Agenda of Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 February 2024

9.1	Aged Care Reforms Future Model for Endorsement
Executive Member:	tarnya mckenzie, interim General Manager, Community Wellbeing and Inclusion
PREPARED BY:	Bridget Monro-Hobbs, Manager Community Services

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To seek Council endorsement to implement a new model for aged care service delivery referred to as the “Village Model.”

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 The final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was handed to the Commonwealth Government on the 26 February 2021 and made public on 1 March 2021. These changes were to be implemented fully by July 1, 2025; however, it was announced in December 2023 that the changes will now not be implemented until 1 July 2027, at the earliest.

2.2 A new aged care model will replace the Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) and will be known as the Support at Home Program (SHP). The SHP will bring together the Home Care Package Program (HCP), the Short-Term Restorative Care (STRC) Program and the CHSP providing a single home care program. Although the CHSP changeover has been postponed, from 1 July 2027, the SHP will still replace the existing HCP and STRC programs.

2.3 The key features of the reformed aged care system will be increased client choice and control, individualised funding that is portable and a nationally consistent assessment, service provision and funding model.

2.4 Council currently provides a range of entry level aged care services under the CHSP. There will be changed requirements for providers of funded services as the transition to the new SHP program.

2.5 CHSP providers must indicate their intention or otherwise to deliver CHSP/SHP services with enough time to ensure appropriate transition arrangements are in place if relinquishing the delivery of any services back to the Commonwealth.

2.6 Offices have reviewed the requirements under the SHP, community need and Council’s capacity and after analysing several delivery options developed a proposed model to deliver aged care services post 1 July 2004, referred to as the Village model. The proposed model was provided for client, community, and staff consultation in November/December 2023.

2.7 Council had already commenced client, community, and staff engagement on a proposed service delivery model prior to the announcement of the extension of the date for implementation of SHP. The engagement process continued through November/December and was completed in mid-December 2023.

2.8 The Commonwealth indicated that the delay of the implementation of the SHP will not affect the implementation of the new national single assessment model on 1 July 2024 which replaces the Regional Assessment Service (RAS). Council is currently funded to deliver a RAS on behalf of the Commonwealth.

2.9 Council will cease the delivery of the RAS as of 30 June 2024 in line with the contract.

Councils Current Services

2.10 Currently, Council is funded $3.6m, for the financial year ending 30 June 2024 to deliver in-home and community-based services. These services include domestic assistance, personal care, respite care, delivered meals, social support (group), social support (individual), transport, property maintenance and home modifications. This support is provided to approximately 650 older people and is currently grant funded.

2.11 Council also attracts $0.7m in HACC-PYP State funding for the financial year ending 30 June 2024 to deliver in-home and community-based services that support approximately 55 people who are under 65 years of age and who have a disability but are not eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

2.12 Any decision Council makes about the CHSP will also impact on the delivery of HACC-PYP service delivery due to shared staffing and systems.

2.13 Council is also funded to deliver a Regional Assessment Service (RAS) which is contracted to June 30, 2024.

2.14 Currently, Council is not meeting its service delivery targets under the CHSP, and it is projected that by June 30, 2024, the under delivery would be in the order of 1.7 million dollars. The reasons for this are due to our inability to meet the referrals for basic services, lack of workforce capacity and an inefficient service delivery model.

Implications of the Aged Care Reforms.

2.15 The Age Care reforms mean that, particularly in Victoria due to Local Government being the primary deliverer of CHSP services, there are significant impacts on Council’s ability to stay in the delivery of some services. These changes are that funding for in-home services will transition from block funding to funding in arrears for services delivered, there are increased quality and safety and reporting requirements, a need to change business systems and adjust to new payment arrangements, creation of a demand driven marketplace and competitive neutrality requirements. SHP service providers will need to deliver a broader suite of support services to the full continuum of clients, from entry level through to high needs.

2.16 Council remains committed to supporting older members of the community to age well in the City of Port Phillip. The introduction of the SHP has driven a need for Council to review the way it delivers services to ensure they are sustainable, efficient and deliver best value for the community. As such in February 2023 Council commenced an Aged Care Review project.

2.17 The Aged Care Review project undertook a detailed review of the aged care reforms, the requirements under the new SHP, Council current performance and capacity, community utilisation and need for services, the future service environment, and Councils readiness to compete, local aged care market and national age care trends and challenges. Detailed discussions were also held with both the Commonwealth and State Governments about future service deliver requirements.

Service Delivery Model Options

2.18 Three service deliver models were explored in detail were:

· “Stay in” the direct delivery of current services.

· Develop a new sustainable, effective, and efficient service delivery model- “Village model.”

· “Exit” all services both in-home and community-based services.

Option Analysis

2.19 “Stay in” the direct delivery of current services- in-home and community-based services beyond 30 June 2024 which would include provision of State, Commonwealth and Council funded services and the need to meet changed funding requirements under the Support at Home Program and offer an extended range of services. (See Appendix 1. for details).

2.19.1 The work of the Aged Care Reform Project has identified that Council is not well placed to continue to deliver in-home services under SHP and would need to invest significant amounts of time and resource on business improvement activities and quality safety standards and payment systems to be able to offer the required range of services- entry level to complex care.

2.19.2 The key hurdles that Council has in fully participating in SHP would be completing in a competitive marketplace. Current costs of service, levels of cross-subsidy, inefficient service delivery model and inability to acquire and retain staff to meet requirements to deliver entry level services through to high care would be prohibitive.

2.19.3 Council current workforce, systems and service delivery model would not meet the new funding requirements under the SHP. Council would require the development of a new service delivery model which would cost an estimated $1.42m annually. This is an additional $1.07m to the current Community Service budget of $0.35m included in the long-term financial plan. This does not include the cost to transition to a new delivery model which has been estimated at $0.50m in the first instance with the expectation that additional investment would be required for payment systems.

2.19.4 Redundancy payments totaling approximately $0.64m would also be required to restructure teams to improve the efficiency of service delivery.

2.19.5 As the RAS service is due to conclude on June 30 2024, staff redundancy payments need to be factored into all possible service models (Stay in, Village or Exit service delivery). RAS staff redundancy payments are estimated at $0.33m.

2.19.6 Based on the analysis above the “stay in” model was not recommended.

2.20 A sustainable and efficient service delivery model was developed known as the “Village Model.” This model includes the continued delivery of some Council, State and Commonwealth funded services and the exit out of the provision of services which can be better delivered by local specialised aged care providers contracted by the Commonwealth, as well as the introduction of a new service. (See Appendix 2. for details).

2.20.1 The “Village Model” includes:

a. Continuing to deliver Commonwealth and State funded community-based services (community transport, meals, and social connection programs).

b. Funding a hop on hop off bus service and implements a new service known as a Community Connector.

c. Ceases delivering both Commonwealth and State funded in-home services (domestic assistance, personal care, respite care, individual shopping assistance, property maintenance and home modifications).

2.20.2 The proposed Community Connector service is seen as an important part of the Village model to ensure that older people have a single point of contact that supports navigating the aged care service system and to link them into the other services, supports and activities regardless of who funds or provides them.

2.20.3 The proposed “Village Model” is estimated to cost $0.42m per annum, an additional $0.07m to the Community Service budget of $0.35m which is in the ten-year financial plan. This annual $0.42m investment would support the continuation of the Council funded hop on hop off bus service, the implementation of the Community Connector service and support team to administer the service delivery model.

2.20.4 The Village model in its first year will incur additional $0.36m as service are developed and retained services are expanded to achieve economies of scale.

2.20.5 Additional to these transition costs would be costs associated with assisting clients receiving in-home services that would be relinquished back to the Commonwealth to move to specialist aged care providers. The Commonwealth have indicated they would fund reasonable transition cost, this does not include staff redundancy costs associated with a changed service deliver model.

2.20.6 A dedicated transition team would be established to support the management of client transition to a Commonwealth contracted provider. It’s estimated that transition of clients would take approximately 3-4 months. Costs incurred would be reimbursed by the Commonwealth Government. Client transition costs are estimated at $0.65m.

2.20.7 The Village model will need a reduced staffing structure. Redundancy costs of $1.81m million are estimated for the Aged Access and RAS team based on the new model being implemented by September 2024 and cessation of the RAS contract.

2.20.8 The Village model is recommended as the service delivery model for future service provision for older people. It is sustainable, efficient, effective, and seen as substantial value.

2.21 An “Exit” option was also explored. This would involve exiting from the provision of all services both in-home and community-based services. This would include State, Commonwealth and Council funded services. (See Appendix 3. for details).

2.21.1 This model proposes exiting all direct service provision for older people. This would require a strong and robust transition plan to ensure staff, and clients have a smooth and seamless transition.

2.21.2 Costs associated with this model would include redundancy costs of $2.25m.

2.21.3 A dedicated transition team would be established to support the management of client transition to a Commonwealth contracted provider. It’s estimated that transition of clients would take approximately 3-4 months. Any costs incurred would be reimbursed by the Commonwealth Government. Client transition costs are estimated at $0.65m.

2.21.4 Exiting the delivery of all services was not considered to be an appropriate course of action for Council given its commitment to older people in the community and to the Positive Ageing Strategy.

Engagement and Consultation

2.22 At the Council meeting on the 1 November 2023 endorsement was provided to commence a formal consultation process with clients, community, staff, and unions on the proposed new service deliver model for older people- the “Village Model”.

2.23 Engagement on the Village model occurred between the 8 November and the 10 December 2023. The purpose of this engagement was to talk with clients, staff, and the community more broadly about the age care reforms and the impact they are having on Council’s ability to continue to deliver in-home services and to introduce the proposed Village model for feedback.

2.24 In total 650 participants provided feedback. More than 90% of respondents were aged 60 or over, with most aged 70-84 years (51.2%). 75% of the respondents currently receive Council services. (See Appendix 4. for full Engagement report).

2.25 Council also received two formal submissions from the Older Persons Advisory Committee (See Appendix 5.) and Progressive Port Phillip (See Appendix 6.).

2.26 The consultation provided strong insights into the importance of transition arrangements and continuity of care in services that are transferred, the importance of quality approved panel providers, their ability to reflect the diversity of the CoPP community, be cost effective and to offer a range of quality services. The foundational role of the Community Connector service to the success of the Village model and the importance of social connection were also key themes.

2.27 Given the significance of the Village model on service delivery and staffing a formal change process was undertaken.

2.28 In alignment with the City of Port Phillip Enterprise Agreement 2022 a formal change process commenced on 8 November 2023 through to the 10 December 2023.

2.29 45 staff participated in group and individual meetings to discuss the Village model proposal and staff structure implications. Staff feedback was also insightful, providing information on operational arrangements that were not well represented in the change proposal and transition planning.

2.30 The Australian Services Union (ASU) provided written feedback and express their concern about the proposed changes.

2.31 At key stages of the development of options for service delivery, high level discussions were held with key stakeholders regarding Councils ongoing role in the provision of direct services to older people including funded services under SHP.

2.32 There have also been ongoing discussions with the Commonwealth as more details have been released about the SHP and its funding framework and transition options.

2.33 Officers from the Commonwealth have worked closely with Council officers to provide advice and guidance on the proposed model and transition arrangements that can be put in place should Council choose to endorse the Village model and relinquish any services.

Recommendations

2.34 Based on the extensive analysis of the proposed models, the robust client, staff, and community consultation process it is recommended that Council endorse the Village Model for implementation.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Acknowledges the ongoing commitment to supporting older people to age positively in our community.

3.2 Notes that the Commonwealth Aged Care Reforms drive a need for Council to review the way it delivers services to older people to ensure it is viable, relevant, efficient, and demonstrates best value to the community.

3.3 Notes the feedback from staff, clients, community, advisory committees, community groups and unions received through the formal consultation process has informed and shaped the recommended future model of service delivery- the Village model.

3.4 Endorsed the implementation of the Village.

3.4.1 Endorses the relinquishment of Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) funded in-home support services (domestic assistance, personal care, respite care, social support -individual, property maintenance and home modifications) back to the Commonwealth.

3.4.2 Approves notifying the Commonwealth of Council’s intention to relinquish CHSP in-home services and our commitment to work together to ensure a smooth transition for clients to Commonwealth approved providers.

3.4.3 Continues to deliver Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) funded community-based services which include delivered meals, transport, and social connection programs.

3.4.4 Approves notifying the State of Council’s intention to relinquish HACC/PYP funded in-home support services (domestic assistance, personal care, respite care, social support -individual) back to the State.

3.4.5 Continues to fund and deliver the hop on hop off bus service.

3.4.6 Establishes a Community Connector service that will provide older people with a single point of contact to support them to navigate the aged care service system and access other activities and supports in the city to assist them to age well.

3.4.7 Approves an annual budget of $0.42m in the 10-year financial plan which is an increase of $0.065k in the Community Services budget and includes the establishment of the Community Connector roles.

3.4.8 Approves one off business transition costs of $0.36m in the 2024/25 financial year for business improvement activities to establish the Village Model, in addition to the annual recurring budget of $0.42m.

