cost per child, enabling a degree of flexibility in determining market rentals.

 

2.3 Strategies of Other Councils and Government Agencies

A number of other councils were approached to see how they manage their community facilities. This research indicated that:

·      Most Councils establish a rental for their properties using property valuation principles, that is a market rental valuation is obtained.

·      Both Strathfield and Wollongong stated that they were moving away from charging peppercorn rents.

·      If any new buildings or space becomes available an equitable process is usually applied with all vacancies advertised.

·      Waverley Council prefers to utilise license rather than leasing agreements as they feel that license agreements provide clear rules and guidelines for occupancy whereas a lease can favour the tenant.

·      Warringah Council provides a maximum subsidy of 20% of commercial market rent.

·        Sydney Harbour Federation Trust utilises a contestable process and community users are only considered if their purpose and activities have a direct significance to the objectives of the Trust. Potential community users can apply for a rental subsidy but the total amount of rental subsidy available will be calculated at a maximum of 5% of the total market lease value of all the Trust’s leasable space in any given financial year.

 

2.4 Newly Dedicated Community Facilities

While Council welcomes the dedication of new community facilities that are constructed by developers as part of S.94 Contributions, such as the Bundock Street Community Centre and the proposed facility at Little Bay, there is a real cost to the community when Council accepts ownership of these facilities.

 

The new facilities will incur recurrent annual costs such as rates, insurance, minor reactive maintenance and planned maintenance such as painting and replacement of floor coverings. Council is also responsible for the structural integrity of a building and should be depreciating the building at a level that will provide for replacement in the future. The Australian Standard suggests that 3% of the cost of the building be put aside every year over the life of the building (30 years). A Reserve fund needs to be established so that Council can put aside the required level of funds.

 

Funds for the recurrent expenses have to be found within the existing budgets and in practical terms this means that there will be a reduction in funding for some other Council program. Therefore Council has a fiduciary responsibility to all the community to ensure that the occupants make a fair contribution to the funds required to maintain the building on an annual basis, otherwise the full operating budget required will have to be funded by making a saving or cut in another program,

 

2.5 Voluntary Management Committees

Council acknowledges the senior residents who give their time to assist with the management and operation of the Maroubra Senior Citizens building in Maroubra Junction. Council is committed to working in partnership with this community management committee and the arrangement should be formalised to ensure that building is promoted and used in accordance with Council’s Access and Equity principles and that revenue received from hiring out the facility to other users is put towards the maintenance of the building.

 

2.6 Cost Shifting

The impact of cost shifting by federal and state governments has meant that council funds are directed towards meeting needs that had been previously addressed by other levels of government. Council needs to ensure that scarce resources are not devoted to supporting services that are the responsibility of other levels of Government rather than allocating them to the core functions that Randwick Council is responsible for providing.

 

3. RENTAL SUBSIDIES

Attachment 5 provides a summary of all groups receiving some rental subsidisation from  Randwick City Council and details information on current agreements, terms, rent paid, market rent value, and level of subsidisation.

 

3.1 Extent of Rental Subsidies Currently Applied in Randwick

·      The total market value of leasable community space, excluding any properties leased under commercial tenancies is $1,778,969 although this will increase as more accurate valuations of market rentals are obtained.

 

·      The total rental return of leasable community space is $279,147.

 

·      The total value of rental subsidies is $1,524,472 which represents 86% of total market lease value. This is in sharp contrast to the 5% maximum set by Sydney Harbour Trust

 

Randwick City Council provides a significantly high level of rental subsidies to community and sporting groups representing a major cost to Council and use of public monies.

 

The amounts above do not include either the market valuation or rental return of Community halls and the HACC facility. 

 

3.3 Determining Rental Subsidies

The Community Facilities Management and Rental Subsidies Policy outlines the process for determining the level of rental subsidisation.

 

There are four categories reflecting a high, medium and low level of subsidisation as well as no subsidisation.  Within each category there is a range of subsidisation reflecting the fact that any user group will address each criterion to a different extent.

 

The following table which needs to be read in conjunction with the Category Table, Attachment 6, provides a clear example of how different users might be evaluated against the criteria. This looks at groupings of users and obviously does not reflect specific details of anyone one facility. Also in evaluating childcare centres other factors may also be considered.

 

Criteria

 

Bowling Clubs

 

Child Care Centres

 

 

Surf Clubs

Structural Integrity

A    Assume responsibility structural integrity of building

 

C  - Makes no  contribution to long term maintenance Generally see it as  Council responsibility

 

B  - Do not assume full responsibility for long term structural integrity

Reactive & Ongoing

maintenance

 - Take full responsibility for all reactive maintenance – never approach Council

C    - Although detailed in agreement is often reluctance to take responsible for reactive & regular maintenance

B   – Generally take responsible for ongoing & regular reactive maintenance as detailed in agreement.

 

Extent of Community Benefit

C  - Benefits smaller numbers of local community – regular & social bowlers. Provides healthy social activity for aged

 - Only benefits small number of community. Not all parents reside in Randwick. Government assistance is also provided for parents

 

A   - Benefits broad community in providing life saving services and activities such as Little Nippers

Extent of Accessibility of Facility to community

C  Limited accessibility due to nature of sporting facility. While membership of clubs is not large other members of community-individuals & schools use facilities

C    - Facilities generally only accessible to children & parents using centre. Are not available for use by other groups though perhaps some are used for birthday parties

 

 

B    - Facilities generally accessible to Randwick community. Function areas can be hired. Greater use of rooms by other community groups is desirable

Meeting Community Needs

C   - Provides service of limited community recreational need though is good to encourage active lifestyle for older persons

 

B   -One of many providing service of high need

 

A    - Provides unique service of high need

 

Ability to charge fees & raise income

C    - Has ability to charge fees & raise revenue from primary function

 

C    - Has ability to charge fees & raise revenue from primary function

 

 

 - Some ability to charge fees & raise revenue through hiring function rooms etc – secondary function

 

Do they provide direct competition to commercial ventures?

B   –Not for outdoor bowls - however bar & gambling are in other venues

C   - Many centres are run on commercial basis. Council supported centres are in direct competition with commercial services

A    No

Does their service impact on Council’s need to provide similar service?

D   -Service is not a responsibility of local government

 - Service is not a core responsibility of local government but could be provided

A  Surf lifesaving is a core service & Council would need to provide increased funds for own life guard services if was not provided by surf clubs

Access to Other Sources of Funding

B  - No access to other funding sources

 

B  - Access to other sources of funding

 

C   - Access to other sources of funding & sponsorship

 

 

This broad analysis shows how the system of categorisation will be applied. Each individual user will be assessed against the criteria and a numerical value will be given. However as some criteria, such as the ability of the user to be responsible for cyclical maintenance; extent of community benefit; whether is core service; extent of competition with commercial operators and accessibility of facility to community represent a higher value to Council, greater weighting will be applied to these criteria.

 

A user’s evaluation against the criteria will also indicate items that should be clarified in the formal agreements.  For example if Surf Clubs are to continue to receive a high level of subsidisation then they need to develop long term sustainability plans and work towards making some rooms more accessible for other community groups. However it is clear that if they were not providing the service Council would incur additional costs and that main activity is dependent on volunteers and is not in any competition with commercial operators. Surf Clubs are eligible for a high level of subsidisation.

 

The analysis indicated that both Bowling Clubs and Child Care Centres would fall in the Low or Medium category and with both groups it is unlikely that the level of subsidisation would exceed 50% of market rental value.

 

3.4 Implementation Process

 

Attachment 5 shows that while some users’ agreements have expired, are due to expire or do not exist, for many users the agreements do not expiry for a number of years.

 

The following is proposed as the process for managing the implementation of the new process for determining an appropriate level of subsidisation.

 

1. Where a current license, lease or other formal agreement exists, this will be honoured until its expiry. The terms of existing agreements in relation to the responsibilities of both Council and the user group will be applied and monitored for compliance.

 

2.  A review of future management options for the facility will be undertaken within the last 24 months of an agreement period. It will take account of existing usage rates and the potential for the facility to be used on a multi-user basis, in line with changing community needs and in consultation with the community.

 

3. A market rental valuation will be undertaken prior to negotiations if the current valuation is more than 3 years old

 

3. If it is likely that an organisation will need to increase the level of rent that they pay for the use of a Council facility this will be discussed with them at the time of negotiations.

 

4. If the new rent represents an increase of more than 20% above the existing rent then the increase above the 20% will be progressively introduced over a three year period. This will provide the user with adequate time to plan for the change.

 

Table 4 lists the users whose agreements have expired, are due to expire or do not exist. It also proposes what action needs to be taken.

 

Organisation

Proposed Action

 

Randwick Botany Meals on Wheels

Process to commence for negotiating new short term agreement based on policy

Coogee RSL –2 tennis courts

Process to commence for negotiating new agreement based on policy

Gordon’s Bay Fishing Club

Process to commence for negotiating new agreement based on policy

KU Randwick preschool

Process to commence for negotiating new agreement based on policy

Malabar Occasional Child care centre

Process to commence for negotiating new agreement based on policy

Randwick & District Historical Society

Council to determine own accommodation needs and process to commence for negotiating new agreement based on policy

Tracey Ellis -Lessee of Burnie Park Hall

Council to assume management of hall as hall has revenue potential and it is not appropriate that Council provides a rental subsidy to an individual

 

Paddington Maroubra Rotary Club

Council needs to seek information from Rotary on the level of support they provide to local groups prior to reviewing agreement. Process to commence for negotiating new short term agreement based on policy

Randwick Botany Amateur cycling Club

No action until POM for Heffron Park completed

South East Neighbourhood Centre

Process to commence for negotiating new short term agreement based on policy

Kingsford Legal centre

No action as plans in place to move service to UNSW

 

Totem hall, South Coogee

Process to commence for negotiating new agreement based on policy

 

 

The purpose of the Community Facilities Management and Rental Subsidies Policy is to provide Council with a framework for the equitable, efficient and effective management of its community facilities. It will enable Council to encourage optimal use of the facilities, obtain a contribution from user groups that meet some of the costs of providing the facility, determine the most appropriate occupancy arrangement for each user and most importantly recognise the value and benefits of services provided by community based groups and to subsidise these where Council sees fit.

 

4. Hall and Room Hire

Council has a number of halls and rooms that are currently hired to regular and casual community and private users or will be available in 2006. These facilities include:

·        Town Hall

·        Matraville Youth & Cultural hall

·        South Matraville Memorial Hall

·        Coogee Seniors Hall

·        Clovelly Seniors Hall

·        HACC facility meeting rooms

·        Vonnie Young Hall, Bowen Library

·        Clubhouse DRAC

·        Burnie Park community Hall

·        Bundock Street Community Centre

·        Jeff Sayle Pavilion Latham Park. (Randwick Rugby Club were given an option to enter into an agreement but have not taken it up. Much of the building is not currently being used and these areas will be made available to the community)

 

The hire fees vary according to the nature of the user, that is commercial or non-commercial, regular or casual and nature of building. The hiring of the halls, with three exceptions, is managed by the Property Services Unit.

 

In 2006 information on all halls will be available on Council’s web page and will include photographs and a description of size and inclusions such as hot water, storage, furniture layout etc. There will be an annual major inspection to identify maintenance upgrade work required and this reflects Council’s recent efforts in improving the condition of our facilities.

 

5. Community and Cultural Development Grants Program

The Community and Cultural Development Grants Program combines the former Small Grants and Community Development Grants Programs and provides opportunities for organisations to apply on an annual basis for one off or recurrent grants. The revised Guidelines for this combined grant program is provided in Attachment 7.

 

All decisions relating to grants, donations and subsidies will give regard to the principles that are detailed in Randwick Council’s Grants, Donations and Subsidies Policy.   The Guidelines provides clear information on funding criteria, application and assessment process and conditions of the grant. The combining of the two grants will provide for a more transparent and accountable process and will ensure that Council’s funds are allocated in an equitable and accountable manner.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

It is not possible to quantify with sufficient accuracy the impact of this policy on Council’s budget. However it is recommended that the level of subsidisation be reported as a community services cost and that funds be allocated to reflect the cost of subsidisation and ensure that monies are available for essential proactive and reactive maintenance.

 

In the future if there is a reduction in the level of subsidies to child care centres than any additional revenue be provided as a grant or subsidy to other centres who currently receive no assistance from Council.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

This report with the attached policies and guidelines is addressing the significant issues in relation to lack of transparency, equity and accountability that were outlined in the General Manager’s Report 35/2005.

 

Council has now documented a policy that provides a clear direction for the provision of grants donations and subsidies; the two grants schemes have been amalgamated to create a greater pool of funds and the guidelines provide for a more objective process; and finally the policy providing for the management of council facilities provides a process for more objectively determining the appropriate rental subsidy.

 

These initiatives will greatly assist Council in ensuring that all decisions made in relation to grants, donations and subsidies will actively support the achievement of Council’s strategic directions and outcomes.

 

RECOMMENDATIONS:

 

1.       The Policy – Grants, Donations and Subsidies is adopted and implemented by Council

2.       The Policy - Community Facilities Management and Rental Subsidies is adopted and implemented by Council

 

3.       A strategy be implemented to obtain market rental valuations for all facilities used by community and sporting groups by December 2008

 

4.       Burnie Park hall be managed by Council

 

5.       A formal agreement be prepared with Maroubra Senior Citizens in relation to the management of the facility by the Management Committee

 

6.       The Guidelines for the Community and Cultural Development Grants be noted by Council and implemented by Community Development unit.

 

7.       Negotiations commence for the preparation of new agreements with the users as identified in Table 4

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. General Manager's Report 35/2005, 23 August 2005

2. Resolutions - GM's Report 35/2005

3. Policy - Grants Donations and Subsidies

4. Policy - Community Facilities Management & Rental Subsidies

5. Community Property Rental Information - A3 table under separate cover

6. Category Table for Evaluating Rental Subsidies

7. Community and Cultural Development Grants; Guidelines and Application Form

 

 

 

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 35/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCIL GRANTS, DONATIONS AND SUBSIDIES

 

 

DATE:

16 August, 2005

FILE NO:

F2005/00469

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Randwick City Council provides a range of grants, donations and subsidies to individuals, community groups and non-profit organisations.  It is the role of Council to support community groups and organisations through such activities; however, as considerable funds are allocated the processes must be transparent, equitable and meet Randwick Council’s strategic directions.

 

In relation to the grants and donations Council must be able to adequately report to the community in terms of –

§  What organisations are supported financially by Council

§  The basis upon which decisions are made to provide funding

§  The total budget allocated on a yearly basis.

§  Outcomes achieved through the provision of funding

 

This paper documents the available information on the various grants, subsidies and donation schemes that are delivered by Council to the community.  It provides information from an internal audit review and clearly identifies the range of schemes and the level of funding, outlines the major issues in relation to these programs and provides recommendations for improvements in the systems and processes.

 

ISSUES:

 

1. DEFINITIONS

Based on current practice, the following definitions for grants, donations and subsidies have been applied within this report.

 

 

Definition

Grant

A grant refers to the money that is provided through the following programs:

§ Small Grants Section 356 Scheme

§ Community Grants Scheme

 

Donation

A donation is a payment provided through the:

§ Contingency Fund allocated for expenditure by  Councillors

§ Mayoral Donations

§ Nursery Donations.

 

Subsidy

Financial assistance or assistance in kind provided to organisations through subsidised rental payments, subsidised waste services or a direct financial contribution. Subsidies are generally recurrent and the subsidised service may be reflected in the lease or licence documentation.

 

 

However, throughout this paper these schemes will be collectively referred to and described as Council grant funds.

 

2.  COMMUNITY GRANTS AND SUBSIDIES AUDIT

 

An independent internal audit review of community grants and subsidies was undertaken by Council’s internal auditor, Internal Audit Bureau (IAB) in June 2004.  The objective of the audit was to assess the adequacy of Council processes in managing both grant monies received and subsidies and grants given out.

 

Whilst it was found that the processes used to provide monies through grants, donations and subsidies were operating as intended a number of identified improvements were suggested in the report. These included:

·        A strategic approach to the management of grants so as to clearly delineate the purpose of the grants and subsidies and the criteria for the allocation of monies

·        Formal accounting recognition of informal or ‘hidden’ subsidies (or income foregone) for all services that are charged below current market value

·        Transparency in internal transfers

·        Central database to consolidate information on all grants, donations and subsidies

 

The internal audit report acknowledged that Council has an active role to play in the provision of community funding to assist in the provision of services by worthy organisations. There is a need however, to ensure that the programs funded align with the corporate direction of Council and that there is a strategic, transparent approach in both identifying recipients and allocating funds.

 

3. POLICY

 

At this stage Council has not adopted a clear policy that guides practice in determining and allocating Council grant funds. This is required if the approach is to be consistent and aligned with Council’s strategic directions. The policy must be based on and refer to the principles that will drive Council’s financial support of community organisations, facilities and activities. It is proposed that the principles on which decisions in relation to the provision of any grants, donations and subsidies are:

 

§  Contribute to improving the quality of people’s lives

§  Provide an effective use of Council’s resources

§  Transparent processes for grant applications, allocation and management

§  Achieve equity

§  Produce better outcomes for the community

§  Foster accountability.

 

While the actual process of preparing the policy may identify other essential principles it is critical that these proposed principles be taken into consideration in its development. 

 

The policy and strategy, once adopted by Council, should be documented in Council’s Management Plan and the community should be informed annually on which organisations and community programs will be supported by Council through either the direct provision of funds or an indirect subsidy. Similarly, the Annual Report should provide information on Council’s grant funding process and recipients.

 

4.  CURRENT GRANT FUND SCHEMES

 

The following Table A provides a summary of the funds that are allocated through the various grants, donations and subsidies schemes by Council. 