3.4.9 Notes that $1.81m one-off transition costs incurred by the relinquishment ofunded in-home support services will be considered as part of the budget 2024/25 development.

3.4.10 Approves the implementation of the Village model by no later than September 2024.

3.5 Notes that the Regional Assessment Service (RAS) will cease on the 30 of June 2024 at the conclusion of the contract with the Commonwealth.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

Aged Care Background

4.1 The final report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety was handed to the Commonwealth Government on the 26 February 2021 and made public on 1 March 2021. These changes were to be implemented fully by 1 July 2025; however, it was announced in December 2023 that the changes will now not be implemented until 1 July 2027, at the earliest.

4.2 A new aged care model will replace the Commonwealth Home Support Program (CHSP) and will be known as the Support at Home Program (SHP). The SHP will bring together the Home Care Package Program (HCP), the Short-Term Restorative Care (STRC) Program and the CHSP providing a single home care program. Although the CHSP changeover has been postponed, from 1 July 2027, the SHP will still replace the existing HCP and STRC programs.

4.3 The key features of the reformed aged care system will be increased client choice and control, individualised funding that is portable and a nationally consistent assessment, service provision and funding model.

4.4 Council currently provides a range of entry level aged care services under the CHSP. There will be changed requirements for providers of funded services as the transition to the new SHP program.

4.5 CHSP providers must indicate their intention or otherwise to deliver CHSP/SHP services with enough time to ensure appropriate transition arrangements are in place if relinquishing the delivery of any services back to the Commonwealth.

4.6 Offices have reviewed the requirements under the SHP, community need and Council’s capacity and after analysing several delivery options developed a proposed model to deliver aged care services post 1 July 2004, referred to as the Village model. The proposed model was provided for client, community, and staff consultation in November/December 2023.

4.7 Council had already commenced client, community, and staff engagement on a proposed service delivery model prior to the announcement of the extension of the date for implementation of SHP. The engagement process continued through November/December and was completed in mid-December 2023.

4.8 The Commonwealth indicated that the delay of the implementation of the SHP will not affect the implementation of the new national single assessment model on 1 July 2024 which replaces the Regional Assessment Service (RAS). Council is currently funded to deliver a RAS on behalf of the Commonwealth.

4.9 Council will cease the delivery of the RAS as of 30 June 2024 in line with the contract.

Councils Current Services

4.10 Currently, Council is funded $3.6m, for the financial year ending 30 June 2024 to deliver in-home and community-based services. These services include domestic assistance, personal care, respite care, delivered meals, social support (group), social support (individual), transport, property maintenance and home modifications. This support is provided to approximately 650 older people and is currently grant funded.

4.11 Council also attracts $0.7m in HACC-PYP State funding for the financial year ending 30 June 2024 to deliver in-home and community-based services that support approximately 55 people who are under 65 years of age and who have a disability but are not eligible for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

4.12 Any decision Council makes about the CHSP will also impact on the delivery of HACC-PYP service delivery due to shared staffing and systems.

4.13 Council is also funded to deliver a Regional Assessment Service (RAS) which is contracted to June 30, 2024.

4.14 Currently, Council is not meeting its service delivery targets under the CHSP, and it is projected that by June 30, 2024, the under delivery would be in the order of 1.7 million dollars. The reasons for this are due to our inability to meet the referrals for basic services, lack of workforce capacity and an inefficient service delivery model.

4.15 It is also based on the fact that with the introduction of the My Aged Care portal and an increasing number of providers moving into delivering services within the CoPP, that referral rates for services such as personal care and respite care have significantly decreased as older people are choosing providers that can provide the full spectrum of services. This is from entry level to higher need. Many specialists aged care providers also offer pathways into residential care. Council offers entry level services only.

Impact of the Aged care Reforms

4.16 These Aged care reforms mean that, particularly in Victoria due to Local Government being the primary deliverer of CHSP services, there are significant impacts on Council’s ability to stay in the delivery of some services. These changes are that funding for in-home services will transition from block funding to funding in arrears for services delivered, there are increased governance and reporting requirements, a need to change business systems and adjust to new payment arrangements, creation of a demand driven marketplace and competitive neutrality requirements. SHP service providers will need to deliver a broader suite of support services to the full continuum of clients, from entry level through to high care.

4.17 Council remains committed to supporting older members of the community to age well in the City of Port Phillip. The introduction of the SHP has driven a need for Council to review the way it delivers services to ensure they are sustainable, efficient and deliver best value for the community. As such in February 2023 Council commenced an Aged Care Review project.

4.18 The Aged Care Review project undertook a detailed review of the aged care reforms, the requirements under the new SHP, Council current performance and capacity, community utilisation and need for services, the future service environment, and Councils readiness to compete, local aged care market and national age care trends and challenges. Detailed discussions were also held with both the Commonwealth and State Governments about future service deliver requirements.

Service Delivery Model Options

4.19 Three service deliver models were explored in detail:

· “Stay in” the direct delivery of current services.

· Develop a new sustainable, effective, and efficient service delivery model- “Village model.”

· “Exit” all services both in-home and community-based services.

Option Analysis

4.20 “Stay in” the direct delivery of current services- in-home and community-based services beyond 30 June 2024, which would include provision of State, Commonwealth and Council funded services and the need to meet changed funding requirements under the Support at Home Program and offer an extended range of services. (See Appendix 1. for details).

4.20.1 The work of the Aged Care Reform Project has identified that Council is not well placed to continue to deliver in-home services under SHP and would need to invest significant amounts of time and resource on business improvement activities and quality safety standards and payment systems to be able to offer the required range of services- entry level to complex care. .

4.20.2 The key hurdles that Council has in fully participating in SHP would be completing in a competitive marketplace. Current costs of service, levels of cross-subsidy, inefficient service delivery model and inability to acquire and retain staff to meet requirements to deliver entry level services through to high care would be prohibitive.

4.20.3 Council current workforce, systems and service delivery model would not meet the new funding requirements under the SHP. Council would require the development of a new service delivery model which would cost an estimated $1.42m annually. This is an additional $1.07m to the current Community Service budget of $0.35m included in the long-term financial plan. This does not include the cost to transition to a new delivery model which has been estimated at $0.50m in the first instance with the expectation that additional investment would be required for payment systems.

4.20.4 Redundancy payments totaling approximately $0.64m would also be required to restructure teams to improve the efficiency of service delivery.

4.20.5 As the RAS service is due to conclude on 30 June 2024, staff redundancy payments need to be factored into all possible service models (Stay in, Village or Exit service delivery). RAS staff redundancy payments are estimated at $0.33m.

4.20.6 Based on the analysis above the “stay in” model was not recommended.

4.21 A sustainable and efficient service delivery model was developed known as the “Village Model.” This model includes the continued delivery of some Council, State and Commonwealth funded services and the exit out of the provision of services which can be better delivered by local specialised aged care providers contracted by the Commonwealth, as well as the introduction of a new service. (See Appendix 2. for details).

4.21.1 The “Village Model” includes:

a. Continuing to deliver Commonwealth and State funded community-based services (community transport, meals, and social connection programs).

b. Funding a hop on hop off bus service and implements a new service known as a Community Connector.

4.21.2 The proposed Community Connector service is seen as an important part of the Village model to ensure that older people have a single point of contact that supports navigating the aged care service system and to link them into the other services, supports and activities regardless of who funds or provides them.

4.21.3 The proposed “Village Model” is estimated to cost $0.42m per annum, an additional $0.065K to the Community Service budget of $0.35m which is in the ten-year financial plan. This annual $0.42m investment would support the continuation of the Council funded hop on hop off bus service, the implementation of the Community Connector service and support team to administer the service delivery model.

4.21.4 The Village model in its first year will incur additional $0.36m as services are developed and retained services are expanded to achieve economies of scale.

4.21.5 Additional to these transition costs would be costs associated with assisting clients receiving in-home services that would be relinquished back to the Commonwealth to move to specialist aged care providers. The Commonwealth have indicated they would fund reasonable transition cost, this does not include staff redundancy costs associated with a changed service deliver model.

4.21.6 A dedicated transition team would be established to support the management of client transition to a Commonwealth contracted provider. It’s estimated that transition of clients would take approximately 3-4 months. Any costs incurred would be reimbursed by the Commonwealth Government. Client transition costs are estimated at $0.65m.

4.21.7 The Village model will need a reduced staffing structure. Redundancy costs of $1.81m are estimated for the Aged Access and RAS team based on the new model being implemented by September 2024 and cessation of the RAS contract.

4.21.8 The Village model is recommended as the service delivery model for future service provision for older people. It is sustainable, efficient, effective, and seen as good value.

4.22 An “Exit” option was also explored. This would involve exiting from the provision of all services both in-home and community-based services. This would include State, Commonwealth and Council funded services. (See Appendix 3. for details).

4.22.1 This model proposes exiting all direct service provision for older people. This would require a strong and robust transition plan to ensure staff, and clients have a smooth and seamless transition.

4.22.2 Costs associated with this model would include redundancy costs (incl. outplacement) of $2.25 million.

4.22.3 A dedicated transition team would be established to support the management of client transition to a Commonwealth contracted provider. It’s estimated that transition of clients would take approximately 3-4 months. Costs incurred would be reimbursed by the Commonwealth Government. Client transition costs are estimated at $0.65m.

4.22.4 Exiting the delivery of all services was not considered to be an appropriate course of action for Council given its commitment to older people in the community and to the Positive Ageing Strategy.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

Engagement and Consultation

5.1 At the Council meeting on the 1 November 2023 endorsement was provided to commence a formal consultation process with clients, community, staff, and unions on the proposed new service deliver model for older people- the “Village Model”.

5.2 Engagement on the Village model occurred between the 8 November and the 10 December 2023. The purpose of this engagement was to talk with clients, staff, and the community more broadly about the age care reforms and the impact they are having on Council ability to continue to deliver in-home services and to introduce the proposed Village model for feedback.

5.3 It also aimed to collect specific and general feedback on the proposal Village model any concerns or ideas for improvement as well as what elements would be important for future support of older people to age well at home.

5.4 In total 650 participants provided feedback. More than 90% of respondents were aged 60 or over, with most aged 70-84 years (51.2%). 75% of the respondents currently receive Council services.

5.5 A primary principle for the engagement was that we heard from as many clients as possible and ensured that we were flexible in how we supported older people to participate in the engagement process. (See Appendix 4. for full Engagement report)

Client, Community and Advisory Committees Engagement

5.6 A range of activities and engagement opportunities were utilised to let community and clients know about the proposed changes to aged care services deliver model and to provide opportunities for feedback on the Village model (see Appendix 4. for Engagement Summary Report).

5.7 Information and engagement opportunities on the Village model included:

5.7.1 Eight hundred and eighteen letters were sent to clients advising of the proposed service model and providing a frequently asked questions document and advising of the survey.

5.7.2 Survey seeking feedback on the model and other considerations for Council in the provision of aged care services. Surveys were available in both online and paper forms and were translated into thirteen languages. Hard copies were sent to all clients currently receiving Councils in-home services.

5.7.3 A Have Your Say web page was set up to provide details of the engagement opportunities and proposed changes.

5.7.4 Information was made available in public places such as local libraries and Neighbourhood houses.

5.7.5 Three newsletters were produced.

5.7.6 Social media posts were used to advise of opportunities for engagement.

5.7.7 Eight neighbourhood pop up conversations where staff were available to discuss the proposed changes to the aged care service deliver model.

5.7.8 Three drop-in sessions were held at libraries for clients and interested people. These were 2-hour information session.

5.7.9 Three visits to seniors’ groups and clubs were undertaken to provide opportunities for feedback and discussion.

5.7.10 Five sessions were also held with key Council advisory committees.

5.8 The key themes from the consultation process included:

5.8.1 The need for quality assurance (29%) - need for any change in service to be carefully managed.

5.8.2 Issues to manage (18%) - related to quality assurance but also the concern for the impact on staff and the loss of meaningful relationships between clients and staff.

5.8.3 The value placed on Council services (17%) - the type of service that is valued now and into the future.

5.8.4 Affordability of services (13%) – the need to consider carefully cost of service and impact on clients.

5.8.5 Managing the change (11%) – the importance of carefully manage any transition to new providers.

5.8.6 Resistance to change (11%) – prefer no change, concern about worse outcome for clients.

5.9 Respondents also provided feedback on what service, activities and information would be important for older people to be connected into Port Phillip, how they would like to access information and services and other areas for consideration for council to support older people to live independently a home.

5.10 Neighbourhood pop up sessions provided more opportunity to discuss the proposed Community Connector service. This was seen as an important part of delivering a successful service to support older people. Having a trusted point of contact to link people into services, activities, and information across the city regardless of who provided or fund the service was seen as critical. Many also spoke of the complexities of navigating My Aged Care particularly if English was not a first language.

5.11 25 % of respondent to the survey also outlined the importance of access to information and the desire to be kept up to date on local activities.

5.12 Through the consultation process two submissions were received one from the Older Persons Advisory Committee (see Appendix 5.) and from Progressive Port Phillip (see Appendix 6.).

5.13 Key themes from the OPAC submission and discussion included:

5.13.1 The importance of the role local community plays in ensuring residence age gracefully in place.

5.13.2 Support for and on-going, suitably staffed community connector service.

5.13.3 Support for 12-month review to ensure transition arrangements meet client’s needs.

5.13.4 The importance of continuity of care for clients through any transition.

5.13.5 That approved provider reflects and understand the diversity of the Port Phillip community.

5.13.6 Advocacy for the establishment of a Positive Ageing team to focus on service, events, and implementation of the Positive ageing Strategy policy.

5.14 Key themes from the Progressive Port Phillip submission and included:

5.14.1 Expressed concern about the impact of the proposed changes on in-home service client.

5.14.2 Expressed concern about the loss of the relationship built between clients and council staff.

5.14.3 Expressed concern about local provider capacity to deliver services.

5.14.4 Suggest Council delay the decision to move to a new service delivery model and commit to further consideration of other options.

5.14.5 Recommend Council review the capacity of not-for-profit age care providers who provide in-home services before a decision is made to withdraw from services.

5.14.6 Ask council to consider further options for the delivery of in-home services.

Staff Engagement

5.15 In alignment with the City of Port Phillip Enterprise Agreement 2022 a formal change process with staff commenced between the 8 November to the 10 December 2023.

5.16 All 45 Aged Access and Inclusion and Regional Assessment Team staff participated in group and individual meetings to discuss the Village model proposal and organizational structure implications.

5.17 A series of group and Individual meetings were held during the consultation process with employees. There were 20 employees who elected to have an individual meeting to discuss change proposal and provide feedback to the representatives from Community Services and a People, Culture and Safety (HR) Team.

5.18 Key themes from the feedback included:

5.18.1 Understanding of the Commonwealth aged care reforms and the impact of the changes in requirements to deliver services under the Support and Home Program.

5.18.2 Clarification on the delivered meals program, which is a contracted service, and how this would be administered in a new staff structure.

5.18.3 Operational arrangements and transition planning including timeframes for changes to the in-home care service delivery if a new model of services was endorsed.

5.18.4 Roles impacts of any changes to organisational structure to support a new service delivery model.

5.19 Overall, the feedback received from staff was they felt well informed in relation to the proposed service delivery model and understood the drivers for change.

Other Stakeholder Engagement

5.20 At key stages of the development of options for service delivery, high level discussions were held with key stakeholders regarding Councils ongoing role in the provision of direct services to older people including funded services under SHP.

5.21 There have been ongoing discussions with the Commonwealth as more details have been released about the SHP and its funding framework and transition options.

5.22 Officers from the Commonwealth have worked closely with Council officers to provide advice and guidance on the proposed model and transition arrangements that can be put in place should Council choose to endorse the Village model and relinquish any services.

5.23 The MAV provided helpful advice on the community connector service and were supportive of the proposed model and see this as a good role for Local governments to provide in support of the aged care service system.

5.24 The Australian Services Union (ASU) provided written feedback and express their concern about the proposed changes.

5.25 The ASU were concerned about the potential impact on staff should Council choose to exit the delivery of some services. Their primary concerns were about Victorian Councils choosing to exit the provision of aged care services, the majority fully exiting, and the impact on the aged care workforces. The ASU stressed the importance of appropriate consultation periods, communication, and transition arrangement if any changes to service deliver models are endorsed.

Recommendations

5.26 Based on the extensive analysis of the proposed models, the robust client, staff, and community consultation process it is recommended that Council endorse the Village Model for implementation.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Legal advice has been sort throughout the process to ensure regulatory, Enterprise Agreement and other requirements have been met.

6.2 A comprehensive risk assessment and mitigation plans have been developed throughout this process.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 The current 10-year Financial Plan includes $0.35m annually to support the delivery of services to older people through the Community Services budget.

7.2 To implement the Village model would be a financial commitment of $0.42m per annum from 2025/26. An additional $0.36m would be required to establish new operating model in the 2024.25 financial year.

7.3 The modelling for this assumes efficiency gains are made on the current service delivery, revenue opportunities are maximised, and that Commonwealth funded services (transport, social connection programs and meals) will be delivered on a cost recovery basis.

7.4 The potential staff impacted by the endorsement of the Village Model and through the cessation of the RAS is estimated to be 45 people with redundancy costs of $1.81m are estimated for the Aged Access and RAS team based on the Village model being implemented by September 2024.

7.5 The Commonwealth Government has informed Council that one off transition costs (transition team, collateral, translations services, back of house administration etc) could be claimed back through the existing funding agreement. Redundancy costs, however, cannot be claimed.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 There are no direct environmental impacts arising from this paper.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 There will be significant impact on current clients should the Village model be endorsed. If in-home services are transitioned to specialist aged care providers contracted/funded by the Commonwealth every effort will be made to maintain continuity of care, with no gap in service, however, this will still require a change for the older person. The older person will retain choice and control of who delivers their services, and the provider will need to meet strict criteria, set by the Commonwealth, which should ensure suitable qualified and local based support.

9.2 Detailed transition planning will be undertaken if the Village model is endorsed for implementation. The older person will be well supported by Council through any transition.

9.3 Transitioning out of services under the Village model will also require a change in staffing structures to support service deliver. Detailed change process will be followed for impacted staff.

9.4 Discussions have occurred with the Commonwealth Government about the proposed model and the best way to transition services and support current clients if the proposed Village model is endorsed by Council.

9.5 The Commonwealth Government will work closely with Council if it chooses to exit any services to ensure continuity of care for our clients and allow for an appropriate range of qualified specialist aged care providers to be made available.

9.6 A Gender Impact Assessment (GIA) has been completed in the development of the Aged Care reform proposal, a requirement of the Victorian Gender Equality Act 2020. The GIA drew on client gender data and gender-analysed findings from community engagement, to consider impacts of the reforms on clients of different genders, ages, and backgrounds.

10. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

10.1 The Village service delivery model aligns to the Inclusive Port Phillip Council direction. Through the continuation of community-based services and the establishment of a Community Connector service, Council will support our diverse older population to get access to the services and supports they need to age well in the community.

11. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

11.1 TIMELINE

11.1.1 Following endorsement of the Village model Council will inform the Commonwealth and the State of the intention to relinquish in-home services.

11.1.2 The Commonwealth will establish a panel of approved providers to transition service delivery to, it is understood that this process will be completed withing 2-3 months.

11.1.3 During this time, an internal transition team will be established to ensure Council are well placed to work one on one with clients to support them in any transition arrangements.

11.1.4 The Commonwealth allows a 3–4-month transition period to ensure that the process is robust, and continuity of care is maintained. It is envisaged that the transition process will be fully completed by the end of August 2024.

11.1.5 During this time, a staff structure will be implemented to support the ongoing delivery of the Village model. The Community Connector service will also be established.

11.1.6 Staff will transition to the new structure by August 2024.

11.1.7 The Village Model will be in full operation as of 1 September 2024.

11.2 COMMUNICATION

11.2.1 If Council endorses the Village model, letters and frequently asked questions document will be sent to clients in their preferred language. The letter will inform clients of the Council decision, this will then be followed up with a call from a transition team to talk about any impact on their service.

11.2.2 A dedicated phone number and email will be available for clients.

11.2.3 Staff and Unions will also be informed with staff and individual meetings set up to discuss individual impacts.

11.2.4 The Council decision will be made available on the website.

11.2.5 More extensive communication to community will also occur as the transition progresses.

12. OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST

12.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Stay in delivery of current aged care services⇩

2. Village Model Option⇩

3. Exit Services Option⇩

4. Engagement Summary Report⇩

5. Older Persons Advisory Committee Aged Care Reform Proposal December 2023⇩

6. Progressive Port Phillip Submission Aged Care Service Proposed changes - Dec 2023⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 February 2024

10.1

Integrated Transport Strategy review - engagement findings and recommendations

Executive Member:

Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development

PREPARED BY:

Karen Roache, Coordinator Strategic Transport

Jack McGuane, Transport Planner

Ehud Rotem, Strategic Transport Planner

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To present the review recommendations and community engagement findings from the mid-strategy review of the Move, Connect, Live: Integrated Transport Strategy 2018 – 2028.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 In September 2018, Council endorsed the Move, Connect, Live: Integrated Transport Strategy 2018 – 2028 (the Strategy), a 10-year strategic plan to help create a city that is well connected and easy to move around.

2.2 The City of Port Phillip is a popular and growing inner-city area, attracting millions of visitors per year. Managing our growth sustainably is critical to preserving liveability and wellbeing for our residents, workers and visitors. Current projections suggest we can expect over 72,000 additional daily private car trips on our roads by the end of this decade. This will make our streets increasingly more congested, with higher transport emissions and increasing pressure on already restricted on-street parking. The Strategy aims to address this challenge by supporting the move to more sustainable transport modes which can help reduce congestion and pollution while increasing equity and safety on our streets.

2.3 The Strategy aligns with strategic directions 1-3 of the Council Plan 2021-31; an Inclusive Port Phillip (1), a Liveable Port Phillip (2), and a Sustainable Port Phillip (3).

2.4 The Strategy identified 42 actions and included a mid-strategy review (this review). The actions outlined within the Strategy were indicatively costed at $36m in 2018.

2.5 The review was considered at the 16 August 2023 Ordinary Council Meeting, where Council:

2.5.1 Endorsed the scope, principles, and key changes proposed for the review of the Move, Connect, Live: Integrated Transport Strategy 2018 - 2028 for the purpose of community consultation in August and September 2023. 

2.5.2 Noted a Report on the findings of the consultation and the updated Strategy will be presented to Council for adoption.

2.6 Key items reviewed included:

2.6.1 alternative approaches to delivering improvements to bike routes that makes them safe and attractive for all riders, but may not rely on fully protected bike corridors (Action 18).

2.6.2 updating the Strategy indicators due to changes in available data, and

2.6.3 updating delivery costs and timeframes for Council funded projects.

2.7 Community consultation on the review was undertaken over three (3) weeks, from 25 August to the 15 September 2023.

2.8 A key focus of the review was Action 18 which currently requires the delivery of 11 dedicated and continuous protected bike corridors. While three protected bike riding corridors have been delivered over the first five years of the Strategy and two more are underway, learnings from these projects demonstrated that the initial high-level costing allocation for the 11 proposed protected bike corridors of $12.8M is insufficient to deliver all 11 corridors which also cannot be delivered in the timeframe provided in the Strategy.

2.9 Garden City had a total cost of $1.25m (including $425,000 funded by the Victorian Government), Park Street has a total cost of approximately $2m (including $1.1m funded by the Victorian Government). Inkerman Safety Improvement Project has cost estimates of up to $9.9m. The final outcome will depend on Council‘s decision on what, if any, design option will proceed.

2.10 In summary, the cost of completed works combined with budget allocation (estimated costs) for bike corridors that are currently underway equate to a total of almost $11.7m (excluding third party funding) of the original $12.8m allocated. This does not include Moray Street or St Kilda Road which were delivered by the Victorian Government.

2.11 In addition, protected corridors can have amenity impacts including the loss of parking. Understanding and minimising these impacts has extended community engagement, design costs and timelines and has increased the costs of these projects beyond that envisaged when the Strategy was developed. Council engagement on specific protected bike corridors proposals has demonstrated the importance of considering bike safety corridors in addition to protected bike corridors.

2.12 Recognising the difficulty of delivering continuous protected bike corridors (the only option currently provided in the Strategy), we asked our community for feedback on the types of infrastructure improvements that would increase safety and accessibility for all road users and encourage riding along these routes.

2.13 The engagement was promoted through Council’s Divercity, Bike Riding and Community Engagement newsletters and social media.

2.14 The detailed results of the consultation can be found in Attachment 1, with 78 respondents contributing through Council’s Have Your Say page.

2.15 Of respondents, 46% identified as women, 41% as men and 12% preferred not to say. Respondents varied in age with an age-distribution typical of the makeup of Port Phillip and included 13% of respondents who do not currently ride a bike.

2.16 Three key themes emerged from community members responding to the survey:

2.16.1 Safer junctions

Respondents identified a need for safer crossing options for bike riders at intersections which they consider as high-risk locations.

2.16.2 Protected bike lanes

Less confident riders expressed the desire for protected infrastructure to enhance their safety and encourage them to ride more often. Confident riders are generally more willing to ride in areas without physical protection. 

2.16.3 Local streets vs. arterial roads

Respondents noted the possibility for different approaches to safe bike corridor delivery based on the type of streets. For local streets (speed limit of 40km/h) there was a preference for protected bike lanes, however there was also indicative support for varied interventions to make the street safe for road users in lieu of this protection. For heavily trafficked or arterial roads (speed limits of 50km/h or above), there was a preference for protected bike lanes, particularly among the less confident riders.