 

Table A: Summary of all grants, donations and subsidies provided in 2004/05

 

GRANT FUNDS

Dollar Amount

 

Grant

 

 

Small Grants 356

$27,502

 

Community Grants

$110,064

 

Total

 

$137,566

Donation

 

 

 

Contingency Fund

$149,997

 

Mayoral Donations

$1,471

 

Nursery Donations

$1,018

 

Total

 

$152,486

Subsidy

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section F

$22,987

 

Rental Subsidies Identified in Budget

Additional Maintenance

$764,480

$6,365

 

Rental Subsidies Not in Budget

 Additional maintenance 

$332,871

$13,225

 

Users- Des Renford Aquatic Centre

$22,000

 

Community Library Facilities

$4,000

 

Operational & Cap  Subsidies

$192,000

 

Total

 

$1,357,928

TOTAL GRANT FUNDS

 

 

 

$1,647,980

 

4.1 Grants

 

Small Grants Section 356 Scheme:

The Small Grants Section 356 Scheme is administered by Council’s Community Development Section.  This programme is available to non-profit organisations and applications for grants are sought on an annual basis. Funds are not recurrent and new applications must be submitted each year. This scheme is focused on the target groups identified in Council’s Social Plan.

Organisations wishing to receive monies under the Small Grants Section 356 Scheme must demonstrate that the funds will be used to –

§  provide services, resources and events within the local community

§  deliver a small project

§  co-ordinate activities or pay for items in a larger scale project

§  pay for a specific activity or piece of equipment

§  provide a community service or education

§  employ short-term contract staff.

 

The community organisations submit formal applications which are assessed by Council officers prior to the approval and allocation of the funds by Council on a basis of demonstrated need.  The monies allotted are minor amounts, ranging between $100 and $1,000, and are considered ‘one-off’ in nature. Those organisations that receive funds must provide Council with an evaluation of monies spent. 

 

There were 71 applications received by Council in 2004/2005 and a total of $63,256.92 was requested.  However as only $27,502.00 was available for allocation, this means that only 43.5% of the amount requested was actually provided to community groups.

 

The Section 356 Grants Scheme is not recurrent and requires community groups to formally apply for funding against established criteria As such it has greater transparency than any other grants fund scheme.

 

Community Development Grants Scheme

The Community Grants scheme is also administered by the Community Development Section.  Historically this scheme was set up to provide monies to non-profit organisations to assist in the delivery of community services and programmes. 

 

In 2004/2005 individual amounts ranging between $500.00 and $31,500 were given to various groups within the community for activities such as volunteer training and education, contributions toward operational and rental costs, transportation and events. The total amount provided under this scheme is $110,064.

 

The key features of this scheme are:

·        Funds allocated are recurrent, that is, the organisations listed under this scheme receive the same funds every year and do not have to submit an application. 

·        There is no requirement for the organisations to submit to Council any justification for the continuation of the funding

·        Until this year the organisations have not provided any information to Council on the outcomes achieved through the provision of the funding. In 2004/2005 an evaluation process was introduced and the organisations are now required to provide formal feedback to Council but there is no process in place yet for discontinuing the funding if deemed necessary by Council

·        There is no opportunity for new organisations to gain access to this funding as the list of recipients is not subjected to any regular review.

·        The scheme is non-competitive. 

·        It does not reflect the changes in community needs over time

·        There is limited documentation to indicate the initial reasons for Council making some of the allocations as many decisions were made more than 10 years ago.

 

Summary Grants Schemes

It was acknowledged in the internal audit review that access to the Small Grants is fair, equitable and meets accountability requirements under this scheme.  It is however significantly under funded given that over 56% of applications are unsuccessful. This suggests a need to perhaps broaden the grants scheme which might be achieved by increasing funding or amalgamating the two grants schemes into one so that a greater pool of money is created to assist these organisations.

 

As the Community Grants Scheme does not meet the principles of equity and transparency it must be reviewed and more equitable processes for application, review and allocation implemented.

 

4.2       Donations

 

Councillors’ Donations -Contingency Fund

The Contingency Fund was set up for the purpose of providing ‘one-off’ donations to community organisations to meet specific needs.  A list of organisations that have received a payment in 2004/2005 is given in Attachment 2 and this shows that the amounts donated varies between $500.00 and $10,000.00.

 

In 2004/05, $149,997 has been allocated under this program to a diverse range of recipients including surf clubs, churches, multi-cultural associations and schools. A number of the recipients apply for similar amounts each year for the same event and/or activity.

 

There is no systematic way for applying for donations under this fund as decisions to provide a donation result from Council Resolutions and are usually initiated by a Motion Pursuant to Notice or a Mayor’s Minute. The process is solely dependent on the level of awareness of the person or organisation seeking financial assistance of the availability of the funds under this scheme and/or whether the individuals or organisations contact the elected representatives. 

 

There is a lack of transparency and equity in the distribution of the Contingency funds as the availability of and the process for applying for donation is neither publicised nor openly communicated and promoted to the community.

 

There are also many hidden costs in some of the donations as often staff time is not considered. This obviously impacts on the ability of staff to deliver other services or programs that have been agreed to in the Management Plan

 

Mayoral Donations

The Mayoral Donations budget is set up to provide ‘one-off’ payments to individuals and organisations seeking small amounts of money to assist with an activity or event or the provision of flowers at funerals.  These donations are approved by the Mayor or General Manager and according to Council policy can only be given to the maximum amount of $100.00.

Very few donations have been made in 2004/2005 to date ($1,471) and as with the Contingency Fund the provision of monies is dependent on the level of awareness of the individual or organisation seeking assistance of the availability of the donations.

 

Nursery Donations

The Nursery provides free plants to community groups who request them through either the Mayor’s Office or another Council area.  These donations are approved by the Mayor or General Manager and in 2004/05 $1,018.50 worth of plants have been donated up to March. There is a budget established for these donations. 

 

Each plant is worth $4.50 on average and generally no more than $100.00 worth of plants is donated at any one time. The plants are generally donated for fetes or other fund raising activities

 

Summary Donations

There are no documented processes for the provision of donations. This is not such an issue for the two small schemes, Mayoral and Nursery, but is a major shortcoming in the allocation and management of the more substantial contingency funds as there is no process for determining the most deserving groups.

 

The reasons for allocating donations not always documented accurately and the outcomes or benefits of donations are not known.

 

As both the Mayoral and Nursery Donations allocate very small amounts and are used sparingly they could continue in their present form. However more equitable, transparent processes need to be developed and implemented in relation to the Contingency Fund that ensures that all community groups are informed of their availability and that assessment is based on criteria established by Council.

 

4.3       Subsidies

There are a number of ways by which organisations are provided with a subsidy from Council.

 

Trade Waste Services -Section F Customers

‘Section F’ customers are provided with fully subsidised Trade Waste Services.  The customers on this list are non-profit community groups.

 

The budget allocated for the Section F Scheme is maintained by Community Development and the services are delivered by Waste Services as part of Trade Waste program. This currently represents a subsidy of $23,000 and the level of the subsidy increases annually along with general increases in Trade Waste charges.

 

The subsidy for Trade Waste removal is not promoted by Council and is again dependent on the level of awareness of the customer.  A customer wishing to receive this service normally needs to be informed by Council about the opportunity for the subsidy.  Community Development monitors the budget and provides an internal transfer of monies to the indoor Waste area to cover costs of service delivery.

 

As seen with previously described schemes the provision of a subsidy here is dependent on the knowledge of its availability. There is no policy, no promotion of the scheme and no systematic processes are applied. There are no documented criteria upon which decisions are made and the customer list is not publicised. The responsibilities for the subsidy lie with three different Council sections.  No new customers were added to the list in the last financial year.

 

Rental Subsidies

Council owns a number of buildings and sites that are leased to community, mainly child care and sporting organisations, for very low rentals.  As such the rental for these premises is subsidised by the Randwick ratepayers as there is considerable foregone revenue as well as capital replacement costs. In addition Council often provides further funds for maintenance and for utility expenses in relation to these buildings.

 

Some of the actual subsidies have been identified in Council’s budget and are reflected as an internal transfer of funds between Community Development and the Property Unit. 

 

Table B provides a summary of the community organisations who are accommodated in Council owned properties at subsidised rents. These subsidies are reported in Council’s budget as an internal transfer. Where available, information is also provided on any additional funding provided by Council in relation to the property.

 

Table B : Rental Subsidies Identified in the Budget

 

Organisation

Rent Paid

Per Annum

Value of Rental Subsidy

Other Costs Paid in 2004/05

Comments

 

Baby Health Centre Clovelly

 

$41,600

576.16

 

Benevolent Society

Eric Callaway House Nursing Home  – dementia care

$1

$190,000[1]

 

Council owns the land & Benevolent Society constructed the Nursing home

Burnie Park Community Hall

Management of hall contracted out

 

$26,000

 

Council receives no income from hiring of hall

Clovelly Child Care

 

$1

$52,000

619.19

 

Clovelly Senior Citizens Centre

 

 

 

Built 1954

Department of Housing

Affordable housing 133a Boyce Road, Maroubra

$1

$21,000

 

 

Duffy's Child Care

$24,650

$41,600

1,432.40

Built in 1989 with State & C’wealth funding on Crown Land

Kingsford Legal Centre

$6,240

$20,800

 

Will relocate to UNSW in new Law Faculty build

Kingsford Meals on Wheels

Nil

$16,000

 

 

Malabar Child Care

Prince Edward Street Malabar

$121

$26,000

508.33

Council renovated premises in 1979

Maroubra Senior Citizens

 

$52,000

2,114.59

Purpose built in 1979; rent from other users goes to Management Committee;

Matraville Youth Hall

- - -

$10,000

1,114.55

 

 

Peter Pan Kindergarten

La Perouse

$50

$38,000

 

 

Rainbow Child Care

 

$70

$50,000

 

 

Randwick Community Gardens

$70

$10,400

 

 

Randwick Information & Community Centre (RICC) Occupy a shop & 300m² office space in the Bowen Community Centre

$49,400

$52,000

 

 

ROCC

Waratah Street Randwick

$31,200

$50,000

 

Recently granted 18 month occupancy extension

South East Neighbourhood Centre

$520

$25,480

 

 

Total

 

 

 

$764,480.00

 

A number of other community organisations, mainly sporting, are provided with subsidised rent in Council owned premises, however, these subsidies are not identified in Council’s budget as there is no internal transfer of funds. This means that these subsidies are hidden and the community, Councillors and many Council staff do not know the actual value of the subsidies or even the fact that they are provided.

 

Table C provides information on these subsidies. While market valuations have been prepared for some of the properties on the list, an estimation of the market rental has been made for others. In the case of the Surf Clubs, the estimated market rental relates only to the entertainment areas and is based on a % of the hire fees. It is important to include these estimations as they assist in providing a more realistic picture of the level of subsidy provided to community groups by Council.

 

Table C: Rental Subsidies Currently Not Identified in Budget

Organisation

Rent Paid

Estimated Rental Subsidy

Other Costs Paid

Clovelly Bowling Club

$8,750

$8750

 

Clovelly Surf Lifesaving Club

Club house

 

$70

$25,000

 

Coogee Bowling Club

$3,165

$10,835

 

 

Coogee Croquet Club

$658

$5,000

 

 

Coogee Fishing Club

$100

$5,000

 

 

Coogee Surf Lifesaving Club

Car park

Kiosk

Club house

Boatshed

 

$70

$70

$70

$70

 

Nil

$50,000

$28,000

$5,000

 

Gordon’s Bay Fishing Club

$100

$3,000

 

 

Kensington Bowling Club

$3,164

$6,836

 

 

La Perouse Pony Club

Land

$2,333

$5,000

 

Malabar Boat Owners

Ramp

$100

$500

 

Maroubra Surf Lifesaving Club

 

$70

$25,000

$4,255

Off Shore Rescue Boat

Ramp and boatshed

$.70

 

nil

 

Randwick Rugby Union Club

Jeff Sayle Pavilion Latham Park

Nil

$10,000

$9,000

South Coogee Bowling Club

 

$3,750

$3,750

 

South Maroubra Surf Lifesaving Club

$70

$17,000

 

Surfing NSW Board riders

Office space

$7,800

$19,200

 

Ladies Baths

 

$70

$5000

 

Wylies Baths

Pool & functions areas

$762

$100,000

 

Total

$31,172

$332,871

$13,255

 

The Randwick Rugby Club is another sporting organisation that receives an unreported rental subsidy for its use of the Jeff Sayle Pavilion in Latham Park. This building which could be used by many community groups is currently set aside for the exclusive use of the Rugby Club who do not pay any rent  to Council.  Currently there is no lease agreement although one is in the process of being prepared. In the new lease the annual rent will be set at $350 and the lease will document the Club’s responsibilities for maintenance.

 

The actual revenue received by Council from the community and sporting organisations is minimal and in the majority of cases reflects the fee set by the Department of Lands who previously specified a minimum fee of $70.00 per annum in relation to the rents for a facility located on a Crown Reserve although this minimum rental is being increased to $350.00 per annum. 

 

The key features in relation to these subsidised rentals are:

·        The decisions to grant these organisations a subsidised rental have not been reviewed for a number of years.

·        The subsidised rent is a recurrent subsidy and many of the organisations have long leases/licenses with Council

·        There is little documentation that provides the background to Council’s decisions to grant these groups such a high level of support.

·        There is no policy to guide Council in determining appropriate rentals for community and sporting organisations

 

The issue of a lack of policy or clear rationale in relation to the levels of rent charged was noted previously in a Community Facilities Study that was undertaken in 1992. This report suggested that Council would be more likely to make informed rent setting decisions by maintaining funding source and other data about the occupants of its facilities allowing them to better understand the capacity of the tenants to pay rent.

 

Operational Subsidies

There are subsidies that are provided each year to a number of organisations to assist with general operations. Again these are not clearly identified in the budget as subsidies and the community, residents and ratepayers are generally unaware of the level of subsidies provided. Table D provides information on these subsidies.

 

Table D: Subsidies Provided for General Operations

 

ORGANISATION

SUBSIDISED AMOUNT ($)

Clovelly Surf Lifesaving Club

 

30,000

Coogee Surf Lifesaving Club

 

30,000

Maroubra Surf Lifesaving Club

 

30,000

Off Shore Rescue Boat

 

25,000

Off Shore Rescue Boat – amortised Capital

22,000

South Maroubra Surf Lifesaving Club

30,000

Wylies Baths

 

25,000

Total

 

192,000

 

These subsidies are provided on an annual basis, are historical in nature and with the exception of the subsidy to Wylies’ Baths support the provision of volunteer surf life saving services.

 

The Wylies Baths’ operational subsidy of $25,000.00 is a recurrent subsidy that is provided each year to this group and there is no requirement for them to account for how operational funds are spent.

 

An operational subsidy of $25,000.00 is provided to Off Shore Rescue Boat and in addition Council provides ‘half the cost of boat replacement’, approximately $110,000, which is required about every 5 to 7 years, and is amortised as $22,000 per annum over 5 years.

 

Des Renford Aquatic Centre

Subsidies are provided through the Des Renford Aquatic Centre to four community groups, these being, WAVES, the Maroubra Swimming Club, PCYC and Special Olympics.  The total amount of subsidies provided is approximately $22,000 which is for either the use of lanes or the pool free of charge or at a minimal rate.

 

In addition Council supports the Victor Chang Heart Foundation through foregoing entrance fees and providing a range of other support including staff for the Des Renford Charity Day which is held in October each year.

 

Library Facilities

Meeting rooms in Council’s Libraries are available to community groups at both a (reduced) community rate and in some cases for no fees.  The venues include the Vonnie Young Auditorium and the HACC meeting rooms at Bowen Library and the meeting room at the Randwick Branch.  The annual total amount of usage provided at no charge is estimated to cost Council $4,000.00 per annum.

 

Summary Subsidies

Additional Maintenance Assistance Provided to Organisations Receiving Rental Subsidies

The total rental revenue received by Council for these rental-subsidised properties is low and often does not cover the cost of administering the leases and licences.  While the leases and licences generally contain clauses relating to the lessee’s responsibility in relation to maintenance, the reality is that many of the recipient organisations make further approaches to Council for additional funding to provide for maintenance in relation to the buildings. This means that the fact of occupying a Council building often results in the organisation gaining additional financial benefits that a commercial landlord would not provide for other community groups.

 

On the other hand, organisations who do not receive the benefit of subsidised rental in a Council building, do not apply for additional funding that would relate to the occupancy of a Council owned building. This may in fact exacerbate the level of inequity in terms of Council’s support of community groups.

 

The costs associated with maintenance have been reduced over the last two years due to the implementation of new leases and licences and a more consistent and proactive approach by Council in encouraging the lessees and licensees to adhere to the terms within these agreements.  However, many of the lessees and licensees still have expectations that Council will pay for their maintenance and despite all efforts to require the parties to honour their responsibilities, Council still incurs additional costs for maintenance and repairs. In many cases it is found that if the organisations are told that maintenance is their responsibility by the Council Property Officer, they will often then approach another Department or even an elected representative for further assistance.

 

Council will need to continue to manage the leases and licences carefully to ensure that the lessees assume their responsibilities for maintenance and upkeep.

 

Under Reporting of Level of Subsidies

The extent of the rental subsidies not identified in Council’s budget means that Council is under reporting the level of assistance that it provides to community and sporting organisations. Further, it is likely that the benefiting organisations are not really aware of the extent of Council’s assistance.

 

The underreporting could also negatively impact on the reporting of Council’s performance against all other Councils in the annual Comparative Information. In particular Council’s reported performance in relation to Net recreation and leisure expenses per capita and Community services expenses per capita. would not reflect the actual expenditure.

 

It would be preferable if all subsidised rentals were identified in the leases or licences and clearly reported to the community in Council’s Annual Report.

 

Estimating Market Rents

It is difficult to provide an estimate of market rentals for the Surf Clubs who occupy Council owned properties.

 

The Surf Clubs have two different areas within the buildings: the area that is directly related to surf life saving activities  and the entertainment areas. The estimated market rental for the Surf Clubs has been calculated on the entertainment areas only and this is approximately based on 30% of the letting fees assuming two lettings per week. This does not include the additional earnings realised by the clubs through alcohol sales at functions and the monies earnt through Open Bar days. It is also acknowledged that Council makes other allowances for the Surf Clubs such as permitting some to collect donations from beach users who park in Council car parks.

 

The estimate of the rental for the kiosk on Coogee Beach was based on 33% of the rental paid by the commercial operator of the kiosk in Goldstein Park at Coogee Beach. This estimate is based on the potential of the kiosk and is a conservative estimate of its market value.

 

Market rental valuations have been obtained for two of the bowling clubs (Clovelly & South Coogee) and these valuations were used to estimate the market rentals for the other bowling clubs and the Croquet and Fishing Clubs. These estimates were based on the location, facilities, income producing potential and other possible community uses. In the recently negotiated leases it was agreed that the Clovelly and South Coogee Bowling Clubs will pay 50% of the market rental value.

 

The Process for Granting Subsidies

In summary it is noted that:

·        The process for granting subsidies is quite inequitable

·        There is very little documentation outlining the reasons why subsidies were awarded to various groups in the first instance.

·        Monies are provided on a recurrent basis for an indefinite period without assessing the validity of requests particularly in the case of Section F customers, the rental subsidies and the operational subsidies. There are many deserving organisations who are excluded from applying for a subsidy

·        Organisations receiving subsidies are not required to recognise or acknowledge the provision of funds by Council. This means that the users of these organisations and the community in general are not aware that Council’s provides financial assistance

·        In most instances organisations are not required to report back to Council on the benefits provided to the community in respect of the subsidies.

 

As many of the organisations have been occupying a Council owned premises on a subsidised rental or been on the Section F list for many years, it will be difficult to make many changes. However it is essential that there be a review of all subsidies and that policies and strategies be developed in order to achieve greater equity and to ensure that Council provides support in the area of greatest need.

 

5.  FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF GRANTS, DONATIONS AND SUBSIDIES

 

Each of the schemes described in the present report has a separate budget or is managed through a separate accounting code.  As noted in the internal audit report the financial systems used do not meet best practice in terms of the principles of transparency.  The data is coded inconsistently with the result that there is no accurate data that shows the funds that are provided by Council to the community in the form of grants, donations and/or subsidies. This results in Council , the elected representatives and the community not being fully informed on the extent of the support provided

 

It was also noted in the internal audit report that:

§  There are subsidies that are not even captured in Council’s accounting system

§  The degree of community support is further understated by the fact that there are ‘hidden costs’ associated with the provision of monies particularly with property rentals and leases (e.g.  maintenance, utility and staff costs); these additional costs are not accurately recorded against the subsidy so that the ‘real’ cost to Council is not recognised

§  Where there are services that are charged below cost or at a community rate (e.g.  Trade waste services) the true value of these subsidies is not correctly recorded.

 

These issues should be addressed through the implementation of improved accounting procedures if Council seeks to better manage and account for expenditure.

 

6.   SUMMARY OF ALLOCATION OF FUNDS ACROSS TARGET GROUPS

 

The allocation of funds in 2004/2005 was reviewed to assess the level of equity in the overall allocations in terms of the seven community target groups. It identified significant differences though in some cases this merely reflects the fact that some target groups receive greater funding from State and Federal Governments.

 

6.1 Children’s Services

Children’s services received the largest amount of funding of all target groups ($367,992).  Appendix 1 (Attachment 1) shows the recipients, which  comprise child care centres and services, preschools and school programs, and the level of funding received. This data shows that:

 

·        There are seven organisations ( Clovelly Child Care, Duffy’s CC, Malabar OCC, Moverley CC, Peter Pan Kindergarten, Rainbow CC, and ROCC) receiving a rental subsidy and this places them at a clear commercial and quality advantage compared with other children’s services in the community who do not receive any rental subsidies.  In addition the Clovelly, Rainbow Street and Duffy’s Child Care Centres also receive free Trade Waste collection with Clovelly receiving further additional funding through the small grants scheme and contingency fund.

·        The same seven organisations collectively received $310,236 in 2004/2005 which represents 84.3% of the total expenditure across all schemes for Children’s Services ($367,992).

 

As there are many organisations providing child care related services across Randwick City it is evident that there are large inequities in the access to Council grant funding.

 

Further research is required to see whether the rental support by Council is reflected in lower child care rates or other advantages for the community; to identify the pattern of funding giving consideration to type of centre (community or private); fees charged; and other sources of grant funds such as the Dept. of Community Services.

 

A policy with clear guidelines is required in relation to the application of grant funding to child care centres.

 

6.2 Aged / Disability

Eleven organisations were classified as delivering aged or disability services and the total amount of funds provided to these groups in 2004/05 was $303,170These allocations are shown in the Appendix 2 (Attachment 1).

 

When considering the reported rental subsidy for The Benevolent Society it must be noted that while Council owns the land in Adina Ave, Little Bay, the buildings were constructed by the Benevolent Society. A market valuation was prepared for this site a number of years ago and the reported rental value is used in determining the level of the rental subsidy.  However, if the site was without improvements it is unlikely that a rental of $190,000 would be achieved. This organisation provides a valuable service to the community.

 

6.3 Youth

Collectively Youth services and programs obtained $57,879 in funds as is outlined in Appendix 3 (Attachment 1). Youth Services do not receive the same level of assistance as compared with Children’s services or Aged/Disability services. Only one youth program, The Shack Youth Services, received funding from more than one scheme. The amount provided to youth services is relatively low even though it was identified through the consultation for the Community Facilities Study that this group does not receive adequate funding.

 

6.4 Neighbourhood / Community Centres

There are two Community Centres that received funding from Council in 2004/05, these being Kooloora and RICC. Kooloora received a total of $7,579 while RICC received $87,061. RICC , which provides considerable services to the Randwick community, received a rental subsidy; a recurrent community grant and a trade waste service.

 

7. SURF LIFESAVING CLUBS

The local Surf Lifesaving Clubs make a contribution to the quality of community life within Randwick City by providing surf lifesaving services throughout summer at Clovelly, Coogee and Maroubra beaches.  The services are provided on weekends and public holidays from the beginning of October until March. The other significant community activity that they manage relates to the provision of Nipper activities.

 

Council supports the Surf Clubs with subsidised rentals that are not identified in Council’s budget, with annual grants for operational activities, 50% of the replacement cost for the offshore rescue boat and a range of small grants for different activities. 

 

Table D provides a summary of all funds provided to the Surf Clubs during 2004/05.

 

RECIPIENT

TYPE of GRANT FUNDS

AMOUNT

TOTAL

Clovelly Surf Club

 

Club house -Rental Subsidies Not Identified

$25,000

 

Operational Subsidies

$30,000

 

Total

 

$55,000

Coogee Surf Club

 

Contingency Fund

$1,912

 

Club house-Rental Subsidies Not Identified

Kiosk –Rental Subsidies Not Identified

Boatshed - Rental Subsidies/Not Identified

$28,000

$50,000

$5,000

 

Operational Subsidies

$30,000

 

Total

 

$114,912

Maroubra Surf Club

 

Club house -Rental Subsidies Not Identified

$25,000

 

Operational Subsidies

Other

$30,000

$4,255

 

Total

 

$59,255

Off Shore Rescue Boat

 

Building -Rental Subsidies Not Identified

Nil

 

Operational Subsidies

Other – contribution to boat replacement

$25,000

$22,000

 

Total

 

$47,000

South Maroubra Surf Club

Contingency Fund

$4700

 

Club house -Rental Subsidies Not Identified

$17,000.

 

Operational Subsidies

$30,000

 

Total

 

$47,470

Total

 

 

$323,637

 

Whilst there is no question that the provision of monies to these groups is seen as worthy, these organisations also have the potential to attract considerable funding from other sources. For example, the four clubs received a total of $160,665 from the CDSE Category 1 Grants in 2004 and this represented approximately 50% of all the funds provided by the local licensed clubs. The Surf Clubs are also eligible for CDSE Category 2 Grants but Council has no details as to how they were allocated.

 

In the recent May 2005 State budget, $2 million was provided to Surf Life Saving NSW as the first instalment of a four year $8 million initiative for the enhancement of club premises and other life saving items. The surf clubs also gain sponsorship and support from other local businesses.

 

The contribution of the Surf Clubs to community well being is acknowledged.  The partnership approach of the Surf Clubs and Randwick Council’s Beach Inspectors is of paramount importance.  It is Council’s Beach Inspectors who are ultimately responsible for providing a safe recreational environment for all beach users and they coordinate all activities on the beaches including the overall operations of the surf clubs.

 

However, due to the overall high level of sponsorship that the Surf Clubs receive from a variety of sources they are actually better resourced in terms of equipment than Council’s own Beach Inspectors. This fact must be taken into consideration when allocating grant monies to this group as any decisions must ultimately deliver the greatest level of safety to our beach users.

 

Community Access to Surf Club Facilities

While the surf club buildings vary in size they all contain facilities related directly to the provision of lifesaving services such as operational rooms, lookouts, equipment storage etc. In addition they also provide for other ancillary recreational activities such as recreation, entertainment areas and meeting rooms. The public entertainment areas in the four local clubs are hired for weddings, parties and other functions.

 

It does not appear that the use of the club house facilities by other individuals and community groups is encouraged. The Randwick community does not seem to consider the surf clubs as multi use community facilities and some community groups have expressed concerns that the Surf club facilities are not accessible to others in the community. Some councils, such as Manly, have actually implemented policies that have resulted in the surf club buildings becoming more accessible to other users.

 

It would be preferable if some other community groups could gain more access to surf club facilities for  meeting spaces and consideration could be given to the development of agreements between Council and the Surf Clubs regarding the access of other community groups and sporting bodies to their facilities.

 

Sustainability of Surf Club Facilities

All the surf clubs have been leased for periods of 20 years. The lessees with the permission of Council are permitted to sublease part of their premises and Clovelly has recently put a sublease in place with a catering firm which provides them with additional income.

 

The surf clubhouses are ageing buildings and a critical issue for the clubs and Council is maintenance and sustainability. It is clear that considerable investment is required if the buildings are to be maintained adequately and the leases state that all maintenance work is at the sole cost of the lessee. Council needs to work with each surf club to assist them in developing a long term sustainability plan as this will be the only way that they can meet their requirements in relation to maintenance of their buildings.

 

The Surf Clubs do not always publicly acknowledge the contribution that is provided by Council as they do with some of their other sponsors. This needs to be addressed. 

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

As detailed in this report.

 

CONCLUSION:

Some principles for the administration and management of Randwick City Council’s grants, donations and subsidies programs were provided at the beginning of this report and an application of these principles to current practice reveals that there are significant issues with respect to the management of the grants, donations and subsidies schemes:

 

§  There is no policy in place for the provision of grants, donations and subsidies with clear priorities linked to community need and processes that ensure equity, transparency and accountability.

 

§  With the exception of the Section 356 Grants Scheme the processes followed are based either on traditional reactive responses to community groups who seek financial assistance or historical reasons rather than any formal system that includes selection criteria, regular assessment and evaluation

 

§  Recurrent funds are awarded to the same groups across different schemes without an assessment of how the monies have benefited the community

 

§  No one, including Council officers, elected representatives or the community, is aware of the full extent of Council’s provision of grant funding. This is a significant lost opportunity

 

§  Many deserving community groups who may have high priority needs are not given an opportunity to apply for funding support from Council.

 

§  The basic principles focused on equitable, transparent and effective practices are not met by the schemes in terms of process

 

As an imperative a policy that documents Councils position with a clear direction for the provision of grants, donations and subsidies must be developed and adopted by Council.

 

A clear strategy, linked to other Council strategic plans such as the Randwick City Plan and Community Facilities Plan is required so that Council can ensure that all decisions made in relation to grants, donations and subsidies will actively support the achievement of Council’s strategic directions and outcomes.

 

Council needs to consider broadening the formal grants scheme.  As suggested earlier the two grants schemes could be amalgamated to create a greater pool of funds.  There would be an annual call for applications and grants could be made for varying periods thus providing some continuity of funding for some projects. This single Community Grant Scheme would have objective assessment criteria, a proper review process, clearly stated justification for funds, accountability on the part of recipients to report on how monies are spent and follow-up by Council to ensure that reporting is undertaken by recipients and that reports comply with Council’s rules. Council should also ensure that they are acknowledged in formal documentation of recipients for the provision of funds

 

In line with this an ongoing application process for funding from the Contingency funds would remove the present bias and would make the allocation of funds more equitable, ensure that community groups properly account for how money is spent and create a more transparent and consistent approach to the dissemination of funds.  This approach is used at other councils where there is a single grant scheme and all funds are provided through this scheme.

 

Council needs to develop and implement accurate and consistent recording of information in accounting systems. A central database should be established to consolidate information, improve monitoring and enable regular and accurate reporting from one central location. There needs to be a more accurate estimate of the value of the subsidised rental that is currently not recorded in the financial system to enable full and accurate reporting to the community of the actual value of subsidies provided to the community.

 

The level of rental subsidies should be the subject of an ongoing review that takes both an ‘industry’ approach (child care centres) and also considers each situation on a case by case basis. The expectation of the community would be that Council adopts a consistent and equitable approach. Council requires a clear rental policy that states both its commitment to assist the community to provide needed services and the requirement to maximise economic return on properties for the community.

 

Council needs to work with the Surf Clubs to assist them in developing long term management plans that will support the sustainability of their facilities. These plans could also take into consideration factors such as the ability of the Clubs to earn income through their club facilities.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

It is recommended that:

 

1.       A policy be developed and brought to Council by November 2005 on the allocation of grant funds and subsidies by Randwick City Council. This policy is to include reference to a set of basic principles as proposed in this paper

 

2.       The Management Plan is to identify Council’s strategy in management of grant funding and to clearly report to the community on the total allocation of grant monies each year

 

3.       The Annual Report (starting with the 2004/2005 Annual Report) provides details on all grants, donations and subsidies allocated during the period in review

 

4.       Formal accounting processes be developed by January 2006 and implemented in July 2006 to address all identified accounting issues

 

5.       All recipients of grant funds in excess of $20,000 per annum be required to publicly acknowledge Council’s contribution by way of appropriate signage and inclusion in their Annual Reports or the like

 

6.       The Small Grants and Community Grants is combined into a single scheme with transparent, equitable processes developed and implemented for application, allocation and evaluation. A paper on this is to be brought to Council by November 2005

 

7.       All recipients of the recurrent Community grants be informed by end of 2005 that while the grants will continue to be provided for 2006/2007, in all subsequent years they will need to apply for these funds according to established procedures

 

8.       The availability of Contingency funds is to be advertised broadly to the community and that the community groups are invited on a quarterly basis to apply for funding to an established limit. This will allow both community groups and Council to plan more appropriately. The list of applicants will be brought to Council for final decision making.

 

9.       A policy on subsidised rentals be prepared for Council by December 2005

 

10.     A further report is brought to Council by March 2006 on the provision of grant funding to child care centres. This report is to include information on the range of services provided, fees charged, number of available places, and classification. The report should propose strategies for achieving greater equity in the allocation of Council funds to child care centres

 

11.     Greater consideration be given to the provision of support for youth services

 

12.     The Surf Clubs are assisted to develop long term management plans by June 2006 that will support the sustainability of their facilities and take into consideration factors such as the ability of the Clubs to earn income through their club facilities and the development of agreements that clarify the use of their facilities by other community groups.

 

13.     Where sporting and community groups attract income from the use of Council facilities, they be required to provide to Council on an annual basis, audited financial statements.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Summary of data on Grant Fund Programs.