2.17 This report recommends replacing the current Action 18 - Deliver a network of dedicated and continuous protected bike corridors to create safer routes for all ages and abilities, with the following:

2.17.1 Action 18a: “Deliver a range of interventions to build a network of connected, safe riding options, ensuring safety for people of all ages and abilities.”

2.17.2 Action 18b: “Advocate to State government to deliver protected bike corridors on state-managed arterial roads.” 

2.18 Updates to five of the Strategy’s indicators are also proposed, as well as the discontinuance of six indicators (Attachment 2).

2.19 If endorsed, the adjustments proposed to the Strategy would remain until the end of the Strategy in 2028.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Thanks the community for taking part in the review of the Move, Connect, Live: Integrated Transport Strategy.

3.2 Notes the results of the consultation on the Strategy.

3.3 Notes the progress on actions to date described in Attachment 3.

3.4 Endorses updates to five of the Strategy’s indicators and discontinuance of six indicators used to measure progress due to changes in availability of data sources and alignment with other Council polices.

3.5 Endorses an amended Action 18 in the Strategy from:

“Deliver a network of dedicated and continuous protected bike corridors to create safer routes for all ages and abilities”

Action 18a: “Deliver a range of interventions to build a network of connected, safe riding options, ensuring safety for people of all ages and abilities.”

and adds

Action 18b: “Advocate to State government to deliver protected bike corridors on state-managed arterial roads.” 

3.6 Authorises the CEO (or delegate) to make minor editorial changes to the Strategy to reflect the endorsed review recommendations.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 The review of the Integrated Transport Strategy was undertaken to meet commitments in the Measuring and Reporting section (page 58) of the Strategy, which states:

“The Strategy will be reviewed after four years and updated if needed. We will be reporting our progress each year through Council’s annual report (unless otherwise stated).” 

4.2 The review process has identified several contextual changes that have had a direct impact on the Strategy following its endorsement in 2018. These were presented at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 16 August 2023 and considered impacts of COVID-19, transport innovation, economic, political and policy changes, as well as changes to budget priorities associated with state funded projects.

4.3 Following Council’s endorsement of the approach to the mid-strategy review on 16 August 2023, a three-week community consultation period was completed between 25 August and 15 September 2023. The focus of this engagement was a review of Action 18 to engage the community on alternative options to continuous protected bike corridors to deliver safe riding infrastructure.

4.4 Findings from Council’s July 2023 Sustainability Survey and additional research related to City of Port Phillip have also been factored into recommended changes as part of the mid-strategy review.

Review of strategy actions

4.5 The Strategy consists of 42 actions linked to the five strategic outcomes. A summary of the key achievements by outcome, was presented to Council on 16 August 2023 (Attachment 3). 

4.6 The 42 actions in the Strategy have been reviewed to assess deliverability. Most actions are broad and ongoing and show significant progress. Many of these actions relate to ongoing and continuous safety improvements and upgrades across our municipality, and/or are reliant on the Victorian Government to fund or deliver.

4.7 The following actions have been completed with further details in Attachment 3:

4.7.1 Action 1: Review and update the Port Phillip Planning Scheme and Municipal Strategic Statement to ensure an effective integration of land use and transport planning.

4.7.2 Action 2: Develop a precinct masterplan for the Domain Precinct.

4.7.3 Action 5: Review the Community Bus Services as part of the Aged Care Transition Service review.

4.7.4 Action 13: Complete the intersection upgrade of Wellington St.

4.7.5 Action 30: Develop and implement a new Parking Permit Policy.

4.7.6 Action 31 Develop and implement a new Parking Controls Policy (paid and time-controlled parking).

4.7.7 Action 37: Review Car Share Policy.

4.8 Most remaining actions are on-track; however, the review highlighted challenges in delivering Action 18 which is paired with an indicator to deliver 4 protected bike riding corridors by 2021-22, and a total of 11 by 2027-28. Action 18 seeks to:

4.8.1 “Deliver a network of dedicated and continuous protected bike corridors to create safer routes for all ages and abilities”.

4.9 Should Action 18 not be achieved, it may impact other targets within the Strategy, including the ability to increase riding by 151 percent from baseline data. This is largely due to reduced uptake of riding by less confident or less mobile members of the community.

Changes to Measuring Strategy Progress (indicators)

4.10 Council has reviewed the indicators used to measure the progress of the overall Strategy and are proposing changes so that the benefits to our community can be better understood.

4.11 Officers have proposed changes to five of the indicators due to changes in access to data sources and alignment with other Council policies that have been revised in the last four years.

4.12 Officers also recommend the discontinuance of six indicators due to change in approach or lack of access to required data (see Attachment 2).

4.13 Currently, four indicators use VISTA (Victorian Integrated Survey of Travel and Activity) data to measure the number of walking, bike riding, private vehicle and public transport trips. VISTA data is maintained by the Department of Transport and Planning and released every two to four years. The review considered replacing this methodology with Council owned AI traffic sensors to provide more regularly updated data, including data needed to measure year-on-year progress to include in Council’s annual report. However, the review found that, as Council is at the beginning of implementing a network of sensors, the VISTA is a more appropriate data source and VISTA data will be retained to measure and report on outcomes.

Updates to Action 18

4.14 The Strategy identified 15 dedicated, protected bike corridors, including those to be delivered by the Victorian Government. It was proposed that 11 of these would be delivered by 2028. Three bike corridors have been delivered, one has been endorsed for delivery, and another has recently been shared with the community for consultation. The remaining routes are still pending.

ITS Bike Corridors – Status Summary

Delivered

· St Kilda Road – St Kilda Road Junction to South Bank Boulevard  

· Moray St – Albert Road to City of Melbourne (partially separated only) 

· Garden City – connecting The Blvd to Sandringham light rail trail

Underway

· Park Street – Kings Way to St Kilda Road (construction anticipated early 2025)

· Inkerman Street – Hotham St to St Kilda Road

Pending

· Shrine to Sea - Kerferd Road and Albert Road from Beaconsfield Parade to Moray St 

· Dorcas St / Nelson Rd / Foote St - Kings Way to Beach

· Sandringham Line / Westbury St - Ripponlea to Windsor

· Dickens St - Balaclava to St Kilda Beach

· Acland St / Mitford St / Beach St - Fitzroy St to Elwood Beach

· Tennyson St / Blessington St - Elwood to St Kilda Beach

· Byron St / Glen Eira Rd - Ripponlea to Elwood

· Bridge St / Richardson St/ Loch St - Port Melbourne to St Kilda

· Alexandra St - Prahran to Balaclava

· Armstrong St - Middle Park Beach to Albert Park trail

4.15 Several rider safety improvements on local roads have been delivered by Council since 2018, including upgraded crossings, the installation of sharrows and painted bike lanes. These interventions together with other targeted safety interventions, including extended kerbs, bike boxes at intersections and additional traffic calming measures all support safer environments for riders.

4.16 Implementation of bike corridors over the last four years has provided a greater understanding of the complexities, time and cost of delivery bike lanes in established areas.

4.17 A key finding of the review is that the remaining corridors outlined in the Strategy will not be completed as protected corridors in the time and budget proposed in the Strategy, and that a bespoke design approach that considers local conditions and community feedback is required to continue to deliver improvements through to 2028.

4.18 Officers have reviewed international and local best practice to consider alternative approaches to achieve a safer environment for all road users, particularly people riding on these routes.

4.19 Where physical protection cannot be achieved, accepted best practice is to create environments with low traffic speed and volumes – together with targeted physical interventions – to create conditions that are safe and forgiving of errors by riders and drivers. These interventions reduce the risk of serious injury or death.

4.20 The report recommends an approach that considers existing conditions, road use and the impact of traffic and parking changes on the community as well the impact on residents and businesses.

4.21 If changes to Action 18 are endorsed by Council, officers could consider up to three corridors for delivery by 2028. The three will be determined taking into account crash history, traffic volumes and speeds, corridor characteristics and functions, requirements for waste and emergency vehicle access, impact on parking and opportunities to connect with existing bike routes. Officers will also look to identify opportunities to improve existing infrastructure and connections.

4.22 The recommended approach to delivering safe bike corridors will vary according to street type. For local streets (speed limit of 40km/h), traffic calming measures can be used to improve safety. For heavily trafficked or arterial roads (speed limits of 50km/h or above), protected bike lanes may be more appropriate and may require advocacy to the Victorian Government.

4.23 Traffic calming measures may include treatments to highlight where it is best for bike riders to ride and navigate traffic such as lane markings, green bike lane paint at conflict points, bike stencils and bike boxes at junctions. Targeted protections may be needed at high conflict areas such as kerb outstands or street furniture elements, such as planters, seating areas, and bike parking hoops.

4.24 In addition, consideration will be given to other measures, such as trialling traffic speed reduction on some local streets or implementing placemaking initiatives such as street art and vegetation to create safer community-oriented junctions. Other initiatives that would be considered is the use of AI traffic sensors to help identify priority junctions and help guide designs.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 Engagement undertaken by Council, alongside documented research, demonstrates that our community wants to use active transport but is encountering barriers.

Previous Engagement

5.2 Extensive engagement and community consultation was undertaken as part of the development of the Strategy in 2018. This included consultation on ‘Setting the Direction’ – a position paper identifying transport problems and providing guiding principles to form the basis of what became the Integrated Transport Strategy. This took place between October and December 2017.

5.3 This was followed by a five-week public consultation on the draft Strategy that reached a cross-section of the community via a detailed survey, focus groups, interviews, targeted discussions and workshops. This took place between June and July 2018.

5.4 At this time, the most popular themes ranked as ‘very important’ in community consultation were walking and bike riding improvements (70%), enhancing public transport choices (68%) and safety on our roads (67%). Accordingly, the actions ranked as most important by the community were:

5.4.1 Action 18 – Deliver a network of dedicated and continuous priority bike lanes to create safer routes for all ages and abilities (31% of respondents’ top priority)

5.4.2 Action 24 – Partner with the Victorian Government and public transport providers to increase the reliability and frequency of both tram and bus services (23% of respondents’ top priority)

5.4.3 Action 28 – Identify and advocate for improvements to missing public transport links and areas of poor public transport connectivity (19% of respondents’ top priority)

5.4.4 Action 15 – Deliver pedestrian projects that create safe, high amenity walking routes and reduce barriers to crossing major roads (17% of respondents’ top priority)

5.5 Research conducted by Monash University research in 2021 found that 71% of people living in the City of Port Phillip were ‘interested but concerned’ about riding a bike, saying they would ride a bike if infrastructure were provided that physically separated them from car traffic (The potential for bike riding across entire cities: quantifying spatial variation in interest in bike riding; Pearson et al., 2022).

5.6 The same study found women to be more concerned about riding on the road, next to motor vehicles, and the dangers of a collision with a motor vehicle. The research concluded that women want space when riding a bike to feel safe, and accordingly call for protected bike lanes, connecting the network to remove “missing links” and providing wider lanes to enable stopping.

5.7 Council’s Sustainability Survey 2023, responded to by 615 residents in total, indicated community support for the following transport-related matters which rated highly (0 very unimportant to 10 very important):

5.7.1 Enhancing low-emission transport 8

5.7.2 Promoting active travel 7.8

Review engagement

5.8 Following Council’s endorsement to conduct community consultation on the mid-strategy review, engagement ran for a three-weeks between 25 August and 15 September 2023.

5.9 Community consultation involved a survey via the Have Your Say webpage. Feedback was sought from the Port Phillip Community, including the Port Phillip Bicycle Users Group (BUG), members of the Older Persons Advisory Committee (OPAC) and subscribers of the Bike Riding Newsletter.

5.10 The focus of this engagement was to determine alternate methods to deliver the outcomes for Action 18 of the Strategy which addresses safe bike riding corridors and associated infrastructure. The full report showing the results of the consultation can be found in Attachment 1.

5.11 The total reach of this project was 356 people, with 322 page views of the Have Your Say page, 281 page visits by 186 visitors, and 78 survey contributions received.

5.12 A social media campaign was run on City of Port Phillip’s Facebook and Instagram accounts which attracted 24 reactions, 32 comments and four shares.

5.13 The engagement demonstrated that Port Phillip has a diverse community of riders, from highly confident riders who ride in all conditions, to those who are less assured and want to cycle more or commence riding but find the city's current infrastructure insufficient for their safety needs.

5.14 The responses clearly demonstrate that relationship between safety perception and riding frequency, with many non-confident riders feeling unsafe to ride a bike in Port Phillip. When asked what can make them feel safer, some notable trends have emerged:

5.14.1 There is a strong demand for safer crossing options at intersections, by riders of all levels.

5.14.2 Junctions are recognized as hazardous spots for riders, causing unease among many and act as deterrence to bike riding.

5.14.3 Bike lanes are a key focus, with evident support for dedicated infrastructure to enhance riding safety in Port Phillip, may it be separated or painted lanes, with or without a buffer.

5.14.4 While a small share of respondents have shown support for sharrows in combination with other traffic calming measures to reduce car traffic speed and volume, respondents generally advocate for dedicated bike lanes (protected or not) on local streets with a speed limit of 40 kilometres per hour.