2. Councillor Donations from Contingency Fund 2004/05 - DGFS Report 30/2005 to Admin & Finance Committee meeting 12th July 2005.inancial statements

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 


ATTACHMENT 1:

 

SUMMARY of DATA on GRANT FUND PROGRAMS

 

APPENDIX 1: Grant Funding Allocations to Children’s Services

 

APPENDIX 2: Summary of Grants – Aged and Disability Services

 

APPENDIX 3: Summary of Grants – Youth Services

 

APPENDIX 4: Summary of Other Organisations Receiving Funds


APPENDIX 1: Grant Funding Allocations to Children’s Services

 

RECIPIENT

TYPE of GRANT FUNDS

AMOUNT

 

TOTAL

Clovelly Child Care

 

 

 

Section F

$3,561

 

Small Grants 356

$1,000

 

Contingency Fund

$600.00

 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$52,000

 

Total

 

$57,161

Duffy's Child Care

Section F

$1,862

 

 

Small Grants 356

$530

 

 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$41,600

 

 

Total

 

$43,992

Baby Health Centre Clovelly

 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$41,600

 

Total

 

$41,600

Blue Gum Cottage

 

Small Grants 356

$300

 

Total

 

$300

Burnie Child Care

 

Section F

$630

 

Total

 

$630

Claremont College

Contingency Fund

$1,086.00

$1,086

Dolphin Street Playgroup

 

Contingency Fund

$1,000

 

Total

 

$1,000

Eastern Suburbs Aftercare

 

Small Grants 356

$500

 

Total

 

$500

Home After School Care

 

Small Grants 356

$800

 

Total

 

$800

In Safe Hands Before and After School Care

Small Grants 356

$1,000

 

Total

 

$1,000

Kensington Primary

Contingency Fund

$200.00

$200

La Perouse Public School

 

Small Grants 356

$600

 

Total

 

$600

Malabar Occasional Child Care Centre 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$26,000

 

Small Grants 356

$500

 

Total

 

$26,500

Maroubra Neighbourhood Children’s Centre

Small Grants 356

$376

 

Total

 

$376

Moverley Child Care

 

 

Small Grants 356

$600

 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$41,600

 

Total

 

$42,200

National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse

Contingency Fund

$540

 

Total

 

$540

Peter Pan Kindergarten

 

Rental Subsidies

$38,000

 

Total

 

$38,000

Rainbow Child Care

 

 

Section F

$2,383

 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$50,000

 

Total

 

$52,383

Randwick 2 Playgroup

 

Small Grants 356

$600

 

Total

 

 

$600

Randwick Family Day Care

 

 

Small Grants 356

$1,000

 

Community Grants

$4,822

 

Total

 

$5,822

Randwick Guides 

Small Grants 356

$600.00

 

Total

 

$600

ROCK

 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$50,000

 

Total

 

$50,000

SOS Preschool

 

Small Grants 356

$700

 

Total

 

$700

The Polish School of Sydney 

Small Grants 356

$500

 

Total

 

$500

 Total

 

 

$367,992

 

 


APPENDIX 2: Summary of Grants – Aged and Disability Services

 

RECIPIENT

TYPE of GRANT FUNDS

AMOUNT of GRANT FUNDS

TOTAL

 

ALERT

 

 

Small Grants 356

$500

 

Community Grants

$1,079

 

Total

 

$1,579

*Benevolent Society

 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$190,000

 

Total

 

$190,000

Eastern Respite and Recreation 

Community Grants

$8,386

 

Total

 

$8,386

Irabina Association

 

Community Grants

$2,148

 

Total

 

$2,148

Kingsford Meals on Wheels 

 

Section F

$1,246

 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$16,000

 

Total

 

$17,246

Learning Links

 

Small Grants 356

$430

 

Total

 

$430

Little Bay Coast Centre for Seniors 

Community Grants

$5,241

 

Contingency Fund

$660

 

Total

 

$5,901

Maroubra Senior Citizens 

 

Section F

$1,205

 

Rental Subsidies

$52,000

 

Total

 

$53,205

Mindfields

 

Small Grants 356

$500

 

Total

 

$500

Randwick Waverley Community Transport

 

Small Grants 356

$900

 

Community Grants

$5,241

 

Total

 

$6,141

Special Olympics

 

Des Renford Aquatic Centre

$6,250

 

Total

 

$6,250

WAVES

 

 

Small Grants 356

$1,000

 

Des Renford Aquatic Centre

$8,000

 

Total

 

$9,000

Windgap 

Section F

$2,383

 

Total

 

$2,383

 

 Total

 

 

$303,170

 


APPENDIX 3: Summary of Grants – Youth Services

 

RECIPIENT

TYPE of GRANT FUNDS

AMOUNT of GRANT FUNDS

TOTAL

Bondi Community Youth 

Small Grants 356

$1,000

 

Total

 

$1,000

Matraville Youth Hall

 

Property Rental Subsidy

$10,000

 

Total

$10,000

$10,000

Randwick Girls and Boys High Schools

Contingency Fund

$8,114

 

Total

 

$8,114

Shack Youth Services

 

 

Small Grants 356

$1,000

 

Community Grants

$36,165

 

Total

 

$37,165

WAYS

 

Small Grants 356

$1,000

 

Total

 

$1,000

 Total

 

 

$57,879

 

APPENDIX 4: Summary Of Other Organisations Receiving Funds

 

Twenty-eight organisations were classified as ‘Other’ and the source of funds for these groups is shown in the following table:

 

RECIPIENT

TYPE of GRANT FUNDS

AMOUNT

Association International Students

Contingency Fund

 

$2,500

Australia Indonesia Business Council

Mayoral Donations

 

$100

Banner across Coogee Bay Rd

Contingency Fund

 

$1086

Burnie Park Hall

Property Rental Subsidy

$26,000

Coogee Chamber of Commerce

 

Contingency Fund

 

$5,305

Department of Housing 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$21,000

Ephemera Reconciliation Monologues

Contingency Fund

 

$3,750

Golf Sydney Tours

 

Mayoral Donations

 

$681

Inner Sydney Regional Council

 

Community Grants

 

$1,079

Kingsford Legal Centre 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$20,800

Level 3 Meeting Room

 

Subsidised hire

 

$118

Matraville Families First

 

Contingency Fund

 

$408

Nursery Plants

 

Nursery Donations

 

$1,018

Peninsula Work Ventures

 

Section F

 

$1,246

Prince of Wales Hospital

 

Contingency Fund

 

$1,085

Radio Eastern Sydney

 

Community Grants

 

$2,096

Randwick Branch Meeting Room 

Library Facilities

 

$1,867

Randwick City Tourism

 

Contingency Fund

 

$1,625

Randwick Community Gardens 

Rental Subsidies Identified

$10,400

Randwick Literary Institute

 

Section F

 

$1,205

Randwick/Waverley Philharmonic Society

Community Grants

 

$4,035

Regional Study for Tourism

 

Contingency Fund

 

$2,500

South Eastern Neighbourhood Food Distribution

Property rental Subsidy & Small Grants 356

$26,480

St Vincent De Paul Society Maroubra

Small Grants 356

 

$500

Ted Noffs Foundation

 

Small Grants 356

 

$520

UNSW

 

Contingency Fund

$2,200

Vonnie Young Auditorium 

Library Facilities

$1,105

Welcome Overseas Students

 

Contingency Fund

 

$3,500

Wylies Baths 

Operational Subsidies

$25,000

 

Total

 

 

$183,907

 

 


ATTACHMENT 2:

 

COUNCILLOR DONATIONS FROM CONTINGENCY FUND 2004-05 – PREVIOUSLY TABLED

 

ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE COMMITTEE                                                                                  12 JULY 2005

 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 30/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

COUNCILLORS' DONATIONS FOR THE 2004/2005 FINANCIAL YEAR

 

 

DATE:

28 June, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/07396 xr F2005/00182  

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

To keep Councillors aware of the progressive amount of Councillors’ donations, allocations, waiving of fees and other similar issues for the current financial year.

 

ISSUES:

 

In the 2004/05 financial year there were sixty nine (69) Councillors’ donations totalling

$149,997.37 as listed in the table below.

 

MEETING

DETAILS

AMOUNT

Works Committee – 13th July 2004

Greek Glendi

($7,695.00)

Cancelled

Community Services Committee – 10th August 2004

National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse & Neglect

$540.00

Ordinary Council – 27th July 2004

Barry Watterson – Shakespearean Theatre

$3,114.30

Ordinary Council – 27th July 2004

POW Hospital

$1,085.00

Ordinary Council – 27th July 2004

Randwick Girls & Boys High Schools (Rock Eisteddfod)

$3,114.30

Ordinary Council – 27th July 2004

Dolphin Street Playgroup (Temporary Fencing)

$1,000.00

Ordinary Council – 24th August 2004

Maroubra Fun Run & Oktoberfest

$3,734.00

Ordinary Council – 21st September 2004

Regional Study of Changing Tourism Dynamics in Sydney (Backpackers)

$2,500.00

Ordinary Council – 21st September 2004

Bali Tragedy 2nd Anniversary Commemorations

$8,678.00

Ordinary Council – 19th October 2004

Des Renford Aquatic Centre Charity Day

$5,320.40

Ordinary Council – 19th October 2004

St George Coptic Church Fete

$796.00

Ordinary Council – 19th October 2004

South Maroubra Village Green Art Show

$85.00

Ordinary Council – 19th October 2004

South Maroubra Carols by Candlelight

$1,906.00

Ordinary Council – 19th October 2004

St Paul’s Anglican Church – Carols by the Sea

$1,871.80

Works Committee – 9th November, 2004

Salvation Army – BBQ

$210.00

Works Committee – 9th November, 2004

Salvation Army – Carols By Candlelight in Kokoda Park

$2,301.80

Works Committee – 9th November, 2004

Coogee & South Maroubra Surf Life Saving Clubs – Use of Beaches (Surf Carnivals)

$1,742.00

Works Committee – 9th November, 2004

Coogee Bowling  Club – Use of Goldstein Reserve (Bowls Mobile)

$1,330.00

Health, Building & Planning Committee – 9th November, 2004

UNSW Sustainable Living Centre – Sponsorship of Sustainable Schools Awards

$2,200.00

Health, Building & Planning Committee – 9th November, 2004

Association of International Students of Science, Economics & Commerce – Sponsorship of Sustainability Seminars Program

$2,500.00

Ordinary Council – 23rd November, 2004

Randwick City Tourism – Filming of Tourism Video

$1,625.00

Ordinary Council – 23rd November, 2004

Coogee Surf Life Saving Club – Use of Coogee Beach (ocean swim event)

$640.00

Ordinary Council – 23rd November, 2004

Coogee Chamber of Commerce – Use of Goldstein Reserve (Coogee Family Fun Day)

$5,305.50

Ordinary Council – 23rd November, 2004

Barry Watterson – Musical Events in Grant Reserve

$798.80

Ordinary Council – 23rd November, 2004

United Nations Development Fund for Women – Purchase of Ribbons for White Ribbon Day

$150.00

Health, Building & Planning –

7th December, 2004

Sydney Body Art Ride

$3,000.00

Ordinary Council – 14th December, 2004

Indonesian Welfare Association – Street Fair

$3,365.00

Ordinary Council – 14th December, 2004

 

Castellorizian Ladies Auxiliary – Carol Singing

$302.20

Ordinary Council – 14th December, 2004

Matraville Families First – Matraville Family Fun Day

$408.00

Ordinary Council – 14th December, 2004

Greek Orthodox Church of Australia – Greek Epiphany Celebration

$1,173.50

Ordinary Council – 14th December, 2004

Randwick Information & Community Centre- Removal Expenses

$4,000.00

Ordinary Council – 14th December, 2004

La Perouse Local Aboriginal Community – Christian Convention in Aid of Suicide Prevention

$1,987.50

Ordinary Council – 14th December, 2004

New Year’s Eve Fireworks – Coogee Beach

$5,000.00

Ordinary Council – 14th December, 2004

Welcome Overseas Students’ – Pilot Program

$3,500.00

Extraordinary Council – 27th January, 2005

Donation Tsunami Relief Appeal

$10,000.00

Extraordinary Council – 27th January, 2005

Sri Lankan Fundraiser Walk Centennial Park – Hire & Erection of Stage

$1,561.96

Works Committee – 8th February, 2005

Eastern Beaches Local Area Command –  Community v  Police  Cricket Day

$1,542.00

Works Committee – 8th February, 2005

Surf Life Saving Sydney Inc. – Use of Maroubra Beach

$855.00

Works Committee – 8th February, 2005

Trees for Mum Program – Use of Central Park

$1,200.00

Works Committee – 8th February, 2005

Grace  Point Christian Church – Clean Up Australia Day

$3,480.00

Works Committee – 8th February, 2005

Malabar RSL Swimming Club – Malabar Clear Water Classic Swim

$1,079.10

Administration & Finance Committee – 8th February, 2005

Indonesian Consul General – Tsunami Appeal Luncheon

$500.00

Administration & Finance Committee – 8th February, 2005

Friends of La Perouse Museum – La Perouse Commemoration Day

$3,700.00

Ordinary Council – 22nd February, 2005

Surfing NSW – South side Eliminations – Use of Maroubra Beach

$855.00

Ordinary Council – 22nd February, 2005

Living In Harmony Festival – Use of Goldstein Reserve

$8,338.00

Ordinary Council – 22nd March, 2005

Maroubra Surfers Organisation & Southend Boardriders

$4,025.00

Ordinary Council – 22nd March, 2005

Randwick Girls’ & Boys’ High School Rock Eisteddfod Team

$5,000.00

Ordinary Council – 22nd March, 2005

Wild Street, Church Festival

$1,534.80

Ordinary Council – 22nd March, 2005

Maroubra Swimming Club – Hire of DRAC

$680.00

Ordinary Council – 22nd March, 2005

Sydney Airport  - Campaign Against The Proposed Redevelopment

$1,830.40

Works  Committee – 12th April, 2005

Banner Across Coogee Bay Road, Coogee

$1,086.00

Community Services – 12th April, 2005

Living in Harmony Festival

$974.00

Community Services – 12th April, 2005

Ephemera Reconciliation Monolgues

$3750.00

Ordinary Council – 26th April, 2005

Salvation Army's Red Shield Appeal - Request For Waiving Of Fees For Installation Of Banner Across Coogee Bay Road. 

$1,086.00

Ordinary Council – 26th April, 2005

Claremont College, Randwick - Request For Waiving Of Fees Associated With Installation Of Banner Across Coogee Bay Road. 

$1,086.00

Ordinary Council – 26th April, 2005

South Maroubra Community Fair

$1,135.00

Administration & Finance – 10th May, 2005

Reconciliation Week 2005

$1,300.00

Works Committee Meeting – 10th May, 2005

Request from Kensington Public School for Donation of Plants

$200.00

Works Committee Meeting – 10th May, 2005

Clovelly Child Care – Request for installation of Ramp

$600.00

Health, Building & Planning

10th May, 2005

Sydney Airport Expansion – Update on recent rally

$3,773.21

+ $5,000.00 (for future use, included in total)

Ordinary Council Meeting – 24th May, 2005

Surfing NSW – State Titles Maroubra Beach

$855.00

Ordinary Council Meeting – 24th May, 2005

Kropka Theatre – Hire Town Hall

$700.00

Ordinary Council Meeting – 24th May, 2005

Coast Centre for Seniors – Donation of Chairs

$660.00

Ordinary Council Meeting – 28th June, 2005

NAIDOC Week

$1910.00

Ordinary Council Meeting – 28th June, 2005

Thai Awareness Day

$2860.00

Ordinary Council Meeting – 28th June, 2005

Randwick District Offshore Rescue Boat

$1556.50

TOTAL                                                                                                        $ 149,997.37

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Council allocated $150,000.00 in the 2004/2005 Budget, for contingencies.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the Director, Governance & Financial Services Report No. 30/2005 dated 28th June, 2005 in relation to the final amount of Councillors’ donations, allocations, waiving of fees and other similar issues for the 2004/05 financial year be noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.       Summary of data on Grant Fund Programs.

2.       Councillor Donations from Contingency Fund 2004/05 - DGFS Report 30/2005 to Admin & Finance Committee meeting 12th July 2005.

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

 

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 


ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING –

TUESDAY, 23RD AUGUST, 2005

 

7.2     GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 35/2005 - COUNCIL GRANTS, DONATIONS AND SUBSIDIES.  (F2005/00469)

 

363        RESOLUTION:  (Woodsmith/Notley-Smith) that:

 

1.       a policy be developed and brought to Council by November 2005 on the allocation of grant funds and subsidies by Randwick City Council. This policy is to include reference to a set of basic principles as proposed in this paper;

 

2.       the Management Plan is to identify Council’s strategy in management of grant funding and to clearly report to the community on the total allocation of grant monies each year;

 

3.       the Annual Report (starting with the 2004/2005 Annual Report) provides details on all grants, donations and subsidies allocated during the period in review;

 

4.       formal accounting processes be developed by January 2006 and implemented in July 2006 to address all identified accounting issues;

 

5.       all recipients of grant funds in excess of $20,000 per annum be required to publicly acknowledge Council’s contribution by way of appropriate signage and inclusion in their Annual Reports or the like;

 

6.       the Small Grants and Community Grants is combined into a single scheme with transparent, equitable processes developed and implemented for application, allocation and evaluation. A paper on this is to be brought to Council by November 2005;

 

7.       all recipients of the recurrent Community grants be informed by end of 2005 that while the grants will continue to be provided for 2006/2007, in all subsequent years they will need to apply for these funds according to established procedures;

 

8.       a policy on subsidised rentals be prepared for Council by December 2005;

 

9.       a further report is brought to Council by March 2006 on the provision of grant funding to child care centres. This report is to include information on the range of services provided, fees charged, number of available places, and classification. The report should propose strategies for achieving greater equity in the allocation of Council funds to child care centres;

 

10.     greater consideration be given to the provision of support for youth services;

 

11.     the Surf Clubs are assisted to develop long term management plans by June 2006 that will support the sustainability of their facilities and take into consideration factors such as the ability of the Clubs to earn income through their club facilities and the development of agreements that clarify the use of their facilities by other community groups;

 

12.     where sporting and community groups attract income from the use of Council facilities, they be required to provide to Council on an annual basis, audited financial statements; and

 

13.     the General Manager is to bring a report back to Council on the financial status of Wylies Baths, including options for maximising its community use.

 

MOTION: (Woodsmith/Notley-Smith) CARRIED – SEE RESOLUTION.

 


ATTACHMENT 3

Policy – Grants, Donations and Subsidies

1. The purpose of this policy is to:

Provide Council with an equitable, transparent and accountable framework for determining and allocating Council grants, donations and subsidies with clear priorities linked to Council’s strategic directions and the Community’s needs.

 

2. Aims of Policy

The Grants, Donations and Subsidies Policy enables Council to:

§ Clearly state the principles that will drive Council’s support of community organisations, facilities and activities.

§ Recognise the value and benefits of services and activities organised and provided by community based groups

§ Support non-profit organisations in the delivery of community services and programs

§ Provide for equitable, transparent and accountable processes in determining and allocating Council’s funds.

§ Provide one-off support for a range of community activities and events.

 

3. Policy Statement

 

All decisions relating to grants, donations and subsidies must give regard to the following principles. 

 

Any grant, donation and subsidy provided by Council must:

§ Contribute to improving the quality of people’s lives

§ Provide an effective use of Council’s resources

§ Achieve equity

§ Produce better outcomes for the community

§ Foster accountability.

§ Promote strong community networks, community cohesion and social support

 

There must be transparent processes for the allocation and management of all grants, donations and subsidies.

 

The community should be informed annually on which organisations and community programs will be supported by Council through either the direct provision of funds or an indirect subsidy. Similarly, the Annual Report should provide information on Council’s grant funding process and recipients.

 


ATTACHMENT 4

 

Community Facilities Management and Rental Subsidies Policy

1. The purpose of this policy is to:

Provide Council with a framework for the equitable, efficient and effective management of its community facilities.


 

2. Policy statement

The Community Facilities Management and Rental Subsidies Policy enables Council to:

·    encourage optimal use of community facilities to cater for a range of community and sporting groups

·    obtain a contribution from user groups for the costs of providing facilities

·    recognise the value and benefits of services and activities organised and provided by community based groups and to subsidise these groups where it sees fit

·    determine the most appropriate occupancy arrangement for each facility

·    fulfill the requirements of State government and Council policies in relation to provision of facilities on Community land, Crown public recreation reserves and open space

·    ensure that all user groups support Council’s non-discriminatory practices and policies.

 

This policy also allows Council to clearly communicate its intentions in relation to management of community facilities with the user groups and the broad community.

 

This policy excludes Council facilities that are covered by normal commercial leasing/licensing arrangements.

 

3. Principles

The following principles apply to management of community facilities:

·    The management framework will enable equitable opportunities for community based groups to access community facilities and related subsidies provided by the Council

·    Where a group or organisation has regular use of a facility as supported by a licence, it should contribute to its management and maintenance costs

·    Contributions from users of Council facilities should be used to cover the management, maintenance and minor improvement costs of the facility, and for the development of activities or services associated with the facility.

·    The process by which a facility is managed will be open, accountable and transparent.

·    All users will support Council’s non-discriminatory practices and policies.

   Council’s community facilities will be managed to protect and enhance their flexibility and accessibility in order to meet the current and future needs of the Randwick City community

   Community facilities on public land will be accessible to the broader community, as will facilities to which Council has contributed financially and/or in kind.

   All financial arrangements are documented, transparent and in accordance with legislative requirements

 

4.         Management Models

Facilities will generally be managed in a manner which preserves and maintains their flexibility and availability for current and future residents of Randwick City. Wherever possible, Council will implement a strategy of shared use between groups and this will be supported by the development of multi-use community centres.

 

A range of management models including direct Council management, community management, non-exclusive licenses and leases will be used. Generally, leases will only be considered in exceptional and publicly defensible circumstances

 

5.      Licensing and Leasing

Licensing of facilities will be undertaken in full consultation with the community and in accordance with the relevant legislation.

 

Council recognises that many groups have a strong historical affiliation with the facilities which they use, and have contributed in cash and kind to their development. Council supports the continued occupation of those facilities by those groups but on shared multi-use basis where it does not currently occur.

 

Where a current license, lease or other formal agreement exists, this will be honoured until its expiry. A review of future management options for the facility will be undertaken within the last 24 months of the agreement period. It will take account of existing usage rates and the potential for the facility to be used on a multi-user basis, in line with changing community needs and in consultation with the community.

 

Past contributions of cash or in kind by user groups to a facility do not convey ownership or preferential access to that facility. It simply means that this group benefits from having a more suitable facility in a shorter timeframe than might otherwise have been provided by Council.

 

Council will not enter into licenses or leases which provide for exclusive access to a facility by a private individual or group. Council will generally not consider leases providing for exclusive access to a facility by one particular group to the exclusion of the general public.

 

Leases will only be considered in the following situations:

   the facility has the potential to provide the best value to the community

   the lease will return a market rental to Council

   the lessor will significantly upgrade the facility at their expense where it would otherwise have remained in the same condition

   it is in keeping with the policies of the State Government, where the land is publicly owned

   community consultation has been undertaken, and 

   the lease is awarded through a contestable process.

 

6.      Maintenance, Improvements and Presentation

Responsibilities in relation to maintenance, improvements and facility presentation will be fully detailed in formal agreements. The following general rules will apply:

 

Unless otherwise determined, Council is responsible for the external structural integrity of community facilities, except where a user group has a direct negative impact upon the external condition of the building. A user group however is responsible for maintaining the external building in its existing condition and this may include painting, graffiti removal etc. The responsibilities will be detailed in the agreement.

 

Where a group voluntarily undertakes extensions or improvements to the exterior of a facility (e.g. pergola, sun shade) they are responsible for the maintenance and presentation of those improvements.

 

In some instances, when a high level of rental subsidisation is provided, an organisation or group may take responsibility for the long term maintenance of the facility required to ensure sustainability. This may happen where a facility is used solely by one organisation such as in the case of surf clubs and these responsibilities will be documented in the agreement. Where applicable, Council will work with these groups to develop a long term maintenance program for the facility.

 

Unless otherwise determined, users of the facility should be responsible for the internal maintenance of the facility. Where more than one group uses a facility, contributions and responsibility for maintenance should be shared based on the floor space usage ratio taking into account the different activities carried out by the different users.

 

Facility fit out improvements undertaken by user group/s will remain the property of the groups. Structural modifications, additions and improvements undertaken with the consent of Council will remain the property of Council as owner of the facility.


7.  Outgoings

Responsibilities in relation to outgoings will be fully documented in formal agreements and in general the following process will apply.

 

A user group will be responsible for all outgoings as they apply to the facility. The outgoings include but not are limited to the following:

 

   Rates

   Telephone

   Commercial waste, sanitary, sewage and cleaning charges

   Any land tax assessed on or levied in respect of the Premises

   Insurance premiums (not building insurance)

   Fire protection

   Charges for gas, electricity, oil and water separately metered and consumed in or on the Premises and

   All other charges and impositions by any public utility or authority for the supply of any service separately metered or supplied to the Premises. 

 

This is not an exclusive list and there may be other outgoings that relate to specific buildings and or uses. The full list of responsibilities will be documented in the agreement.

 

Where there are more than one group sharing the facility the users will assume proportionate responsibility for some of the outgoings. If any one user does not agree to this then they will be responsible for the cost of installing a separate meter for recording or measuring of the services or substances.

 

8. Openness and Information

Council will provide information to the community on the management of its community facilities through its management plan, annual report and quarterly performance reports.

 

Community groups and organisations using Council’s community facilities will be required to report annually on performance indicators in relation to the facility and the group’s activities. Council will provide guidance and advice on the collection of this information.

 

Council insists on the highest level of probity in the management of its community facilities.


 

9. Council Community Facilities

9.1 Community Halls

Fees for the hire of community halls and meeting rooms are determined annually as part of Council’s Annual Fees and Charges. The fees provide for discounts for local community and cultural groups and organisations. In addition there are variations in the fees depending on the actual hall and its condition, the time and day of the week and whether it is a regular or casual letting.

 

The availability of the halls and meeting rooms will be promoted in Council’s website with details of size, conditions of hire and cost.

 

     9.2 HACC facility:

Priority for using this facility is given to HACC funded services. The rent for the various users is based on an equivalent market rental for space in the area. Rent includes all utilities so this represents a level of subsidisation by the Randwick community.

      9.3 Other Facilities:

Council owns a number of buildings which are leased and/or licensed to a range of community groups and organisations. These include surf clubs, child care centres, aged facilities, sporting groups and neighbourhood community groups. Most of these groups have not entered into leases/licenses using a contestable process and many only pay a peppercorn rent.

 

Where a current license, lease or other formal agreement exists, this will be honoured until its expiry. A review of future management options for the facility will be undertaken within the last 24 months of the agreement period. It will take account of existing usage rates and the potential for the facility to be used on a multi-user basis, in line with changing community needs and in consultation with the community.  The level of rent paid will also be reviewed at this time.

 

If a review indicates that a higher rental will be charged it will be introduced over an extended period of up to three years to limit the impact on the user group.

 

10.  Setting the Rental Value

For each facility, Council seeks to recover either all or a proportion of the total operating costs of that facility. For a leased or licensed property Council seeks to recover rent at market value although in some cases a Council rental subsidy may be applied.

 

Market rental valuations will be obtained for all facilities. The market rental value is the amount of annual rent achieved if the accommodation had been let in a competitive market and with specific community buildings (e.g. child care or community centres) the market rental value should reflect the level of demand for that type of accommodation

 

The total costs to Council of operating each facility include depreciation, maintenance, administration and improvements will be determined. In the case of a new building a sinking fund should be established as part of long term sustainability planning.

 

Council may assist community users by providing a rental subsidy. The rental subsidies will be for a period as specified in the agreement/lease. The category of rental subsidy will be determined according to established criteria and Council’s objectives. The established criteria are documented in the Category Table which forms part of this policy. In all cases the level of subsidy will be reviewed on a three year basis and this will be reflected in any agreements. The review does not imply a change in the level of subsidy but is required so that Council is fully informed on the total level of subsidies being applied. All rental subsidies must be reported to the community on an annual basis.

 

The criteria set out in the Category Table will be reviewed and revised on a regular basis and will be detailed in Council’s Management Plan. 

 

Council seeks to ensure that the cost to Council of the provision of community facilities is absolutely open and transparent. Council has a fiduciary responsibility to all ratepayers and must clearly identify the actual cost of all rental subsidies.

 

10.1 Calculation of a Rental Subsidy


Step 1: A market rental value will be obtained for the property.

 

Step 2: The total costs to Council of operating the facility including depreciation, insurance, maintenance, rent payable to Department of Lands, administration and improvements will be determined. While total costs of operating the facility should be covered by the rent paid by the user, in some situations, especially in relation to new community facilities, the market rental value is less than the total costs of operating a facility.

 

Step 3: The level of the rental subsidy will be determined against the market rental value and will be based on a number of criteria which will be established and communicated to potential occupants prior to establishing an agreement. The criteria are outlined in the Category Table although there may also be a number of specific criteria that relates to the use of the facility. The level of subsidisation will vary between none to 100% of the market rental value.  This excludes the statutory rent that must be charged for facilities on Crown Reserves which is currently $350 per annum.

 

The rent payable by a community group must always include the rent payable by Council to the Department of Lands for use of Crown lands.

 

In situations where a community user or lessee undertakes a major upgrade or maintenance activity this will be taken into account when determining the level of subsidy that will be applied and may provide a discount on the market rental value.

 

While the criteria that will be used to determine the level of subsidy may vary according to the type of facility or Council’s long term directions they will generally include: .

   Assessment against the broad criteria in the Category Table

   Ability to generate income from their activities including fees for services, hiring out of the facility, private sector sponsorship and other government grants and subsidies. Financial statements will be requested.

   Can the lessees demonstrate that a reduced rent for an agreed period would have significant social, community and economic benefit?

   Would a subsidy encourage a particular cultural/ community activity to establish itself?

   The extent of the benefit of the subsidy to members of community. That is, how many community members gain a benefit from the application of the rental subsidy?

   Will application of subsidy address identified community needs?

   General assessment against the Principles outlined in the Grants and Subsidies Policy.

   Competitive neutrality. Competitive neutrality issues may arise for example where a private operator believes that a child care facility that receives significant subsidies from Council has an unfair advantage.

   Level of financial commitment by user to undertaking maintenance, major upgrades etc.

   Depending on use there may also be some specific criteria. For example in determining the level of subsidy for Child Care facilities other factors that could be considered include the number of places; where the children live; level of government subsidies; fees charged; number of children with special needs catered for; qualifications of staff

11. New Application for Lease or Exclusive Use of Community Facilities

The availability of exclusive use space in Council owned a community building is limited. However when space becomes available, Council will advertise any vacancies and these will be considered in accordance with the specified criteria that might include identified community needs; whether Access and Equity principles are implemented by the organisation; and the enrichment of the community’s cultural life.

 

12. Accessibility

Council will seek to ensure that facilities are progressively updated to become physically accessible to all segments of the community.

 

Where facilities become available for long term use by community groups, their availability will be advertised.


 

13. Links with Council’s Planning

Community facilities will be managed in a manner which ensures a close nexus with Council’s City Plan incorporating social, leisure and community development planning and is consistent where applicable, with the values and directions of the Plans of Management for Community and Crown Land.



14.  Definitions

Community facilities refer to Council owned buildings/facilities and their immediate surrounds which are used by community based not-for-profit groups to provide and organise recreational, cultural, sporting and community service activities. They are often, but not always, situated on Council Land and/or public open space or Crown Land for which Council has long term management responsibility. Examples include community centres, sports facilities and club rooms, and surf club facilities.



ATTACHMENT 6

CATEGORY TABLE

 DETERMINING the LEVEL of SUBSIDISATION

The level of subsidisation will be determined by assessing each user against the criteria and evaluating their weighted distribution across the categories.

 

·        CATEGORY A:    HIGH level, 90% -100%  of Subsidisation

·        CATEGORY B:    MEDIUM Level,  50% - 90%, of Subsidisation

·           CATEGORY C:    LOW Level,  up to 50% of  Subsidisation

·        CATEGORY D:    NO Subsidisation

 

Criteria

Category A

 

 

Category B

 

 

Category C

 

 

Category D

 

 

Structural Integrity

Asset Management Plan prepared by lessee  or licensee to plan for structural integrity

 

Makes some contribution to structural integrity

Council responsible for structural integrity

Council responsible for structural integrity

Reactive & Ongoing

maintenance

Takes responsibility for internal & external reactive maintenance as detailed in agreement

Takes responsibility for almost all of the internal & external reactive maintenance as detailed in agreement

Takes responsibility for some of internal & external reactive maintenance as detailed in agreement

Does not take responsibility for internal & external reactive maintenance even though detailed in agreement

Extent of Community Benefit

Benefits broad community

Benefits smaller numbers of local community

 

Only benefits small number

 

Only benefits small number

Extent of Accessibility of Facility to community

Facilities are accessible to many in Randwick community

Facilities generally accessible to Randwick community

Facilities have limited accessibility to others in Randwick community

 

Facilities not accessible to others in community

Meeting Community Needs

Provides unique service of high need

One of many providing service of high need or provides unique service of moderate need

Provides service of limited community need or high recreational need

Meets social or recreational needs only

Ability to charge fees & raise income

Limited or no ability to raise revenue

Some ability to raise revenue

Has ability to charge fees & raise revenue

 

Operates on profit basis

Do they provide direct competition to commercial ventures

No. Main activity depends on volunteers; is unique activity

While main business is not in direct competition some aspects of business are

While they are in direct competition with commercial providers they provide added service to users

In direct competition with commercial providers

Does their service impact on Council’s need to provide similar service?

 

Without this service provision Council would be required to provide additional service

Lack of service would have some impact on Council’s provision

Service is not core responsibility of local government but could be provided

Service is not responsibility of local government

Access to Other Sources of Funding

No access to other funding sources

Access to other sources of funding

Access to other sources of funding

Access to other sources of funding

 

 


 

 

 

RANDWICK CITY

COUNCIL

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

GUIDELINES AND APPLICATION FORM

 

2007/2008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 1:  Guidelines

Part 2:  Application Forms A and B


T 1

Randwick City Council

GUIDELINES for COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT GrantS

 

 

Randwick City Council’s Community and Cultural Development Grants Program encourages and supports local community and cultural organisations in providing services, initiatives or resources to the community of Randwick City.

 

The Community and Cultural Development Grants Program combines the former Small Grants and Community Development Grants Programs and provides opportunities for organisations to apply on an annual basis for one off or recurrent grants.

 

All decisions relating to grants, donations and subsidies must give regard to the following principles that are detailed in Randwick Council’s Grants, Donations and Subsidies Policy which states that: 

 

Any grant, donation and subsidy provided by Council must:

·    Contribute to improving the quality of people’s lives

·    Provide an effective use of Council’s resources

·    Achieve equity

·    Produce better outcomes for the community

·    Foster accountability.

·    Promote strong community networks, community cohesion and social support

1. OBJECTIVES

Council’s Community and Cultural Development Grants are provided for community development projects which:

·    Assist community based services to develop and implement relevant programs and projects that address the social and cultural needs of the residents within the Randwick Local Government Area

·    Facilitate access to services and programs by the whole community

·    Encourage community participation in the development and implementation of community based programs/projects

·    Encourage and foster the effective provision of community based services

·    Contribute to a vibrant cultural and community life in Randwick City

 

2. AMOUNT OF GRANTS

·    One off Individual grants are limited to a maximum of $5,000 (or less) per program / project. 

·    Recurrent grants may be considered on a case by case basis where funds are required for service viability issues, or where alternate funding sources have been exhausted and are unavailable to meet an identified need

·    Please be aware that there are always more requests for financial assistance than available funds, therefore organisations should carefully consider the amount being requested

·    Randwick City Council cannot guarantee to fund every applicant, to fund the full amount requested, or to fund the same organisation every year

 

3. FUNDING CRITERIA

 

The Following Organisations Are Eligible For One-Off Or Recurrent Funding:

 

·    Non-profit community based and cultural organisations or groups

·    Organisations providing a service or activity which is wholly or substantially for the benefit of Randwick residents or the Randwick Local Government Area

 

The following are not eligible for funding:

·    Commercial organisations and enterprises

·    Government Departments or agencies

·    Organisations which hold a liquor licence

·    Individuals or private groups

 

Generally funds are set aside for community and cultural services and organisations, due to the limited grant funds available. It is unlikely that environmental and sporting groups will be funded as other sources of funding and sponsorship are available to assist these groups.

 

One–Off Grants are available for the following:

·    Services, resources and events for local communities

·    Small projects

·    Specific activities or items in a larger project (ie partial funding)

·    Specific activity or equipment costs

·    Community services, community arts, information and education, etc

·    Short term or contract staff (e.g. providing training or skills development)

 

Examples of one-off projects previously funded include the establishment of a Ranger / Guide Unit, the purchase of equipment for children with a disability, a contribution towards a wheelchair hoist for a new community bus and training workshops for a local writers’ group.

 

One–off grants must be expended within the financial year funds are provided.

 

 The following components or costs will not be funded by one–off grants:

·    Non-specific operational expenditure, eg. Administration

·    General shortfalls in funding by Government Departments

·    Ongoing salary costs

·    Completed projects

·    Profit making projects

·    Duplication of existing community and cultural services

·    Projects which could be funded by alternative Government funding sources.