5.14.5 On main roads with speed limits exceeding 50 kilometres per hour, there's a higher preference for specifically protected and separated bike lanes, particularly among the less confident riders.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 Achieving many of the actions and outcomes within the Strategy relies on advocacy work to relevant authorities and funding from the Victorian and Australian Governments. The dependency on governments, transport providers, adjacent councils poses a risk to completion of some actions.

6.2 Whilst targeted interventions can improve safety on the hyper-local level, these will not offer the same level of safety across the whole riding network as dedicated and protected corridors.

6.3 A shift from a previous commitment for only protected infrastructure could result in reputational risk for Council due to perceived lack of action and implementation of endorsed strategies.

6.4 Council has an obligation to mitigate high-risk environments that impact the local community, particularly where the asset is owned and managed by Council.

6.5 Other Council strategies, polices and plans refer to the actions in the Integrated Transport Strategy. Changes to the Strategy could impact outcomes associated with other policies or strategies, including Act and Adapt: Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2028, the Climate Emergency Plan 2023-2028, the Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022-2032, the Positive Aging Policy 2023-2028, and the Accessibility Action Plan 2023-2028, as well as the forthcoming Urban Forest Strategy and Places to Live: Port Phillip Housing Strategy.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 Many of the actions in the Strategy, particularly around partnership and advocacy can continue to be delivered through existing resources.

7.2 The draft 10-year Council Plan currently includes walking, bike riding and public transport (sustainable transport) projects for 2023/24 to 2028/29 costed at $20.16m. These projects are intended to be funded by $4.06m external funding, and $16.1m from Council’s Strategic Transport Reserve (STR) which is expected to have revenue (including the opening balance) totalling $15.12m from 2023/24 to 2028/29. To address this shortfall of approximately $1m, additional external funding will need to be obtained, projects will need to be rescoped and/or potentially delayed.

7.3 The existing budget in the draft 10-year Council plan allocates $12.8m for protected Bike Infrastructure and includes delivery of Park Street and Inkerman Street. Final costings for these pending projects will be dependent on Council’s decision on what, if any, design options proceed for Inkerman Safety Improvement Project. Initial high-level costings for delivering the remaining protected corridors indicate the existing budget is insufficient.

7.4 Garden City had a total cost of $1.25m (including $425,000 funded by the Victorian Government), Park Street has a total cost of approx. $2m (including $1.1m funded by the Victorian Government). Inkerman Safety Improvement Project has cost estimates of up to $9.9m. In summary, the cost of completed works combined with budget allocation (estimated costs) for bike corridors that are currently underway equate to a total of almost $11.7m (excluding third party funding) of the original $12.8m allocated.

7.5 If Council endorses changes to the Strategy, officers will assess the priority corridors to identify projects for delivery, including high level costings based on allocated budgets which will be identified through the annual budget process.

7.6 We will continue to seek to further reduce financial impact on Council by partnering with other agencies to support delivery of the Strategy and apply to grants from State and Federal Government should these become available.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 Independent analysis conducted in October 2022 for Council’s Act and Adapt Review found that private vehicle use is currently responsible for 14% of our city’s greenhouse gas emissions and that transport is our biggest growing emissions source. By 2040 on-road travel will make up nearly 50% of community emissions despite a reduction in absolute emissions, as other sources will reduce more quickly.

8.2 Increased uptake of electric vehicles using low emission power will help reduce transport emissions, however, this transition will not decrease traffic congestion and parking demand on our streets nor reduce the risk to vulnerable street users.

8.3 Reduction of community greenhouse gas emissions will require having safe, attractive sustainable transport options to achieve a shift away from use of private vehicles as identified in the Strategy.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The City of Port Phillip is a popular and growing inner-city area, attracting millions of visitors per year. Managing our growth sustainably is critical to preserving liveability and wellbeing for our residents, workers and visitors. Current projections suggest that over 72,000 additional daily private car trips are expected on our roads by the end of this decade. This will make our streets increasingly more congested, with higher transport emissions and increasing pressure on already restricted on-street parking. The Strategy aims to address this challenge by supporting the move to more sustainable transport modes which can help reduce congestion and pollution while increasing equity and safety on our streets.

9.2 Data indicates that women currently account for about 25% of all bike trips in Port Phillip, research has shown women to be more sensitive to lack of protection and separation from cars compared to men, and that women feel significantly safer on 30km/h streets compared to those that are 40km/h or faster.

9.3 The Gender Impact Assessment as part of the review has shown that the current bike infrastructure across Port Phillip, which relies heavily on unprotected bike lanes, consistently benefits men more than women due to men’s higher riding confidence and the nature of their travel patterns, typically being unencumbered, solo and direct commuting to and from work.

9.4 Usage of bikes and micro-mobility is on the rise, over the last two summers the Artificial Intelligence sensors at St Kilda Pier recorded 172,000 bike and micro-mobility trips between December 2021 to February 2022 increasing to 188,000 bike and micro-mobility trips the following summer, representing an increase of 9%.

9.5 The use of cargo bikes is also increasing, at sensor locations usage grew 377% between June 2022 and June 2023. Cargo bikes require wider lanes due to their size and more protection, as they are typically used to transport children.

10. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

10.1 The Strategy aligns with most strategic directions in the Council Plan 2021-31, including:

10.1.1 Inclusive Port Phillip

10.1.2 Liveable Port Phillip

10.1.3 Sustainable Port Phillip

10.2 The Strategy relates to Council’s Climate Emergency declaration, by promoting actionable steps to reduce car dependency and car related emissions; to Council’s Economic Emergency declaration, by progressing cheaper and more economically sustainable travel options for our community; and to numerous other Council strategies and policies, including the Car Share Policy 2023-2028, Act and Adapt: Sustainable Environment Strategy 2018-2028, the Places for People: Public Space Strategy 2022-2032, the Positive Aging Policy 2023-2028, and the Accessibility Action Plan 2023-2028, as well as the forthcoming Urban Forest Strategy and Places to Live: Port Phillip Housing Strategy.

11. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

11.1 TIMELINE

11.1.1 Review potential corridors and identify up to three feasible corridors to develop a local approach to safety in 2024.

11.1.2 Oversee implementation of the remaining and ongoing Strategy actions through to the end of the Strategy in 2028

11.2 COMMUNICATION

11.2.1 Should the proposed updates to the strategy be endorsed, changes will be incorporated into the Move, Connect, Live: Integrated Transport Strategy 2018-2028 document and distributed through Council’s website and other relevant channels.

12. OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST

12.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Engagement Report⇩

2. Changes to indicators⇩

3. Progress on actions⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 February 2024

10.2

Pickles Street Safety Improvement - Evaluation

Executive Member:

Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development

PREPARED BY:

Mohamed Nur, Senior Transport Engineer

Thomas Mason, Coordinator Transport Safety

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To present the results of the evaluation of the Pickles Street Safety Improvement Trial and recommend the permanent closure of the median at the intersection of Pickles Street and Bridge/Glover Street Port Melbourne.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 The Intersection of Pickles Street at Bridge Street and Glover Street in Port Melbourne is classified as a Road Safety Blackspot with multiple crashes occurring at this location between 2016 and 2020. A petition received by Council in 2020 expressed community concern for safety at the intersection and requested action to prevent further crashes.

2.2 During community consultation in 2021 on a proposed trial closure, Council received three petitions, one for, one against and one suggesting an alternative closure approach and 51 individual responses, 24% for, 69% against and 7% with feedback.

2.3 Most feedback related to a concern that traffic would be redistributed to side roads and restrict access to resident properties.

2.4 This feedback was considered at the Council Meeting held 4 August 2021, when Council endorsed a 12-month trial of a median closure along Pickles Street at Bridge Street and Glover which commenced in June 2022 (following delays due to COVID).

2.5 The primary objective of the trial was to address the safety risks at the intersection and reduce the crashes at this location. During the trial no crashes have been recorded at the intersection, or in the adjacent local road network.

2.6 To support the evaluation of the trial, traffic and crash data were collected before and during the trial to understand impacts and outcomes:

2.6.1 Traffic volumes in surrounding streets showed minimal fluctuations, with many streets experiencing relatively stable or slightly reduced traffic volumes.

2.6.2 Where streets had observed increased traffic volumes. The resulting daily traffic volume remained within the acceptable limits in Council’s Road Management Plan.

2.6.3 Vehicle speeds recorded post-implementation were generally consistent with pre-implementation data.

2.7 Based on the assessment of the impact and effectiveness of the trial Council officers recommend a permanent median closure.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Notes that the intersection of Pickles Street at Bridge Street and Glover Street is identified as a Road Safety Black Spot.

3.2 Notes that the trial has proven to be successful in that the trial addressed the main cause of the recorded crashes, without significantly changing traffic volumes in the adjacent local road network.

3.3 Endorses making the trial median closure at the intersection of Pickles Street at Bridge Street and Glover Street permanent.

3.4 Advises the community of the outcome of the trial, next steps, and thanks them for their contribution.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 A petition, containing 77 signatures was received in March 2020, raising safety concerns about the intersection of Pickles Street, Bridge Street and Glover Street.

4.2 Six (6) crashes were recorded on the Victorian Road Crash Statistics at the intersection between July 2015 – June 2020.

4.3 On 4 August 2021, following consultation with affected residents and businesses, Council endorsed a 12-month trial closure of the median.

4.4 The trial included the following restrictions:

a) No right turns into Pickles Street from Bridge or Glover Streets

b) No through movements from Bridge Street into Glover Street

c) No through movement from Glover Street into Bridge Street

4.5 The median closure was installed on 28 June 2022. Aerial images of the site before and during the trial are below.

Image 1. Pickles/Bridge/Glover before and during the trial intersection closure

Assessment of the trial

4.6 An assessment of the trial’s effectiveness included collection of data to quantify traffic movements at intersections (vehicle volumes, vehicle speeds), collation of crash data at the intersection and nearby streets and community feedback.

Traffic Data

4.7 As expected, on-site observations during the first days of the trial showed that, as drivers adjusted to the change, they made some unusual traffic movements including indicating and slowing down at the previous opening. However, within a month traffic adjusted to the change.

4.8 Traffic data was collected before the trial (December 2021) and at two points during the trial (February and August 2023), see Attachment 1 for survey locations.

4.9 A summary of the traffic data can be found below.

A graph of daily vehicle volume

Description automatically generated

Figure 1. Daily Vehicle Volumes (excluding Pickles Street) Before and During Trial

A graph of a number of vehicles

Description automatically generated

Figure 2. Daily Vehicle Volumes (Pickles Street) Before and During Trial

Figure 3. 85%ile Vehicle Speeds Before and During Trial

4.10 Observations in traffic conditions between December 2021 and August 2023 are summarised below.

1. The 85th percentile vehicle speeds post implementation were generally consistent with pre-implementation data showing little to no impact on the average speeds of vehicles.

2. Overall, traffic volume changes across the surrounding streets surveyed showed minimal fluctuations, with many streets experiencing relatively stable or slightly reduced traffic volumes with the following exceptions:

i. Bridge Street, between Lyons Street and Esplanade Place – traffic volume decreased by approximately 27.1% to 3,427 vehicles/day.

ii. Spring Street East, between McCormack Street and Cruikshank Street – traffic volume increased by approximately 31.59% to 1,271 vehicles/day.

4.11 All traffic volumes recorded post implementation are within the expected and accepted limits for the respective road functions in line with the Road Management Plan.

4.12 During the trial there have been reports of vehicles mounting the temporary kerbing and proceeding through the median. As part of the conversion to permanent infrastructure, signage will be installed to physically stop this behaviour.

Crash Data

4.13 A review of the crash statistics at the Pickles Street/Bridge Street/Glover Street intersection and in nearby local streets found no recorded accidents since the trial closure. Police have also confirmed that no crashes were recorded or observed at the intersection, or in the adjacent local road network, since the installation of the trial.

4.14 It appears that the median closure has treated and not transferred safety issues from the intersection of Pickles Street, Glover Street and Bridge Street to another site and has achieved its aim of reducing crashes at this intersection.

Options Assessment

4.15 Retaining Right Turn from Pickles into Bridge

4.15.2 Following feedback from affected residents regarding impact to access, officers investigated options that could retain the right turn from Pickles Street to Bridge Street.

4.15.3 Four out of the six recorded crashes involved a right turn movement from Pickles into Bridge Street. The crash data analysis found repeated incidents of right-turning drivers failing to navigate this movement.

4.15.4 In addition to the crash risk, an at grade opening in the median may also result in noncompliance. To prevent noncompliance, further civil work would be required to limit the movements to left out of side streets. The estimated cost of this work is about $250k.

4.15.5 Regardless of additional civil works to narrow turning lanes to encourage compliance there is concern that, as demonstrated during the trial, if there is any possibility vehicles can pass through in the direction they wish to go, this behaviour will be undertaken.

4.15.6 In summary, the current full median closure is recommended as a cost-effective treatment to address the repetitive crash history.