 

Recurrent funding made available through Council, will be on a 3 year contractual basis. Organisations requesting funds beyond 3 years will need to reapply on a 3 year basis. Given the demand for funds, it is unlikely that recurrent funding will be extended beyond three years.

 

The following components or costs will not be funded by recurrent grants:

·    General shortfalls in funding by Government Departments for administrative functions

·    Projects which could be funded by alternative Government funding sources

·    Completed projects

·    Profit making projects

·    Duplication of existing community & cultural services

·    One off projects

 

In some instances funding may be made available to assist community groups or organisations facing viability issues.

 

4. THE APPLICATION PROCESS

 

4.1 Approximate Timetable for Grant Funding

 

Grants program publicised

February

Closing date for all applications

March

Assessment of applications

April

Report to Council

May

Information obtained to process successful applications

June

Distribution of grant monies to successful applicants

July

The timetable will be made available when the grants are advertised.

 

Requests for funding must be submitted on the Application Form provided for the Community and Cultural Development Grants Program. 

 

Form A should be completed for grant applications up to $1,000 and Form B for grants  over $1,000.

 

4.2 General Requirements

·    There is only one grant program and applicants can only request funding for either a recurrent grant or a one off small grant per year.

·    Applicants can apply for funding for one project only per annum

·    Faxed, late or incomplete application forms will not be accepted

·    Additional  supporting items such as brochures, annual reports, and research material can be attached to the application form

 

4.3 Application criteria

 

The merit of an application for funding will be judged against the following criteria and the degree to which it addresses any, or all of these criteria:

 

·    Extent to which application meets the broad principles of Council’s policies on Grants, Donations and Subsidies, as outlined in the introduction section

·    The objectives of the Grants Program

·    Extent to which application addresses identified community needs and the Local Area Priorities Statement produced by Council

·    Innovative projects

·    Numbers of Randwick City residents to benefit from this project

·    Ability of the applicant to access other funds including effort undertaken by applicant to source alternate funding

·    Resources to be contributed to the project by the applicant

·    Clearly stated goals and project plan

·    A realistically costed budget 

·    Demonstrated capacity / experience to manage projects and services

·    Extent of community involvement in the development of the project / program

 

4.4       Supporting Documentation

 

Applicants are required to submit the following documentation with their application where applicable

·    Proof of the organisation’s non profit status (e.g. copy of Certificate of Incorporation)

·    The current constitution or Articles of Association of the organisation

·    A copy of the minutes of the last Annual General Meeting

·    Copies of written quotes if purchasing equipment over $1,000

 

5.  ASSESSMENT PROCESS

 

The assessment process will involve the following steps:

·    All grant applications will be considered and assessed in accordance with the above application criteria

·    On some occasions a Council Officer may seek further information from the applicant

·    Recommendations will be forwarded to the Council for approval

·    Applicants will be advised within 4 weeks of Council’s decision

·    Successful applicants will be required to:

            - sign a funding agreement

- advise of their GST status

- comply with Council’s GST procedures for the grant

 

6.  CONDITIONS OF THE GRANT

 

·    Funds must be deposited in an account in the organisation’s name and used solely for the purpose specified in the application

·    All publicity relating to the project/service, including any annual reporting, must acknowledge Randwick City Council’s contribution

·    A Community and Cultural Development Grants Evaluation Report Form must be completed by the end of the project or on an annual basis (whichever applies)

·    Any unspent monies are to be returned to Council as soon as the project has been finalised

·    Unspent grant funding cannot be carried over from one year to the next

 

However, while it is not encouraged, in special circumstances Council may consider requests from organisations to carry over funds not expended within the grant period.

 

7.  ENQUIRIES

 

All enquiries should be directed to:

 

           

Community Development

Randwick City Council

Telephone:        9399 0677

Fax:                  9319 1510

Email:               community.grants@randwick.nsw.gov.au

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

PART 2

Randwick City Council

 

COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS 2007/8

 

APPLICATION FORM A

(Grant applications up to $1,000)

 

Important information for applicants

 

Please read the Guidelines for  the Community and Cultural Development Grants Program carefully before completing this Application Form.

 

Please Note You can apply for funding for One Project Only per annum

 

Forms can be handwritten or typed but must be no longer than the Application Form provided.  Application forms are available in hard copy or electronic version.

 

Remember: late, faxed, or incomplete applications cannot be considered.

 

If there are any questions or applicants require assistance to complete the form, please contact

 

……………………..on 9399 ……..

 

 

 

Closing date ………………..

 

 

Mail completed forms to:

 

The General Manager

Community and Cultural Development Grants Program

Randwick City Council

30 Frances Street

Randwick 2031

 

Or email to: community.grants@randwick.nsw.gov.au

 

Marked to the attention of ………….

 

 

 

 


 

 

COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL DEVELOPENT GRANTS

 2007/2008

 

Application Form A (Grants applications up to $1,000)

 

 

1. CONTACT DETAILS

 

1.1 Name of organisation: 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

1.2 Street address: 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

1.3 Postal address: ________________________________________________________

 

_________________________________________________Postcode: ______________

 

1.4 Contact Person: 

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

1.5 Position: 

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

1.6 Telephone number:

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

1.7 Fax number:

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

1.8 Email address:

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 


2. THE WORK OF YOUR ORGANISATION

 

2.1 What are the main activities of your organisation? (describe briefly or attach a brochure)

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

2.2 Who benefits from the work of your organisation? (tick as many as applicable)

 

£ Children

£ Youth

£ Adults

£ People aged 65+ years

£ People with a Disability

£ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

£ People from a Culturally Diverse and Linguistically Diverse Background

£ Women

£ All population groups

£ Cultural groups (please specify) __________________________________

£  Other (please specify)__________________________________________

 

 

3. THE STRUCTURE OF THE AUSPICING ORGANISATION

 

3.1 When was the organisation established?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

3.2 Is it a non-profit community organisation?                                        £ yes               £ no

 

3.3 Is the organisation an Incorporated Association or similar?               £ yes               £ no

 

If no, does it have:

A Constitution with aims and objectives?                                              £ yes               £ no

Office Bearers?                                                                                    £ yes               £ no

            Public Liability Insurance?                                                                     £ yes               £ no


4. APPLICATION SUMMARY

 

Amount requested:  $___________________

 

One-off  £                   Recurrent  £ on an annual basis  up to 3 years 

 

5. PROGRAM/PROJECT AIMS

 

5.1 Description of the project: 

 

__________________________________________________________________­­­­______

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.2 What are the aims of the program/project? 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.3 Application criteria. Please detail how your application addresses the application criteria.

(Refer to the criteria set out in the Guidelines 4.3)

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.4 If the program’s / project’s funding request is one-off, will it have continuous funding implications? If so, please provide details of how the organisation intends to meet this ongoing obligation?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.5 How does the program/project meet an identified community need.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

______________________________________________________________________________________

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.6 Who will benefit from this program / project?

(brief description of target group/s and number of people)

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.7 Where will the program / project be located / provided? (list suburbs)

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.8 Have other relevant organisations been consulted regarding this program/project, and if so who? (Please provide contact details)

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.9 Is this program, project or service already assisted by an existing Government funding program?

 

£ yes               £ no    If yes, please provide details.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.10 Has your organisation managed a similar program/project previously? 

 

£ yes               £ no    If yes, please provide details.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.11 How will the funded activity be monitored and evaluated?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.12 Please provide details of non-financial contributions to be provided to the project?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.13 What is the proposed commencement and completion date for the project?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.14 How will Council’s support be acknowledged?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

6. PROJECT BUDGET

 

6.1 Total amount requested:  $_____________

 


Proposed budget

Item

Cost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

$

 

6.2 Is the organisation willing to accept partial funding?              £ yes               £ no

 

6.3 Is the organisation registered for GST.                                             £ yes               £ no

If yes, what is the ABN ___________________________

 

7. OTHER FUNDING

 

7.1 Do you receive funding from other sources?                                    £ yes               £ no

If yes indicate where from:

State government                                                                      £ yes               £ no

Commonwealth government                                                      £ yes               £ no

Fees                                                                                         £ yes               £ no

Donations                                                                                 £ yes               £ no

Fundraising                                                                               £ yes               £ no

Community sponsorship                                                            £ yes               £ no

Commercial sponsorship                                                           £ yes               £ no

            Other (please detail) ____________________________________

 

7.2 Has a copy of the organisation’s latest Annual Report or Financial Statement been included?                                                                                                                               

£ yes               £ no

 

7.3 Is the organisation contributing funds from other                  

sources to this project?                                                             £ yes               £ no

 

If yes, please provide details_________________________________________________

 

7.4 Is this project eligible for State or Commonwealth

Government funding?                                                                £ yes               £ no

 

If yes, please specify______________________________________________________

 

8.  PREVIOUS FUNDING FROM RANDWICK COUNCIL

 

8.1 Has the organisation received funding from Randwick City Council in the past two years? (If yes, please provide details. If no, please proceed to Q8.2)£ yes               £ no

 

2005/2006       Amount $_____________Project_________________________________

 

2006/2007       Amount $_____________Project_________________________________

 

If yes have funds from previous years been fully spent?              £ yes               £ no

 

Has the organisation provided information about completion of the expenditure?

                                                                                                           £ yes               £ no

 

8.2 Has the organisation received ‘in kind’ support from Council within the last two years? 

(e.g. rental subsidy, waiving of fees etc)                                     £ yes               £ no

 

If yes, please describe briefly 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________
DECLARATION

 

 

            I confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, the information within this Form is true and  correct.

 

This application has been approved by the Management (or other) Committee.

 

 

 

Name: _____________________________________________________________

            (President/Chairperson or Secretary/Treasurer)

 

 

Signature:_____________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Telephone:      _______________________________

 

 

 

Date:               _______________________________

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

 

As appropriate / necessary please find attached:

 

Organisation brochure                                                   £ yes               £ no

 

Most recent Annual Report or financial statement                      £ yes               £ no

 

Proof of non profit status                                                           £ yes               £ no

 

Current Constitution/Articles of Association                               £ yes               £ no

 

Minutes of the last Annual General Meeting                               £ yes               £ no

 

Written quotes                                                              £ yes               £ no

 

Please specify any other attachment:                                          £ yes               £ no

 

___________________________________________________________________­­__

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

PART 2

Randwick City Council

COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS 2007/8

 

APPLICATION FORM B

(Grants applications over $1,000)

 

Important information for applicants

 

Please read the Guidelines for Community and Cultural Development Grants Program carefully before completing this Application Form.

 

Please Note You can apply for funding for One Project Only per annum

 

Forms can be handwritten or typed but must be no longer than the Application Form provided.  Application forms are available in hard copy or electronic version.

 

Remember: late, faxed, or incomplete applications cannot be considered.

 

If there are any questions or applicants require assistance to complete the form, please contact ……………………..on 9399 ……..

 

 

Closing date ………………..

 

 

Mail completed forms to:

 

The General Manager

Community and Cultural Development Grants Program

Randwick City Council

30 Frances Street

Randwick 2031

 

Or email to: community.grants@randwick.nsw.gov.au

 

Marked to the attention of ………….

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMUNITY AND CULTURAL DEVELOPENT GRANTS

 2007/2008

 

Application Form B (Grants more than $1,000)

 

 

1. CONTACT DETAILS

 

1.1 Name of organisation: 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

1.2 Street address: 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

1.3 Postal address: ________________________________________________________

 

_________________________________________________Postcode: ______________

 

1.4 Contact Person: 

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

1.5 Position: 

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

1.6 Telephone number:

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

1.7 Fax number:

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

1.8 Email address:

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

 


2. THE WORK OF YOUR ORGANISATION

 

2.1 What are the main activities of your organisation? (describe briefly or attach a brochure)

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

2.2 Who benefits from the work of your organisation? (tick as many as applicable)

 

£ Children

£ Youth

£ Adults

£ People aged 65+ years

£ People with a Disability

£ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people

£ People from a Culturally Diverse and Linguistically Diverse Background

£ Women

£ All population groups

£ Cultural groups (please specify) __________________________________

£  Other (please specify)__________________________________________

 

 

3. THE STRUCTURE OF THE AUSPICING ORGANISATION

 

3.1 When was the organisation established?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

3.2 Is it a non-profit community organisation?                            £ yes               £ no

 

3.3 Is the organisation an Incorporated Association or similar?  £ yes               £ no

 

If no, does it have:

A Constitution with aims and objectives?                                  £ yes               £ no

Office Bearers?                                                                        £ yes               £ no

            Public Liability Insurance?                                                         £ yes               £ no

 




4. APPLICATION SUMMARY

 

Amount requested:  $___________________

 

One-off  £                   Recurrent  £ on an annual basis  up to 3 years 

 

5. PROGRAM/PROJECT OUTLINE

 

5.1 Description of the project: 

 

__________________________________________________________________­­­­_____

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.2 What are the aims of the program/project? 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.3 Application criteria. Please detail how your application addresses the application criteria.

(Refer to the criteria set out in the Guidelines 4.3)

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.4 If the program’s / project’s funding request is one-off, will it have continuous funding implications? If so, please provide details of how the organisation intends to meet this ongoing obligation?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 


5.5 If the program’s / project’s funding request is recurrent please provide a justification?

(as per the funding guidelines Part 3)

 

 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.6 How was the need for the program/project identified?  Please indicate source of data, from Council planning documents or your own research.  (See attached priorities statement)

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.7 How does the program/project meet an identified community need.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.8 Who will benefit from this program / project?

(brief description of target group/s and number of people)

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 


5.9 Where will the program / project be located / provided? (list suburbs)

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.10 Have other relevant organisations been consulted regarding this program/project, and if so who? (Please provide contact details)

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.11 Demonstrate how the program’s / project’s objectives encourage community involvement? How does it facilitate access to services and programs by the whole community?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.12 Is this program, project or service already assisted by an existing Government funding program?

 

£ yes               £ no    If yes, please provide details.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.13 Has your organisation managed a similar program/project previously? 

 

£ yes               £ no    If yes, please provide details.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.14 How will the funded activity be monitored and evaluated?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

5.15 Please provide details of non-financial contributions to be provided to the project?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.16 What is the proposed commencement and completion date for the project?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

 

5.17 How will Council’s support be acknowledged?

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

6. PROGRAM PLAN

 

Please provide a Program Plan detailing how the program / project will be implemented from beginning to end.

 

Task

Responsibility

      Time Frame

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. PROJECT BUDGET

 

7.1 Total amount requested:  $_____________

 

Proposed budget

 

Item

Cost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

$

 

7.2 Is the organisation willing to accept partial funding?              £ yes               £ no

 

7.3 Is the organisation registered for GST.                                             £ yes               £ no

 

If yes, what is the ABN ___________________________

 

8. OTHER FUNDING

 

8.1 Do you receive funding from other sources?                                    £ yes               £ no

If yes indicate where from:

State government                                                                      £ yes               £ no

Commonwealth government                                                      £ yes               £ no

Fees                                                                                         £ yes               £ no

Donations                                                                                 £ yes               £ no

Fundraising                                                                               £ yes               £ no

Community sponsorship                                                            £ yes               £ no

Commercial sponsorship                                                           £ yes               £ no

            Other (please detail) ____________________________________

 

8.2 Has a copy of the organisation’s latest Annual Report or Financial Statement been included?                                                                                                                               

£ yes               £ no

 

8.3 Is the organisation contributing funds from other                  

sources to this project?                                                             £ yes               £ no

 

If yes, please provide details_________________________________________________

 

8.4 Is this project eligible for State or Commonwealth

Government funding?                                                                £ yes               £ no

 

If yes, please specify______________________________________________________

 

 


9.  PREVIOUS FUNDING FROM RANDWICK COUNCIL

 

9.1 Has the organisation received funding from Randwick City Council in the past two years?     

(If yes, please provide details. If no, please proceed to Q9.2)            £ yes               £ no

 

2005/2006       Amount $_____________Project_________________________________

 

2006/2007       Amount $_____________Project_________________________________

 

If yes have funds from previous years been fully spent?              £ yes               £ no

 

Has the organisation provided information about completion of the expenditure?

                                                                                                            £ yes               £ no

 

9.2 Has the organisation received ‘in kind’ support from Council within the last two years? 

(e.g. rental subsidy, waiving of fees etc)                                     £ yes             £ no

 

If yes, please describe briefly 

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

DECLARATION

 

 

            I confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, the information within this Form is true and  correct.

 

This application has been approved by the Management (or other) Committee.

 

 

 

Name:                                                                                               

            (President/Chairperson or Secretary/Treasurer)

 

 

Signature: _________________________________________________

 

 

Telephone:      _______________________________

 

 

Date:               _______________________________

 

 

 

ATTACHMENTS

 

 

As appropriate / necessary please find attached:

 

Organisation brochure                                                   £ yes               £ no

 

Most recent Annual Report or financial statement                      £ yes               £ no

 

Proof of non profit status                                                           £ yes               £ no

 

Current Constitution/Articles of Association                               £ yes               £ no

 

Minutes of the last Annual General Meeting                               £ yes               £ no

 

Written quotes                                                              £ yes               £ no

 

Please specify any other attachment:                                          £ yes               £ no

 

___________________________________________________________________­­__

 

_____________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 2/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

AFFIXING OF THE COUNCIL SEAL

 

 

DATE:

14 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06336

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation 2005 requires that the Seal of the Council must not be affixed to a document unless the document relates to business of the Council and the Council has resolved (by resolution referring to the document) that the Seal be so affixed.

 

ISSUES:

 

It is necessary for the Council’s Seal to be affixed to the signing of agreements between Council and :

 

1.         South Coogee Bowling Club in relation to a licence over part of Latham Park more particularly known as South Coogee Bowling Club.

2.         Bernard Loubatie (T/As Bistro St Paul) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 35 St Pauls Street, Randwick.

3.         Christene Sugito (T/As Café Elite) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at Shop 1, 166 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.

4.         Yang Zhang (T/As Bunnerong Gourmet Chickens) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 488 Bunnerong Road, Matraville.