Traffic Signals

4.16 Traffic Signals were considered for the intersection to retain movements and improve safety. However, this option is not recommended due to its cost of approximately $1,000,000 + 50% contingency resulting in a total cost of $1.5M.

Speed Limit Reduction

4.17 To improve safety at this location, the option of a further reduction in the speed limit on Pickles Street from 50kph to 40kph was considered. However, the existing road environment and infrastructure does not support a 40kph speed limit, primarily because Pickles Street has two wide lanes of traffic both directions and is part of the Over-Dimensional Road network.

Travel Patterns

4.18 To improve amenity and road user safety of the local area, officers continue to work with the Department of Transport and Planning to keep through traffic on declared roads (Graham Street, Bay Street, Williamstown Road) away from local streets.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

Prior to the trial

5.17 A petition, containing 77 signatures was received in March 2020, raising safety concerns about the intersection of Pickles Street, Bridge Street and Glover Street. Council is the road authority for this intersection and has responsibility for reducing crashes at the site.

5.18 In May 2021 Council officers advised the community of a proposed trial closure of the median. In response Council received three separate petitions and 51 individual responses. These were considered by Council at its meeting on 4 August 2021.

5.19 One of the three petitions with 63 signatures supported the trial. The other two petitions opposed the proposed trial. One petition with 158 signatures requested the median closure be modified to maintain right turns into Bridge Street from Pickles Street. The other petition, with 45 signatures, opposed the trial due to the redistribution of traffic onto other side roads and restricted access to residents when accessing their properties.

5.20 Of the 51 individual responses, approximately 69% objected to the trial, 24% supported the proposed trial, and 7% provided feedback without stating whether they supported or opposed the trial.

5.21 A review of the open-ended comments found the following key themes for those that did not support the trial

5.21.2 Community inconvenience The closure of the median is an inconvenience to local community members and reduces the ease of travel.

5.21.3 Transfer of Safety Risk The trial would shift the safety risks to nearby streets and intersections.

Note The crash data shows the changes addressed the main cause of the recorded crashes without transferring them to the adjacent areas.

During the trial

5.22 As part of the trial, community members were encouraged to provide feedback on their experiences and perceptions of the changes introduced.

5.23 Notification letters were sent to adjacent properties in March 2022 informing them of the trial, no significant feedback was received at this time.

5.24 Once the trial median closure was in place the feedback from the community has been mainly favourable.

Stakeholders

5.25 Emergency services, such as Ambulance Victoria and Victoria Police and the Department of Transport have endorsed the trial and the recommendation to convert the trial to a permanent solution.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.17 Council as the responsible road authority for this intersection is obligated to act to reduce the safety risk to the community based on the crash history.

6.18 Pickles Street is part of Victoria's Over Dimensional (OD) network, making it the designated route for OD vehicles. The proposed changes are expected to retain the existing capability of this route. Any permanent changes proposed will need to be approved by DTP.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.17 The implementation of permanent construction is estimated at approximately $60,000.

7.18 Officers will explore the possibility of securing funding through the Federal Blackspot Program in 2025/26. If unsuccessful, funding for the permanent treatment will be requested through the Council budget process.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.17 The conversion of the temporary treatment to a permanent treatment will provide opportunity to increase green space at the intersection.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.17 Prior to the trial, the intersection of Pickles Street, Glover Street, Bridge Street had a high number of crashes compared to other Council managed roads in Port Phillip.

9.18 Council is committed to improving the safety of this intersection for all road users. The trial improvements addressed the safety risks at this site and makes our community safer while also not unduly distributing additional traffic to local streets.

10. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

10.17 Reducing crashes on the local road network directly relates to the Council Plan 2017-27 – Direction 2: We are connected and it’s easy to move around.

10.17.2 2.3 Our streets and places are designed for people’

10.18 Outcome 1 of the Integrated Transport Strategy (Move, Connect, Live 2018-2028) – Our cities transport network, streets and places cater for our growing community.

10.18.2 Outcome 1 – Action 7: Deliver blackspot safety improvements at high collision locations (subject to external funding).

10.18.3 Outcome 1 – Action 9: Ensure our streets and place are safe and inclusive, including accessible parking, pedestrian facilities, lighting and security.

10.19 Modifications to the local traffic network can technically be approved under delegation -Local Government Act 1989 – Schedule 11 – Cl.10(1)(a) & Cl.10(1)(b).

11. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

TIMELINE

11.17 - 2024 - Project portfolio bid for 2024/2025 budget.

11.18 - 2024/25 - Detailed design of permanent treatment

11.19 - 2025/26 – Construction of permanent treatment

11.20 - The trial infrastructure will remain in place until a permanent treatment is installed.

COMMUNICATION

11.21 Original Petitioners and survey respondents from 2020 and 2021 will be notified of this report to be tabled at the Council meeting.

11.22 The outcome of the council meeting will be communicated to all stakeholders via letters and an update on the webpage.

11.23 Key messages will include:

11.23.2 The trial of safety improvements at the intersection of Pickles Street, Bridge Street and Glover Street has addressed the main cause of the recorded crashes, without transferring them to the adjacent area, or significantly changing traffic volumes in the adjacent local road network.

11.23.3 Temporary infrastructure will remain until a permanent treatment is in place.

11.23.4 The City of Port Phillip is committed to improving safety and connectivity for all road users.

12. OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST

12.17 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Map locations of Traffic Surveys for Pickles Street Safety Improvements⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 February 2024

11.1

Stormwater Harvesting Program

Executive Member:

Brian Tee, General Manager, City Growth and Development

PREPARED BY:

Natalie Barron, Principal Water Officer

Beth McLachlan, Head of Sustainability and Climate Change

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To consider the next steps in the Stormwater Harvesting program.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 In the past 10 years Council's water use has more than tripled primarily to manage the increased intensity of community use of Council's assets, with approximately 50% of our water use due to irrigation.

2.2 The Council Plan 2021-31 includes an action to ‘Assess feasibility of stormwater harvesting projects’ in 2022/23.

2.3 The Act and Adapt Strategy, adopted in 2018 and reviewed in 2023 includes commitments to investigate and implement high value opportunities for stormwater harvesting to reduce potable water use and reduce stormwater pollution entering the bay.

2.4 In September 2019 a City of Port Phillip: Alternative Water Use Study identified four stormwater harvesting opportunities across the municipality.

2.5 Funding in Council’s 2021/2022 budget approved funding to investigate the four projects.

2.6 In October 2022 Council was briefed on the high-level concept designs for each of the potential schemes, along with initial costings and a Benefit-Cost Ratio analysis. The Benefit-Cost ratio found that two of the four projects had a positive investment impact. These were:

· Fitzroy Street/Catani Gardens

· Elwood Park Expansion

2.7 The Elwood Park expansion project was awarded $1.7M through the Federal Government’s Urban Rivers and Catchments Program. This funding runs until June 2028.

2.8 In 2023 detailed quantity surveying and multiple site investigations were undertaken to test the feasibility and cost of the Fitzroy Street/Catani Gardens and Elwood Park Expansion schemes. This work found that estimated project costs have tripled since 2021/22. The major contributors to this are:

· Industry-wide construction cost increases/inflation.

· Detailed analysis and soil sampling has provided a more accurate cost for soil excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soil (original estimate of $95k, current estimate of $1.4M). This will be further tested should the project proceed to detailed design.

· Further scoping of site set-up costs and reinstatement has shown the cost to be $989k. The original estimate was $285k.

· Other cost increases to the cost estimate derived from the investigations included:

o Project management costs of $223k.

o Cost of additional project requirements and provisions (e.g., more pump stations, electrical connections, storage tank provisions, trenching, boring etc.).

o Increasing contingency from 30% to 40% (as per Council construction contingency framework).

2.9 Based on the additional information this report considers five options for the Stormwater Harvesting Program:

· Option 1: Place both proposed schemes on hold until additional benefits can be found and/or external funding can be sourced.

· Option 2: Proceed with detailed design for both schemes.

· Option 3: Proceed with detailed design for Elwood Park Expansion. Place Fitzroy St/Catani Gardens on hold until additional benefits can be found and/or external funding can be sourced.

· Option 4: Proceed with detailed design for Fitzroy St/Catani Gardens. Place Elwood Park Expansion on hold until additional benefits can be found and/or external funding can be sourced.

· Option 5 (preferred option): Place Fitzroy St/Catani Gardens on hold. Continue working with stakeholders on the Elwood Park Expansion project and pursue potential partnering with South East Water (SEW) and other State Government funding partners. Investigate staging approach to scheme, potentially delivering sections one at a time for proof-of-concept. A peer review will be undertaken to provide greater confidence to funding partners on the feasibility and costings of the project.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Notes the five options for the Stormwater Harvesting Program included in this report.

3.2 Pursues option 5 to:

(a) place Fitzroy Street/Catani Gardens Stormwater Harvesting Scheme on hold.

(b) pursue potential partnering and funding opportunities with South East Water and other State Government partners, on the Elwood Park Expansion Stormwater Harvesting Scheme.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 In the past 10 years Council's water use has more than tripled to manage the increased intensity of community use of Council's assets. In 2022/23 Council used 302 million litres of potable water, with approximately 55% used for irrigation.

4.2 The Act and Adapt Strategy (the Strategy) includes a commitment to continue to investigate stormwater harvesting opportunities and implement where feasible (Initiative 3).

4.3 The Strategy also includes water targets:

· A reduction of 43% in Council’s mains water use for irrigation by 2028.

· Reduced stormwater pollution, through reductions in Total Nitrogen (16%), Total Suspended Solids (18%) and Total Phosphorus (15%).

4.4 Reaching these targets requires projects such as stormwater harvesting schemes to be constructed.

4.5 This report supports the Council Plan 2021-31 action to ‘Assess feasibility of stormwater harvesting projects’ in 2022/23.

4.6 In addition to reduced potable water use and reductions in stormwater pollution entering the bay, stormwater harvesting provides many other benefits. These benefits include:

4.6.1 Climate resilience for open spaces by providing an alternative water source during drought conditions and allowing some irrigation during water restrictions, and

4.6.2 Contributing to greener grass, healthier soils, trees, and vegetation will provide heat relief during hot periods, better spaces for the community, and reduces the heat island effect.

4.7 In 2019 a City of Port Phillip: Alternative water use study identified the following stormwater harvesting opportunities:

· Harvesting from Shakespeare Grove Main Drain to supply the St Kilda Botanic Gardens, Peanut Reserve and Marina Reserve areas.

· Harvesting from the Fitzroy St Drain to supply Catani Gardens

· Expansion of the Elsternwick Stormwater Harvesting Scheme

· Expansion of the Elwood Stormwater Harvesting Scheme

4.8 These options were investigated and in October 2022 the findings were presented to Council. This included high-level concept designs for each of the potential schemes, initial costings, a Benefit-Cost Ratio analysis, and the outcomes of an independent consultant evaluation of each option which considered:

· Construction and maintenance costs.

· Irrigation provided to Council open space.

· Pollutant reduction (into the Bay).

· Drainage improvement.

4.9 The Benefit-Cost Ratio analysis are set out below. Schemes with a benefit cost ratio above 1 provide a positive investment impact.

Site	Benefit Cost Ratio	Initial Estimated Construction Cost
Fitzroy Street / Catani Gardens	1.39	$1,490,000
Shakespeare Grove	0.6	$7,050,000
Elster Creek Expansion	0.6	$6,930,000
Elwood Park Expansion	2.0	$1,570,000

4.10 In October 2022 Council requested further work on the two projects with a positive Benefit-Cost ratio. The other two were placed on hold with the opportunity to re-explore them in the future.

4.11 Details of the 2023 investigations into the Fitzroy Street/Catani Gardens and Elwood Park Expansion stormwater harvesting schemes are provided below.

5. FITZROY STREET/CATANI GARDENS

5.1 Diverts water from the Fitzroy Street Main Drain via a pump station to a raingarden in the north end of Catani Gardens where the water is stored in underground tanks. An irrigation pump and disinfection system clean and distributes the water via the existing irrigation system.

5.2 Provides 14ML/ year or about 75% of the Catani Gardens current irrigation demand.

5.3 Expected pollutant removal performance is provided below, along with a comparison against industry best practice minimum requirements (CSIRO, 1999):

Catani Gardens Raingarden
Pollutant type	Project Removal Rate (%)	Best Practice Minimum Requirements (%)
Total Suspended Solids	95	80
Total Phosphorus	66	45
Total Nitrogen	76	45

5.4 The location of the project components is provided on the map below:

5.5 Catani Gardens is of State and Local Heritage Significance. As the proposal has visual and physical impacts on the heritage values of the site, a Heritage Victoria Permit is required to construct within Catani Gardens.

5.6 Discussions with Heritage Victoria have commenced on a construction work permit in Catani Gardens and the permit process will commence if the project proceeds to detailed design.

5.7 A tree assessment found sixty of 68 trees were of moderate or high arboricultural value within Catani Gardens. The arboriculture rating combines tree condition factors (health and structure) with tree amenity value. While these trees need to be protected this is not expected to impact the scope of the project.

5.8 A site soil contamination assessment found Category A and B contamination, which is Reportable Priority Waste requiring offsite disposal. This cost is considered in the financial section of this report.

5.9 A geotechnical assessment found no geotechnical barriers making the site suitable for underground storage tanks.

5.10 Below is a visualisation of the raingarden proposed for Catani Gardens.

A landscape with a lawn and trees

Description automatically generated

5.11 A feature survey and service proofing did not identify any barriers within Catani Gardens for the proposed infrastructure, however, construction near underground services along Fitzroy Street will require approval from other authorities (e.g., trams).

5.12 Alignment of this project with other capital upgrades in and around Catani Gardens has been considered. Key projects include Catani Gardens Irrigation Upgrade, Catani Gardens Toilet Block, and St Kilda Pier.

5.13 Aligning construction works to accommodate the gardens events calendar provides a small window in winter each year for construction. The proposed timeline allows two winters for construction.

5.14 Fusarium wilt management is a serious risk for the project. To date there is no effective control for the disease and all infections are fatal to palms. Management strategies are the only option available to limit the spread of the disease.

5.15 All contractors would need to follow strict Biosecurity Protocols during construction, Tree Protection Zones would need to be established, and a licenced treatment facility would need to be engaged to accept Fusarium wilt contaminated soil.

5.16 An appropriate stormwater disinfection system would need to be implemented as water is a key driver for Fusarium wilt movement. Learnings from the Bay Trail Lighting Upgrade Project can be applied to this project, including the preparation of a site environmental management plan.

5.17 An initial cost estimate of $1,617,000 was provided by an independent engineering consultancy firm and included in the 2021/22 Council budget for staged investigation, detailed design, and construction.

5.18 Quantity surveying, originally planned for post detailed design; was brought forward because of the complexity of the project and estimated cost increases. The quantity surveying costings are provided below.

	Fitzroy Street
Initial estimate (2021/2022)	$1,617,000
Quantity Surveying (September 2023)	$4,382,000

5.19 The increase in project costs includes:

· Industry-wide construction cost increases/inflation.

· The outcome of detailed analysis and soil sampling providing a more accurate cost of soil excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soil (original estimate of $65k, current estimate of $550k). This will be further tested should the project proceed to detailed design.

· Further scoping of site set-up costs and reinstatement has shown the cost to be $512k. The original estimate was $139k.

· Other cost increases to the cost estimate derived from the investigations included:

o Project management costs of $97k.

o Cost of additional project requirements and provisions (e.g., landscaping, trenching, boring etc.).

o Increasing contingency from 30% to 40% (as per Council construction contingency framework).

5.20 The project costs are exclusive of GST and are in 2023 dollars. An additional 5% (minimum) would need to be added to project costs to cover inflation for every year the projects are not constructed.

5.21 For the purposes of a benefit-cost analysis, project benefits were monetised in relation to:

· Life cycle benefits compared to using mains (potable) water (25-year lifespan).

· Pollutant reduction benefits (kg TN, total nitrogen) for 25-year lifespan.

· Secured grant funding (project contribution other than Council funding).

5.22 An updated benefit-cost analysis is outlined below. While the benefit-cost ratio is below 1, many of the benefits of stormwater harvesting cannot easily be measured. The Benefit-Cost Analysis only quantifies the asset's direct costs and benefits. Other benefits including, climate adaptation, drought resilience, ability to irrigate during water restrictions and reduction in urban heat island effect are not measured.

	Estimated Cost			Benefits				Benefit-Cost Ratio
Site	Design and Construction (2023)	Operation / Maintenance Costs (2022)	Life Costs	Mains Water Savings (2022)	TN Removal (2022)	Secured Funding	Life Benefits	Updated BCR (2023)
Fitzroy Street / Catani Gardens	$4,382,000	$2,191,000	$6,573,000	$725,000	$2,327,000	$0	$3,052,000	0.5

5.23 Detailed design is currently planned for 2024, with construction planned for 2025 to 2027.

6. ELWOOD PARK EXPANSION

6.1 There is an existing stormwater harvesting scheme drawing water from Elster Creek in Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve (formerly Elsternwick Park). The system is managed by Bayside City Council and City of Port Phillip currently has an allocation of 30ML/year from the 100ML/year scheme. Water is connected to the Elwood Croquet Club and Head Street Reserve.

6.2 To expand this scheme a booster pump and pipe would be installed in Elwood Park to allow water to be distributed further north and along the coast to an underground storage tank with an irrigation pump station at MO Moran Reserve. Further piping will be installed along the coast to Peanut Farm Reserve.

6.3 The project will provide an additional 20-30ML/year of water from Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve to meet 85% of the demand of Elwood Park, Peanut Farm Reserve, St Kilda Marina, St Kilda foreshore and MO Moran Reserve.

6.4 CoPP has contributed $350k to the current phase of the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve Masterplan.

6.5 The project requires approximately 3.5km of new stormwater pipe and a network of pump stations (estimate of two to four) to transfer the water from Elwood Park to St Kilda Foreshore. Officers note that the overall fall from Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve to St Kilda Foreshore is approximately 0.5m.

6.6 Port Phillip already manages a pump station at Port Melbourne (flood activated) and several smaller irrigation pumps.

6.7 The location of the project components is provided on the map below:

6.8 Stormwater harvesting is a proven technology. Traditionally stormwater is harvested nearby to where it can be utilised. Therefore, most Council operated stormwater harvesting schemes in Victoria are smaller than the length of this proposal.

6.9 Examples of Victorian Council systems that are a few hundred metres long include: City Oval Coburg (Merri-bek), Caroline Springs Town Centre Recreation Reserve (Melton and Greater Western Water) and Elwood Park (Port Phillip and Bayside).

6.10 Successful large-scale stormwater harvesting schemes do exist in Australia. Examples include City of Orange (NSW) supplementing their potable water supply with harvested stormwater. This scheme utilises three pump stations and approximately 850ML/year of harvested stormwater is used annually.

6.11 From a technical perspective a stormwater harvesting scheme of this length is almost the same as a recycled water network (purple pipe). Melbourne Water and South East Water successfully manage many of these systems. In addition, South East Water is currently designing the Recycled Water Treatment Plant in Fishermans Bend which will have kilometres of pipe.

6.12 A geotechnical assessment undertaken at MO Moran Reserve found that the fill conditions at the site and intersection with high groundwater may mean this site is not suitable for an underground storage tank. Additional geotechnical investigation is required. A two-phase site soil contamination assessment found Category C with asbestos contamination, it is a Priority Reportable Waste requiring offsite disposal. The cost to the project is discussed in the financial section of this report. An alternative to MO Moran Reserve could be nearby Robinson Reserve.

6.13 Alignment of this project with other upgrades in Elwood has been considered including Elwood Foreshore Masterplan, Pier Road and Bay Trail Safety Upgrade, Elwood Foreshore Facilities Development, St Kilda Promenade Safety Upgrade, St Kilda Marina, Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve (Bayside City Council) and Elwood Main Drain Duplication (Melbourne Water).

6.14 An initial cost estimate of $1,743,000 was provided by an independent engineering consultancy firm and included in the 2021/22 Council budget for staged investigation, detailed design, and construction.

6.15 Site investigation work and quantify surveying work was undertaken during 2023. Quantity surveying, originally planned for post detailed design; was bought forward due to the complexity of the project and anticipated construction cost increases. The budget 2021/2022 and the quantity surveying costs are provided below.

	Elwood Park Expansion
Initial Cost estimate (2021/2022)	$1,743,000
Quantity Surveying (September 2023)	$5,462,000

6.16 The increase in costs includes:

· Industry-wide construction cost increases/inflation.

· The outcome of detailed analysis and soil sampling has provided a more accurate cost of soil excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soil (original estimate of $30k, current estimate of $835k). This will be further tested should the project proceed to detailed design.

· Further scoping of site set-up costs and reinstatement has shown the cost to be $477k. The original estimate was $146k.

· Other cost increases to the cost estimate derived from the investigations included:

o Project management costs of $126k.

o Cost of additional project requirements and provisions (e.g., landscaping, trenching, boring etc.).

o Increasing contingency from 30% to 40% (as per Council construction contingency framework).

o Contractor costs of $307k.

o Project management costs of $97k.

6.17 The project costs are in 2023 dollars and are exclusive of GST. An additional 5% (minimum) would be added to project costs to cover inflation for every additional year the project is not constructed.

6.18 For the purposes of a benefit-cost analysis, project benefits were monetised in relation to:

· Life cycle benefits compared to using mains (potable) water (25-year lifespan).

· Pollutant reduction benefits (kg TN, total nitrogen) for 25-year lifespan.

· Secured grant funding (project contribution other than Council funding).

6.19 The results of an updated benefit-cost analysis are outlined below. While the benefit-cost ratio is below 1, many of the benefits of stormwater harvesting cannot easily be measured. The Benefit-Cost Analysis only quantifies the asset's direct costs and benefits. Other benefits including, climate adaptation, drought proofing, ability to irrigate during water restrictions and reduction in urban heat island effect are not measured.

	Estimated Cost			Benefits				Benefit-Cost Ratio
Site	Design and Construction (2023)	Operation / Maintenance Costs (2022)	Life Costs	Mains Water Savings (2022)	TN Removal (2022)	Secured Funding	Life Benefits	Updated BCR (2023)
Elwood Park Expansion	$5,462,000	$2,731,000	$8,193,000	$1,925,000	$2,797,000	$1,700,000	$6,422,000	0.8

6.20 Detailed design is currently planned for 2025, with construction planned for 2026 to 2028.

7. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

7.1 Catani Gardens and Elwood foreshore are popular, and iconic parts of the City of Port Phillip. Targeted consultation with key stakeholders has been undertaken during 2023.

7.2 Port Phillip has had detailed discussions with Bayside City Council on the proposed expansion of the stormwater harvesting extraction and how this project fits in with Bayside’s plans for Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve. In October 2023, Bayside confirmed that flows would meet City of Port Phillip project needs and they are committed to detailed discussions with Council in 2024 post finalisation of their wetland detailed design work.

7.3 Port Phillip have continued engagement with Melbourne Water on the Elwood Main Drain Duplication and its alignment with the stormwater harvesting project.

7.4 A Project Working Group has been initiated to cover Elwood projects for City of Port Phillip, Melbourne Water and Bayside City Council, which includes stormwater harvesting.

7.5 The Federal Government has awarded funding to the Elwood Park Expansion project as part of the Urban Rivers and Catchments Program.

7.6 Discussions with Department of Transport and Planning have commenced, with standard permit process to be followed based on current concept plans.

7.7 DEECA have included both Fitzroy Street/Catani Gardens and Elwood Park Expansion as priority actions (in feasibility stage) in the IWM Forums Catchment Action plans for the Yarra and Dandenong Catchments, respectively.

7.8 Recent discussions with South East Water have highlighted the potential opportunity to partner with them on stormwater harvesting schemes.

7.9 Formal community consultation is proposed as part of detailed design.

8. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

8.1 Extension of the Elwood Park system requires renegotiating the current Stormwater Harvesting extraction agreement with Bayside City Council.

8.2 Implementation of the stormwater treatment system in Catani Gardens would require Heritage Victoria approval.

8.3 Planning Permits, Marine and Coastal Act consent, and Cultural Heritage Management Plans (CHMPs) would be required for both projects.

8.4 A risk register has been established for the overall program. Current high risks are provided below.

Name	Description	Inherent Risk	Action Plan
Buildability	Spatial placement & alignment with other projects as multiple projects planned in same area, e.g., Catani Gardens Irrigation, Elwood Masterplan, Pier Road and Bay Trail, Elwood Foreshore, St Kilda Promenade, Elwood Drain Duplication, Yalukit Willam.	HIGH	Service proofing (underground services) and surveying. Early and regular stakeholder engagement. Consideration of agility in concept plan, and alternatives that can be investigated during detailed design.
Federal Funding	Loss of $1.7m in Federal funding under the Urban Rivers and Catchments Program. This is aligned to our Elwood Park Expansion Project. Current end date for the funding is 30 June 2028.	HIGH	Work with stakeholders (internal and external) to push project forward. Contingency has been included in project plan to meet this deadline.
Fusarium wilt management	Spread of Fusarium wilt. Fusarium wilt is a serious disease of Canary Island Date Palms and is present in soils along Beaconsfield Parade.	HIGH	Implement Tree Protection Zones and contractors to refer to strict Biosecurity Protocols for Fusarium wilt for control measures to be implemented during works within Catani Gardens (the location of the significant palms).
Geotechnical Conditions	The ground conditions at MO Moran Reserve may not be conducive for underground storage tanks due to fill material and groundwater level.	HIGH	Complete geotechnical investigation and make decision on suitability of MO Moran Reserve. If not suitable, search for new site, e.g., Marina Reserve, Robinsons Reserve.
Novelty	The Elwood Park Expansion Scheme is novel for the City of Port Phillip and would require significant investment in time, resources, and operation/maintenance.	HIGH	Pursue partnering with Water Authority (such as South East Water) and a staged approach to construction.

8.5 A 40% contingency has been included in project costs as part of the Project’s risk management.

9. FINANCIAL IMPACT

9.1 Initial costings by an independent engineering consultancy firm on both projects were provided to Council in October 2022.

9.2 Site investigation and quantity surveying work was undertaken in 2023. A comparison of the 2021/22 budgeted costs and the estimated quantity surveying costs is provided below.

	Fitzroy Street	Elwood Park Expansion
Initial costings (2021/2022)	$1,617,000	$1,743,000
Quantity Surveying (September 2023)	$4,382,000	$5,462,000

9.3 Estimated project costs have tripled since 2021/22. The increase in project costs is attributed to:

· Industry-wide construction cost increases/inflation.

· Detailed analysis and soil sampling has provided a more accurate cost of soil excavation and offsite disposal of contaminated soil (original estimate of $95k, current estimate of $1.4M). This will be further tested should the project proceed to detailed design.

· Further scoping of site set-up costs and reinstatement has shown the cost to be $989k. The original estimate was $285k.

· Other cost increases to the cost estimate derived from the investigations:

o Project management costs of $223k.

o Cost of additional project requirements and provisions (e.g., more pump stations, electrical connections, storage tank provisions, trenching, boring etc.).

o Increasing contingency from 30% to 40% (as per Council construction contingency framework).

9.4 The project costs are in 2023 dollars. An additional 5% (minimum) would need to be added to project costs to cover inflation for every year the projects are not constructed. All costings are exclusive of GST.

9.5 The Elwood Park expansion project was awarded $1.7M through the Federal Government’s Urban Rivers and Catchments Program. This is due to the water quality benefits for Elster Creek from the stormwater harvesting and use of treated water for irrigation. The Federal Government are currently working with DECCA on the administration of this program.

9.6 To date $150k has been spent on the various studies outlined in this report.

9.7 The quantity surveyor estimates consultancy fees for both projects to be (inclusive of 40% contingency):

· Fitzroy Street/Catani Gardens, $390k.

· Elwood Park Expansion, $505k.

9.8 This includes detailed design, construction tender documentation, additional consulting/sub-contracting (e.g., surveying, further geotechnical assessment), construction phase assistance and a provision to keep the consultant onboard during the first 12 months of operation.

9.9 For the purposes of the benefit-cost analysis, project benefits were monetised in relation to:

· Life cycle benefits compared to using mains (potable) water (25-year lifespan).

· Pollutant reduction benefits (kg TN, total nitrogen) for 25-year lifespan.

· Secured grant funding (project contribution other than Council funding).

9.10 The results of this updated benefit-cost analysis are outlined below:

	Estimated Cost			Benefits				Benefit-Cost Ratio
Site	Design and Construction (2023)	Operation / Maintenance Costs (2022)	Life Costs	Mains Water Savings (2022)	TN Removal (2022)	Secured Funding	Life Benefits	Updated BCR (2023)
Fitzroy Street / Catani Gardens	$4,382,000	$2,191,000	$6,573,000	$725,000	$2,327,000	$0	$3,052,000	0.5
Elwood Park Expansion	$5,462,000	$2,731,000	$8,193,000	$1,925,000	$2,797,000	$1,700,000	$6,422,000	0.8

9.11 While the benefit-cost ratios are below 1, the Benefit-Cost Analysis only quantify direct costs and benefits and do not consider benefits like climate adaptation, drought resilience, ability to irrigate during water restrictions and reduction in urban heat island effect.

9.12 Discussion with Bayside City Council officers to determine whether it will seek an annual contribution for the operation of the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve stormwater harvesting scheme will be undertaken in 2024. This in addition to Council’s contribution of $350k to the Yalukit Willam Nature Reserve Masterplan implementation.

10. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

10.1 The stormwater harvesting schemes will reduce pollutants entering the bay, helping to achieve CoPP nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment reduction targets in the Strategy.

10.2 Modelling for the two systems suggests a reduction in potable water use for irrigation by 42ML/year. The actual annual reduction will depend on rainfall levels.

10.3 Other environmental benefits include, climate adaptation, drought resilience, ability to irrigate during water restrictions and reduction in urban heat island effect.

10.4 Climate change projections are predicting hotter temperatures, with more extreme storms and intense downpours, along with declining winter rainfall. This may lead to water shortages. As such, supplementing our potable water supply with alternative water sources, such as stormwater, is a critical step in our resilience planning.

11. COMMUNITY IMPACT

11.1 The reduction in flows to the bay will reduce sediment plumes and floating litter in the bay. In the longer-term, reducing nutrient loads in the bay will minimise potential algal blooms.

11.2 An alternative water source provides a level of drought resilience and climate change adaptation for open spaces, contributing to greener grass, healthier soils, tree, and vegetation.

11.3 Green, healthy parks with good soil moisture provides heat relief during hot periods.

11.4 The stormwater storages are proposed to be underground to minimise open space loss.

11.5 The raingarden in Catani Garden will take up 200m² with the design to be integrated into the current garden’s amenity.

11.6 Works in Catani Gardens would be scheduled to minimise the impact on community events .

12. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

12.1 Stormwater harvesting aligns with Strategic Action 3 – Sustainable Port Phillip of the adopted Council Plan 2012-31.

12.2 Council Plan 2021-31 includes an action to ‘Assess feasibility of stormwater harvesting projects’ in 2022/23.

12.3 The Act and Adapt Strategy, adopted in 2018 and reviewed in 2023 includes commitments to investigate and implement high value opportunities for stormwater harvesting to reduce potable water use and reduce stormwater pollution entering the bay.

12.4 Stormwater harvesting relates to Council’s declaration of a Climate Emergency, as it relates to water security.

13. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

13.1 TIMELINE

13.1.1 Continued engagement with stakeholder organisations: South East Water, Bayside City Council, Melbourne Water, Department of Transport and Planning (DTP) and Department of Energy, Environment and Climate Action (DEECA).

13.1.2 Undertake peer review of Elwood Park Expansion Stormwater Harvesting Scheme, March to July 2024.

13.1.3 Meet with South East Water to discuss potential partnering and funding of Elwood Park Expansion Project.

13.1.4 If successful in receiving further funding, detailed design of Elwood Park Expansion would likely begin in 2025.

13.1.5 Construction of Elwood Park Expansion would likely take 24 months (2026-2028).

13.1.6 Construction would need to be completed by June 2028 as per the current conditions of the Federal funding.

13.2 COMMUNICATION

13.2.1 Community engagement and consultation would be undertaken as part of the detailed design process.

13.2.2 Key messages to the community would be the alignment of stormwater harvesting projects with the Council Plan and commitments within the Act and Adapt Strategy and Climate Emergency Plan.

14. OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST

14.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

Nil

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 February 2024

13.1

Proposed Lease of the Port Phillip EcoCentre in the St Kilda Botanical Gardens, St Kilda

Executive Member:

Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure

PREPARED BY:

Siobhan Belmore, Manager Property and Assets

Vicki Tuchtan, Head of Property Operations & Facilities

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To conclude the statutory procedures for a proposed lease of the Port Phillip EcoCentre in the St Kilda Botanical Gardens at 55A Blessington Street, St Kilda, pursuant to section 115 of the Local Government Act 2020.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 At the Council meeting on 4 October 2023, it was resolved that Council: commence the statutory procedures under section 115 of the Local Government Act 2020 (the ‘Act’) to enter into a lease for a total term of no greater than 15 years over the Port Phillip EcoCentre site; authorise the Chief Executive Officer (or their delegate) to give public notice on its website and carry out community engagement; and report back at a future meeting of Council.

2.2 Feedback on the proposed lease was sought from community members via Council’s online engagement site, Have Your Say. Council received 245 responses during the engagement period, including two (2) written submissions in favour of the proposed lease, with 94.7% of respondents in support of Council entering into a long-term lease agreement over the site.

2.3 Council may now make a decision which will complete the statutory procedures for the proposed lease.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Concludes the statutory process under section 115 of the Local Government Act 2020 by granting a lease over the Port Phillip EcoCentre site to Port Phillip EcoCentre Incorporated on the following key terms:

3.1.1 Length of lease – 15 years.

3.1.2 Rent – commencing at $104.00 per annum exclusive of GST.

3.1.3 The tenant to be responsible for a schedule of maintenance and for all utilities and outgoings associated with the operation of their service.

3.2 Authorise the Chief Executive Officer, or their delegate, to execute the lease.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

4.1 At the Council meeting on 4 October 2023, it was resolved that Council: commence the statutory procedures under section 115 of the Local Government Act 2020 (the ‘Act’) to enter into a lease for a total term of no greater than 15 years over the Port Phillip EcoCentre site; authorise the Chief Executive Officer (or their delegate) to give public notice on its website and carry out community engagement; and report back at a future meeting of Council.

4.2 The Port Phillip EcoCentre site is in the St Kilda Botanical Gardens at 55A Blessington Street, St Kilda. The site is Crown Land reserved for Public Gardens, with Council the appointed committee of management.

4.3 The Port Phillip EcoCentre was established by Council and the community in collaboration and launched in 1999. Since this time, Council has supported the Port Phillip EcoCentre via a funding agreement and through a subsidised lease agreement.

4.4 Due to constraints on growth, comfort levels and an assessment that the building was no longer ‘fit-for-purpose’, the 2019/20 Council Plan included a commitment to redevelop the Port Phillip EcoCentre site. This redevelopment is currently underway and due for completion mid-2024.

4.5 The previous tenant – Port Phillip EcoCentre Incorporated – was temporarily relocated to allow for the redevelopment. It is proposed that Council offer this tenant a long-term lease over the site commencing mid-2024.

4.6 Feedback on the proposed lease was sought from community members via Council’s online engagement site, Have Your Say. The engagement page was open from 9 October 2023 to 6 November 2023, inviting respondents to complete a short survey and/or provide a submission in writing. A summary of the results from the community engagement is attached to this report.

4.7 Council received 245 responses during the engagement period, including two (2) written submissions in favour of the proposed lease. The data shows that 3.3% of respondents did not agree to the proposed lease, with 2% neither agreeing nor disagreeing. The remaining 94.7% of respondents were in support of Council entering into a long-term lease agreement over the site, including a large percentage for 20 years but it is noted that Council has previously resolved to consider a lease of no more than 15 years.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 In accordance with section 115 of the Act and Council’s Community Engagement Policy (February 2021), Council notified the public of an intention to grant a long-term lease on Council’s website giving interested parties 28 days to provide feedback and/or make a submission.

5.2 Council received 245 responses during the engagement period, including two (2) written submissions.

5.3 In terms of demographics:

5.3.1 Over half of the respondents were aged 35-49 years or 60-69 years.

5.3.2 62% of respondents identified as female.

5.3.3 Except for Southbank, respondents resided in all suburbs of Port Phillip.

5.3.4 Most respondents resided in St Kilda and Elwood.

5.3.5 Nearly 14% of respondents resided outside of Port Phillip.

5.3.6 Almost two-thirds of respondents are members of a community group.

5.4 Regarding the proposed long-term lease:

5.4.1 94.7% of respondents were in support of the proposed lease

· 88.6% of respondents were in favour of a lease greater than 15 years, noting that Council has already considered and resolved to offer a lease of up to 15 years.

· 6.5% were in agreement with the 15-year term.

5.4.2 The two (2) written submissions were in support of the proposed lease.

5.4.3 3.3% of respondents did not agree to the proposed lease.

5.4.4 2% of respondents neither agreed nor disagreed to the proposed lease.

5.5 Council may now make a decision which will complete the statutory procedures for the proposed lease.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 The Port Phillip EcoCentre site is situated on Crown Land, with Council as the delegated land manager (committee of management). As such, any proposal to lease the site is subject to approval by the responsible Minister or delegate of the responsible Minister. Approval was granted for Council as the appointed committee of management to enter a lease with the proposed tenant over the land being Crown land permanently reserved for Public Gardens purposes, on 29 November 2023.

6.2 As the Port Phillip EcoCentre site is Crown Land reserved for Public Gardens, the approval process for grant and purpose is complex. The relevant Minister must make a statement advising they are satisfied that there are special reasons which make the granting of the lease reasonable and appropriate, and that to do so will not be substantially detrimental to the use and enjoyment of the adjacent reserved land. In this case, an order was published in the Victorian Government Gazette on 28 September 2023 (pp. 1765) and tabled in both houses of parliament, as is required under sections 17B(3)(a) and 17DA(1)(a) of the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978, with the approved purpose of an educational facility to support environmental and climate change awareness and sustainable living.

6.3 Pursuant to section 115(4) of the Act, Council must undertake community engagement in accordance with its community engagement policy in respect to the proposed intention to lease the Port Phillip EcoCentre site.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 In accordance with Council’s