5.         Sebastian Scandurra (T/As King Gourmet) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 730 Anzac Parade, Kingsford.

6.         Kosmos Papadopoulos (T/As Clodeli Fine Foods) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at Shop 1, 210-212 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

7.         Tom Dover (T/As Dervish) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 227 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

8.         A residential tenancy agreement over Unit 2/20 Silver Street, Randwick.

9.         A residential tenancy agreement over Unit 2/32 Belmore Road, Randwick.

10.       The S.O.S. Pre-School in relation to a deed of licence over part of Lot 11 DP 1042814 more particularly known as 25 Munda Street, Randwick.

11.       The Randwick/South Sydney Family Day Care Incorporated in relation to a deed of licence over part of Lot 11 DP 1042814 more particularly known as 23 Munda Street, Randwick.

12.       South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra Area Health Services in relation to a sub-lease of part of Folio 105/811813 more particularly known as part of Randwick Branch Library.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

In signing of these agreements, Council will receive the following income –

 

1.         A licence agreement with South Coogee Bowling Club will generate an annual income of $3,750.00 + GST.

2.         An outdoor dining licence with Bernard Loubatie (T/As Bistro St Paul) will generate an annual income of $6,021.90 + GST.

3.         An outdoor dining licence with Christene Sugito (T/As Café Elite) will generate an annual income of $1,536.57 + GST.

4.         An outdoor dining licence with Yang Zhang (T/As Bunnerong Gourmet Chickens) will generate an annual income of $423.42 + GST.

5.         An outdoor dining licence with Sebastian Scandurra (T/As King Gourmet) will generate an annual income of $1,859.25 + GST.

6.         An outdoor dining licence with Kosmos Papadopoulos (T/As Clodeli Fine Foods) will generate an annual income of $4,340.97 + GST.

7.         An outdoor dining licence with Tom Dover (T/As Dervish) will generate an annual income of $1,870.93 + GST.

8.         The residential tenancy agreement for Unit 2/20 Silver Street, Randwick will generate an annual income of $11,439.96.

9.         The residential tenancy agreement for Unit 2/32 Belmore Road, Randwick will generate an annual income of $11,439.96.

10.       A deed of Licence with the S.O.S. Pre-school will generate an income of $2,516.20 + GST for the three (3) months of the agreement.

11.       A deed of Licence with The Randwick/South Sydney Family Day Care Incorporated will generate an income of $3,717.60 + GST for the three (3) months of the agreement.

12.       A sub-lease with South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra Area Health will generate an annual rental income of $1.00 + GST & an 8.51% contribution towards the Libraries recoverable building outgoings.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

As per Clause 400 (part 13) of the Local Government (General) Regulation requires that the Council pass a resolution authorising the Affixing of the Seal, it is necessary for this action to take place to facilitate legal formalities.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That authority be granted for the Council’s Common Seal to be affixed to the agreements between Council and :

 

1.       South Coogee Bowling Club in relation to a licence over part of Latham Park more particularly known as South Coogee Bowling Club.

2.       Bernard Loubatie (T/As Bistro St Paul) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 35 St Pauls Street, Randwick.

3.       Christene Sugito (T/As Café Elite) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at Shop 1, 166 Maroubra Road, Maroubra.

4.       Yang Zhang (T/As Bunnerong Gourmet Chickens) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 488 Bunnerong Road, Matraville.

5.       Sebastian Scandurra (T/As King Gourmet) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 730 Anzac Parade, Kingsford.

6.       Kosmos Papadopoulos (T/As Clodeli Fine Foods) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at Shop 1, 210-212 Clovelly Road, Clovelly.

7.       Tom Dover (T/As Dervish) in relation to a licence for the purpose of outdoor dining at 227 Coogee Bay Road, Coogee.

8.       A residential tenancy agreement over Unit 2/20 Silver Street, Randwick.

9.       A residential tenancy agreement over Unit 2/32 Belmore Road, Randwick.

10.     The S.O.S. Pre-School in relation to a deed of licence over part of Lot 11 DP 1042814 more particularly known as 25 Munda Street, Randwick.

11.     The Randwick/South Sydney Family Day Care Incorporated in relation to a deed of licence over part of Lot 11 DP 1042814 more particularly known as 23 Munda Street, Randwick.

12.     South Eastern Sydney & Illawarra Area Health Services in relation to a sub-lease of part of Folio 105/811813 more particularly known as part of Randwick Branch Library.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT 3/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

DEC 2005 QUARTER REVIEW - 2005-08 MANAGEMENT PLAN

 

 

DATE:

17 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00380

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            GENERAL MANAGER    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

The purpose of this Report is to update Councillors on the implementation of the 2005/08 Management Plan.

 

ISSUES:

 

This is the December 2005 Quarterly Review of the 2005/08 Management Plan. Under the Local Government Act 1993, there is the requirement that a Report must be provided after the end of each quarter, detailing the extent to which performance indicators and targets set by Council’s Management Plan have been achieved during the quarter.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Each Department has reviewed those targets not being achieved, and comments on those matters are included in the Report. The purpose of this Review is to inform and update Council and the community on the progress of all outcomes of the programmes contained in the adopted Management Plan.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the information contained in the December 2005 Quarterly Progress Report – 2005/08 Management Plan be received and noted

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1. Dec 2005 Qtr Review - 2005/08 Management Plan-under separate cover

 

..............................................

GENERAL MANAGER

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 4/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

AUSTRAL STREET, MALABAR - PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FOOTPATH

 

 

DATE:

2 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2005/00434

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

As part of its commitment to improving facilities and services for residents, Council is continuing its program of providing a footpath in streets that currently do not have one.

 

Austral Street, Malabar has been selected for footpath construction and it has been  determined that the northern side is the most appropriate location for the new footpath.

 

ISSUES:

 

Mr Trevor Smith of 97-99 Austral Street, Malabar has forwarded a petition signed by himself and his neighbours from Nos 95, 103, 107, 113 and 117 Austral Street advising Council that they feel that the installation of a footpath along the northern side of Austral Street is not needed due to the following reasons as listed in their petition -

 

o Whilst this section of footpath between Napier Street and the corner of Bilga Crescent is needed, the footpath should then be transferred to the southern side of Austral Street from the corner of Bilga Crescent up to the corner of Lucas Avenue and possibly along Lucas Avenue to Malabar Heights which is a large residential area.

 

o The majority of people who walk down this section of Austral Street do so when walking from Malabar Heights up to Anzac Parade  - hence, coming around the corner of Lucas Avenue and along the southern side of Austral Street to the corner of Bilga Crescent, then crossing over to the northern side of Austral Street up to Anzac Parade.

 

o Installing a footpath along the northern side of Austral Street would only be servicing the 9 residences that lead up to the dead-end of Austral Street which has very little foot traffic

 

o The southern side of Austral Street between Bilga Crescent and Lucas Avenue already has a large section of footpath laid in and just needs the end sections to each corner provided.

 

Mr Smith advises that the petitioners all agree that the footpath would be more appropriate if laid along the southern side of Austral Street between the corners of Bilga Crescent and Lucas Avenue.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no financial impact.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

Austral Street currently has a footpath on the northern side running from Anzac Parade to Napier Street. There are also stairs at the end of Austral Street leading to Prince Edward Street.  As a connection, if a new footpath is to be built in Austral Street between Napier Street and the end, the northern side would be the appropriate side.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the footpath in Austral Street not go ahead and the funds allocated to these works be used on other footpaths in the Central and South Ward footpath program.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Petition dated 30 January, 2006

 

 

………

………………………………

MARK SHAW

 

ACTING DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, City Services' Report 5/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

NAMING OF RESERVE ON THE CORNER OF ALISON AND WANSEY ROADS, RANDWICK "GEORGE DAN RESERVE"

 

 

DATE:

15 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06876 XR F2004/00171

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 8 November, 2005, resolved on the Motion of Councillors Andrews and Notley-Smith, that:

 

a.            Council advertise in the local paper the proposal to name the reserve situated on the corner of Wansey Road and Alison Road the “George Dan Reserve” and invite interested parties to make written submissions with their views of the suggested name or other names in keeping with the history of the area;

b.            Council notify the Geographical Names Board of the proposal; and

c.            A report be brought back to Council after the closing date of all submissions.

 

ISSUES:

 

An advertisement was placed in the “Regarding Randwick” section of the local paper, seeking written submissions with views of the suggested or other names in keeping with the history of the area.

 

Letters were also forwarded to the Randwick Precinct Committee, Randwick Historical Society and the proposal placed on exhibition at the Customer Service Centre and local libraries. The Geographical Names Board was also advised of the proposal.

 

Closing date of all submissions was 22 December, 2005. No submissions were received.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

As no submissions were received, Council can now continue with the naming proposal.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        The reserve on the corner of Wansey Road and Alison Road be named “George Dan Reserve”;

 

(b)        the Geographical Names Board be requested to proceed with the naming proposal application; and

 

(c)        the family of the late George Dan be advised of Council’s decision.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

MARK SHAW

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

MANAGER TECHNICAL SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 


Director, City Services' Report 6/2006

 

 

 

 

SUBJECT:

ECOLOGICAL IMPACT OF THE COMMON INDIAN MYNA

 

DATE:

10 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06488 xr F2005/00171

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 22/29 November, 2005, resolved on the Motion of Councillor Matson and Councillor Woodsmith that –

 

“feedback be sought from Environment  ACT on the outcome of the Myna minimisation trials and a report be brought before a future Council Meeting detailing options for working through SSROC to implement a regional Myna Minimisation Campaign in this area of Sydney.”

 

ISSUES:

 

1. Joint Environment ACT – Australian National University Indian Myna minimisation trial 2005:

 

The trial used a portable cage trap called the Mynamagnet. If used as recommended, this trap is designed to only catch Indian Mynas and Starlings. Both these species are introduced to Australia and have associated environmental and health issues. The trial involved interested members of the public who were trained in the use of the Mynamagnet. Should non-target (native) species be trapped, they may be released without injury.

 

Outcomes of the trial included:

·    The need to set a threshold number of traps within an area.

·    Training of participants is vital.

·    Despite training, some participants did not adhere to important procedural aspects, eg. substitution of recommended feeds with those that lead to unintended trapping of non-target species.

·    Short-term successful trapping of Indian Mynas may be achieved at the local scale, but long-term success may require a regional approach.

 

2. Regional approach to controlling Indian Mynas

 

SSROC has been informed of the Indian Myna issue and it is understood that it may consider the issues at its next Environmental Managers meeting.

 

Randwick Council staff will be attending a meeting of Councils and relevant State Government authorities on 14 March 2006, which will consider setting up a regional Feral Animal Management Committee covering southern Sydney. It is likely to be based on the successful Urban Feral Animal Action Group based in northern Sydney.

 

From conversations with staff from a number of other Councils, it appears that a regional approach is most likely to achieve long-term success in Indian Myna minimisation. Community concern might arise regarding the proposed control methods applied to Indian Myna birds once drawn into the traps. The preferred control methods applied include use of carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide to eradicate the birds. It appears impractical to consider re-location of trapped birds as part of a control program.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Randwick’s Environmental Levy has a pest control component which may contribute toward pest species management carried out by Council until 2009. The cost of implementing an Indian Myna minimisation program is likely to be less than $10,000 per annum, however this depends upon the number of birds caught and methods applied to reduce their numbers.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

If a new Feral Animal Management Committee is formed for southern Sydney, it is likely to be larger in scale than SSROC and therefore a more appropriate avenue for Indian Myna control.

 

Control of Indian Mynas at local and regional scales is believed to be achievable.  The likelihood of eradication at regional or greater scales is unknown.

 

The proposed method of eradication by gassing may cause an adverse community reaction.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

DANIEL HIRSCHFELD

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

BUSHLAND FIELD OFFICER


 

Director, City Services' Report 7/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED PLACE NAME OF AN AREA LOCATED AT 1613 ANZAC PARADE, LA PEROUSE

 

 

DATE:

10 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06876

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

Council at its meeting held on 27 September, 2005, resolved on the Motion of Councillors Belleli and Notley-Smith that:

 

(a)        submissions and suggestions be sought from residents and other interested people, by placing an advertisement in the local paper of the proposal to name the area located at 1613 Anzac Parade, La Perouse Timbery (Timbere) as it is an area of aboriginal significance and all the guidelines of the Geographical Names Board be met prior to a further report being prepared for Council’s consideration;

 

(b)        after consultation with the same Elders mentioned in the report, the plaque should now read;

 

“Timberey -  The first recorded Australian Aboriginal Name.

 

This was the name given to the famous French explorer La Perouse by the aboriginal people working on the French ships during their stay in Botany Bay, New South Wales in 1778.

 

The Timberey tribe members were recruited by the French to assist in finding water, fishing, hunting kangaroos & emus and helping to prepare the ships for their further discovery voyages.

 

La Perouse recorded the Timberey tribe as such in his diaries and requested the British Commander Captain Philip to present his papers to the French Government when he returned to England. Commander Philip duly delivered the diary to the French.”

 

(c)        a progress report be brought back to Council on the following:

 

i.        the arrangements that have been made for the area at 1613 Anzac Parade to be landscaped, the disused road pavement to be removed, the guard rail to be realigned and  interpretative signage to be designed, subject to consultation with relevant local group;

ii.       the design of the area, after consultation with the same Elders, includes enough seating to look over Frenchmans Bay, Yarra Bay and Botany Bay; and

iii.      the commencement and completion dates of this project.

 

ISSUES:

 

An advertisement was placed in the “Southern Courier” inviting submissions and suggestions from residents and other interested people on the proposal to name an area of aboriginal significance located at 1613 Anzac Parade. The closing date was 15 November, 2005.

 

Two submissions were received by the closing date. Both submissions concerned the spelling of “Timberey.”  There is no evidence of the name being spelt in that manner.

 

There is one website that spells the name that way, however, all other evidence from libraries, the internet and the local family, spell the name TIMBERY.

 

A letter has been received from the Geographical Names Board (GNB) dated 22 November, 2005.  The letter reads as follows:

 

“The Geographical Names Board considered the above proposal at its meeting of 15 November, 2005. Mr Murray Chapman a member of the GNB representing the NSW Aboriginal Land Council reported that the spelling of the name should be Timbery to maintain consistency with the spelling of the surname of the Timbery family. The spelling Timbery was recently confirmed by your Council officer, Mr Darren Anderson via telephone conversation with Mrs Jill Williams.

 

It is recommended that if there is going to be a plaque erected on the site, it should read

Timbery the first recorded Australian Aboriginal name

(Timbere the early colony spelling)

 

The approved “Timbery” for a reserve at La Perouse Point will now be advertised for public comment.

 

The proposal to assign the name will be notified in the NSW Government Gazette on Friday 2 December, 2005 and will be advertised in the “Weekly Southern Courier” on Tuesday 6 December, 2005.

 

If no objections are received within one month of the advertisement,“Timbery” will be assigned as a geographical name.  I shall advise you when the naming process is complete.”

 

By letter dated 30 January, 2006, the Geographical Names Board advises that “Timbery” was assigned as a geographical name for a reserve at La Perouse on 20 January, 2005, under the provisions of the Geographical Names Act, 1966, enclosing a copy of the NSW Government Gazette notification as confirmation that the naming proposal has now been finalised.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Costings for installation of suitable guardrail, landscaping (including tree and shrub planting), removal of section of road pavement installation of benches and signage amounts to approximately $80,000

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The Geographical Names Board advice that “Timbery” was assigned as a geographical name for a reserve at La Perouse on 20 January, 2005, be noted and that the landscaping, installation of guardrail, signage, benches and bronze plaque and associated works be considered in the 2006/2007 Capital Works Budget.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

(a)        the name “ Timbery “ assigned as a geographical name for a reserve at La Perouse on 20 January, 2005 under the provisions of the Geographical Names Act, 1966, be noted and be advertised in the local papers; and

 

(b)        the landscaping, guardrail, signage and installation of a bronze plaque at Timbery Reserve be considered in the 2006/2007 Capital Works Budget.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Copy of extract of NSW Government Gazette No 9  

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

DARREN ANDERSON

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

SPECIAL PROJECTS

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

Director, City Services' Report 8/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

BARDON PARK FLOODLIGHTS

 

 

DATE:

16 February, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/00119

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES    

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A local junior rugby league football club has approached Council for assistance in relation to provision of training floodlights at or close to Coogee Oval. 

 

ISSUES:

 

Owing to intensive use for match play over the winter season, Coogee Oval is not considered appropriate for training purposes.  Other sites considered for this request have included Grant Reserve, Trennery Reserve and Bardon Park. Grant Reserve and Trennery Reserve are intensively used by numerous users for a wide range of activities and hence the use of these parks for regular weeknight training is not considered an appropriate use.

 

Bardon Park is located on the corner of Mount and Bream Streets with the Coogee Croquet fields situated on the eastern end of the park.  A small number of properties face the park on the northern boundary.  An opportunity exists to install limited floodlights in Bardon Park to permit the use of the park for evening sports training.  This would require the preparation of a development application and Council approval following community notification.

 

An allocation of funding had been provided in Council’s management plan subject to the Coogee Dolphins securing matching funding from other sources.  Council has been notified that the Coogee Dolphins have secured funding in the order of $40,000 from Souths Juniors and wish the project expedited to enable use of the park this season.  The Coogee Dolphins have been advised that the project is subject to obtaining development consent.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

Funding for these works have been provided in Council’s capital works program and via matching funding being provided by other sources through the Coogee Dolphins Junior Rugby League Football Club.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

The installation of training level floodlights in Bardon Park will enable the use of the Park for training thus easing the pressure on other grounds in the LGA.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That the report be received and noted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Nil

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

JORDE FRANGOPLES

JOHN CALVANI

DIRECTOR, CITY SERVICES

CO-ORDINATOR PARKS AND RECREATION

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 5/2006

 

 

SUBJECT:

CODE OF CONDUCT AND RELATED POLICIES

 

 

DATE:

23 January, 2006

FILE NO:

F2004/06901 xr F2005/00176

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES  

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

At the Ordinary Council meeting held on 13 December 2005, Council resolved:

 

That Items 7.3, 9.1 & 9.2 be deferred to the next Ordinary Meeting of Council”.

 

Item 9.1 was the Director of Governance & Financial Services’ Report No. 53/2005 in relation to “Code of Conduct and Related Policies.”  The recommendation contained in the original report is repeated below.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1)         The Department of Local Government’s Guidelines for the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW be adopted.

 

2)         It be noted that Council’s adoption of the Department of Local Government’s Model Code of Conduct and the associated Guidelines, has resulted in the following Codes and Guidelines being superseded:

·    Staff Code of Conduct – Policy No. 3.04.27 – 28 May 2002

·    Code of Conduct – Councillors - Policy No. 1.03.11 – 25 February 1997

·    Code of Conduct Guidelines – Policy No. 1.04.01 – 18 October 1994

·    Code of Councillor Practice – Policy No. 1.04.03 - 21 March 1995.

 

3)         The Declaration of Conflict of Interests Form be adopted for use outside the Council/Committee Meeting process.

 

4)         The Guidelines for the Operation of Randwick Council’s Conduct Committee (as attached to the staff report) be adopted.

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

Director of Governance & Financial Services Report 53/2005 - Code of Conduct and Related Policies

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

JULIE HARTSHORN

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR

 

 

 


 

Director, Governance & Financial Services' Report 53/2005

 

 

SUBJECT:

CODE OF CONDUCT AND RELATED POLICIES 

 

 

DATE:

7 December, 2005

FILE NO:

F2004/06901 xr F2005/00176

 

 

 

REPORT BY:            DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES   

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

A report in relation to the adoption of the Department of Local Government’s Model Code of Conduct, was considered at the Council Meeting of 22 February 2005.  Council adopted the Model Code of Conduct and noted that:

 

“The Director Governance, Management & Information Services is reviewing associated policies currently contained in Council’s Policy Register which may be affected by the new Code of Conduct and will report back to Council on any required additions to the Code and deletions on policies superseded by the adoption of the new Code of Conduct.”

 

ISSUES:

 

A review has been conducted of Council’s Policy Register in accordance with the Council resolution of 22 February 2005 and the following policies have been found to be obsolete as a result of the adoption of the new Code of Conduct:

 

Policy No.

Policy Title

Comment

1.03.11

Code of Conduct - Councillors

The provisions of this Code have been superseded by the new Code of Conduct.

1.04.01

Code of Conduct Guidelines

These Guidelines have been superseded by the new Code of Conduct & the Department of Local Government’s Guidelines for the Model Code of Conduct.

1.04.03

Code of Councillor Practice

This Code has been superseded by the new Code of Conduct, the Code of Meeting Practice & the Provision of Information to & Interaction between Councillors & Staff Policy.

3.04.27

Staff Code of Conduct

The provisions of this Code have been superseded by the new Code of Conduct

 

The Department of Local Government in December 2004, issued Guidelines to supplement the Model Code of Conduct.  The Guidelines (a copy of which has been distributed under separate cover) includes the principles and key legislation that underpins the topics included in Council’s Code of Conduct and includes suggestions for optional best practice for individual Council’s consideration.  The Guidelines also set out the administrative procedures that Councils should apply to reporting alleged breaches, dealing with allegations and sanctions that may be applied for proven breaches of the Code.  The purpose of the Guidelines is to assist Councillors and staff to carry out their responsibilities under the Code of Conduct adopted by Council in February 2005, by providing additional information on how the principles in the Code of Conduct should be interpreted and applied in practice.  The Guidelines include examples and case studies to illustrate the ethical problems that Council officials might encounter and strategies for dealing with them.

 

Having adopted the Model Code of Conduct, it is suggested that Council now adopt the Guidelines to the Code.  If Council is to pursue the best practice options under the Guidelines, it will need to develop a number of operational policies/procedures to supplement the Code of Conduct & Guidelines.  These policies will include Conflict of Interests Guidelines, a Gifts & Benefits Policy/Guidelines, Conduct Committee Guidelines and a Complaints Policy.

 

The Department of Local Government recently published a circular in relation to the implementation of the Model Code of Conduct.  The circular suggests that Councils consider implementing a system of declaration forms and a process for Council officials to record any disclosures of interest prior to Council and Committee Meetings. 

 

In accordance with the Department’s recommendation, a Conflict of Interest Declaration Form has been developed (and a copy is attached to this report).  Councillors are encouraged to use this form to declare interests that may arise outside of the Council/Committee Meeting process.  For example, if a Councillor (in a personal capacity) were to submit a development application to the Council or if a Councillor were to have some professional dealings with the Council in a private capacity.  It should be noted that this system of declarations will not replace the need for Council officials to disclose conflicts of interests when they arise during a meeting, whether they are unexpected or known and will not replace the requirements for Council officials to complete annual Disclosure of Interest Returns (under Section 449 of the Local Government Act 1993).  This supplementary system will simply be a means by which Councillors can formally declare (for the public record) an interest in a matter that may be outside the bounds of the Council and Committee Meeting process.  Any declarations made by Councillors in this manner will be recorded in Council’s Conflict of Interests Register and will be brought to the attention of any Council officer who may need to be aware of the conflict in their professional capacity. 

 

The Department of Local Government’s recent circular also suggests that Councils develop guidelines for the operation of their Conduct Committees.  The suggested guidelines should include criteria to be used by Conduct Committees in assessing allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct.  Draft guidelines for Randwick City Council’s Conduct Committee have been prepared (and a copy is attached to this report).  The guidelines include procedures for making complaints, criteria and timelines for assessing complaints, requirements for reporting to Council and record keeping.

 

FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT:

 

There is no direct financial impact for this matter.

 

CONCLUSION:

 

That it be noted that Council’s adoption of the Department of Local Government’s Model Code of Conduct in February this year, has resulted in the following policies being superseded:

 

·    Staff Code of Conduct - Policy No. 3.04.27 – 28 May 2002

·    Code of Conduct – Councillors - Policy No. 1.03.11 – 25 February 1997

·    Code of Conduct Guidelines – Policy No. 1.04.01 –  18 October 1994

·    Code of Councillor Practice – Policy No. 1.04.03 - 21 March 1995.

 

It is recommended that Council adopt:

·    The Guidelines for the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW;

·    The new system referred to above for declarations of interests outside of the Council/Committee Meeting process;

·    The attached Guidelines for the Operation of Randwick Council’s Conduct Committee.

 

It is also recommended that Council officers review the best practice options contained within the Guidelines for the Model Code, with a view to developing policies, procedures or guidelines where deficiencies are identified between suggested policies in the Guidelines and Council’s current policy/procedure documents.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

That:

 

1)         The Department of Local Government’s Guidelines for the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW be adopted.

 

2)         It be noted that Council’s adoption of the Department of Local Government’s Model Code of Conduct and the associated Guidelines, has resulted in the following Codes and Guidelines being superseded:

·    Staff Code of Conduct – Policy No. 3.04.27 – 28 May 2002

·    Code of Conduct – Councillors - Policy No. 1.03.11 – 25 February 1997

·    Code of Conduct Guidelines – Policy No. 1.04.01 – 18 October 1994

·    Code of Councillor Practice – Policy No. 1.04.03 - 21 March 1995.

 

3)         The Declaration of Conflict of Interests Form be adopted for use outside the Council/Committee Meeting process.

 

4)         The Guidelines for the Operation of Randwick Council’s Conduct Committee (as attached to the staff report) be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENT/S:

 

1.           Declaration of Conflict of Interests Form.

2.           Draft Guidelines for the Operation of Randwick Council's Conduct Committee.

3.           Randwick Council's Code of Conduct (based on the Department of Local Government's Model Code)-Distributed under separate cover.

4.           The Department of Local Government's Model Code of Conduct Guidelines - Distributed under separate cover. 

 

 

 

 

………………………………

………………………………

GEOFF BANTING

JULIE HARTSHORN

DIRECTOR, GOVERNANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES

SENIOR ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATOR

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTERESTS FORM

 

Section 6.6 of Randwick Council’s Code of Conduct requires disclosures of interests to be made promptly, fully and in writing, where necessary.  The Department of Local Government’s view of the application of this Section of the Code of Conduct is that, if a disclosure is made in a meeting, then the disclosure must be recorded in the minutes.  This constitutes a written record.  In other circumstances, disclosures should be made in writing.

 

This form is to be used for Councillors and staff who wish to disclose conflicts or potential conflicts of interests outside the Council Meeting process.  Any disclosure made using this process will be recorded in Council’s Conflict of Interests Register and also communicated to any staff members who may need to be aware of the conflict in there professional capacity.

 

Conflict of interests refers to conflict between a Council official’s public duty and a personal interest. 

 

Name of person making the declaration:

Title of person making the declaration:

Address of person making the declaration:

 

 


I declare that I have a conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest in the following matter:

 

 


The nature of the interest is as follows:

 

 


The interest is:

Pecuniary (see S442 of the Local Government Act)

Non-pecuniary

If this is a pecuniary interest, you must comply with Chapter 14 of the Local Government Act.

If this is a non-pecuniary interest, what action do you propose to take?:

 

Continue to be involved in the matter as the interest will not effect my ability to act in an impartial manner

Remove myself from all involvement in the matter

Other, please specify

 

This matter is/is not likely* to be considered at a Council/Council Committee Meeting.      (*strike out which ever is not applicable to the conflict in question)

Other details in relation to the disclosure (if applicable)

 

 

 


Signature of person making the disclosure:

 

Date:

 

 

 

Office use only

Details of any action taken or proposed to be taken in relation to this declaration:

 

 

 

 


Signature of responsible Council officer:

 

Title of responsible Council officer:

 

Date:

 

(Note: Completed forms should be filed in “TRIM” in the following folder: F2004/07864)


 

GUIDELINES FOR THE OPERATION OF RANDWICK COUNCIL’S CONDUCT COMMITTEE

(In accordance with the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW)

CONTENTS

          Introduction………………………………………………………………………….…………….     1

          Composition of Conduct Committee…………………………………….……………       2

Procedures for making complaints………………………………………….…………       2

Preliminary assessment of complaint………………………………….……………        3

Time for action…………………………………………………………………………….…….      3

Criteria for assessing complaint…………………………………….………………….       3

Procedural fairness………………………………………………………………….…………      4

Reporting to Council and recommendations for action…………………….       5

Mitigating and aggravating circumstances……………………………………….      5          Sanctions…………………………………………………………………………………………….     5

Confidentiality and record keeping…………………………………………………….      6

Conduct occurring prior to adoption of Code…………………………………….      6

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


INTRODUCTION

1.       These guidelines are made pursuant to the Model Code of Conduct for Local Councils in NSW (the Code) and the Guidelines for the Model Code of Conduct for Councils in NSW (Guidelines).

 

2.       This document forms part of Council’s Code of Conduct, adopted by Council on 22 February 2005.

 

3.       The definitions used in the Model Code apply to these guidelines.

 

4.       By this document, Council establishes a Conduct Committee to investigate allegations of breaches of the Code by Councillors and the General Manager.

 

5.       Allegations against staff (other than the General manager) of a breach of the Code are not to be dealt with by the Conduct Committee, but should be dealt with in accordance with the Local Government (State) Award, the terms of any relevant enterprise agreements and Council’s own disciplinary policies.

 

6.       This document should be read in conjunction with Council’s Internal Reporting Policy under the Protected Disclosures Act.

 

7.       Pursuant to the guidelines, allegations of pecuniary interest must be reported to the Director General of the Department of Local Government (DLG) and will not be dealt with by the Conduct Committee.  In contrast, allegations of non-pecuniary interests may be dealt with by the Conduct Committee.

 

8.       The Conduct Committee must have regard to the obligations of Council under the following state laws:

 

a.  Freedom of Information Act 1982;

b.  Privacy & Personal Information Protection Act 1998;

c.  State Records Act 1998;

d.  Protected Disclosures Act 1994

e.  Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002; and

f.   Local Government Act 1993.

 

9.       Where a provision of these guidelines is inconsistent with a provision of a state or Commonwealth law, including any of the laws set out at paragraph 8, the Conduct Committee must observe the relevant provision of the state or Commonwealth law.

 

COMPOSITION OF CONDUCT COMMITTEE

10.     The Conduct Committee is to consist of:

a.  The Mayor;

b.  The General Manager;

c.   An independent person, being a person independent of Council and of appropriate standing appointed by the General Manager (or, if the complaint is in relation to the General Manager, then the Mayor, in consultation with the Deputy Mayor, or another Councillor appointed by Council).  The independent person is to be a General Manager of another Council or an appropriate representative of the University of NSW.

 

11.     In the instance of a complaint being made against the Mayor and/or the General Manager, or in circumstances where it is not appropriate for the Mayor/General Manager to act (as determined by the Mayor, the General Manager or the independent person) either the Deputy Mayor and/or another Councillor designated by Council will take the place of the Mayor and/or General Manager on the Conduct Committee.

 

12.     Each member of the Conduct Committee must satisfy him or herself and the remaining members of the Conduct Committee that there are no conflicts of interest which would make it inappropriate for that member to conduct an investigation in any particular case.

 

PROCEDURE FOR MAKING COMPLAINTS

13.     Councillors should refrain from making allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct (the Code) at Council Meetings.

 

14.     Council officials (being Councillors, members of staff or delegates of Council) are to report suspected breaches of the Code to the General Manager, in writing.

 

15.     The General Manager must initially assess the complaint and decide whether the complaint is serious enough to warrant referral to the Conduct Committee.

 

16.     Where the General Manager decides not to report the matter to the Conduct Committee, the General Manager must provide written reasons for the determination to the complainant.

 

17.     A complaint about the General Manager is to be made in writing to the Mayor, who must refer the matter to the Conduct Committee.

 


PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF COMPLAINT

18.     If a complaint is to be referred to the Conduct Committee as determined by the General Manager (and the complaint does not relate to the General Manager) the General Manager will, prior to referring the matter to the Conduct Committee, attempt to or arrange for the matter to be mediated.  The mediator to be either the General Manager or a professional mediator appointed by the General Manager. 

 

19.     If the General Manager decides not refer the complaint to the Conduct Committee after the mediation referred to in paragraph 18, then the General Manager must provide written reasons for the determination to the complainant.

 

20.     The Conduct Committee is responsible for making enquiries into allegations of breaches of the Code and must either:

 

a.  Determine not to make enquiries into the allegations and give the reasons for not doing so in writing;

b.  Make enquiries into the alleged breach to determine particular factual matters; or

c.  Engage an independent person to make enquiries into the allegations to determine the particular factual matters.

 

TIME FOR ACTION

21.     To encourage the efficient resolution of complaints, the Conduct Committee must endeavour to observe the following time constraints:

 

a.  Provide the complainant with acknowledgement of receipt of the complaint; within 7 days of receiving the complaint.

b.  Initial assessment of the complaint and either referral of the complaint to the Conduct Committee or provision to the complainant of written reasons for determination to take no action; within 21 days of receiving the complaint.

c.  Conduct Committee to convene and assess the complaint and decide on the course of action set out in paragraph 20; within 28 days of referral of the complaint to the Conduct Committee.

d.  Investigation of the complaint and written report to Council; within 3 months of referral of the complaint to the Conduct Committee.

 

CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING COMPLAINTS

22.     The Conduct Committee must use the following criteria in assessing allegations of breaches of the Code:

 

22.1    When assessing whether or not to enquire into an allegation:

22.1.1 Does the alleged conduct, if proven, constitute a breach or breaches of the Code?  Reference should be made to the Guidelines, which provides examples of conduct constituting a breach of the Model Code and, where relevant, to Council policies referred to in the Code.

22.1.2 Has the complainant been motivated by an improper purpose (eg. To avoid disciplinary action or dismissal, or as a “payback” for some perceived wrong on the part of the person against whom the complaint is made)?

22.1.3 Is the allegation trivial, frivolous or vexatious?

22.1.4 When did the matter(s) the subject of the allegation occur?  Will it be possible to gather evidence by way of witness statements and documents?

22.1.5 Would it be more appropriate for the matter to be referred to another investigative body such as the Ombudsman, the Independent Commission Against Corruptions (ICAC), the DLG or the NSW Police?

 

22.2    Having determined to enquire into an allegation:

22.2.1 What is the scope and purpose of the enquiry?  This should be set out in a written statement so that the enquiry has a focus.

22.2.2 What are the issues involved in the matter?

22.2.3 What action is required to enquire into each issue?  For example;

22.2.3.1   Who does the Conduct Committee need to interview?

22.2.3.2   What documents and other physical objects may be required?

22.2.4 How reliable is the physical evidence?  That is;

22.2.4.1   Where did it come from?

22.2.4.2   Who created it?

22.2.4.3   How did it come into the Conduct Committee’s possession?

22.2.5 How reliable is the evidence of witnesses?  That is;

22.2.5.1   Is the witness credible?

22.2.5.2   Are there any inconsistencies in the witness’ own statement or between the witness’ statement and other known facts?

22.2.5.3   Is the witness speaking from his/her own observations and actions?

22.2.6 Is expert assessment required?  For example; accounting advice or scientific analysis of the evidence?

22.2.7 Is the evidence collected relevant to the matter the subject of the enquiry?

 

22.3    Having concluded the enquiry:

22.3.1 What are the Conduct Committee’s findings?

22.3.2 Are the findings based on reliable and relevant evidence?

 

22.4    On the balance of probabilities, do the findings indicate that a breach of the Code has occurred?

 

For further assistance in conducting an enquiry, reference should be made to “Fact-Finder – A 20-step guide to conducting an inquiry in your organisation” published by the ICAC in November 2003.

 

PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS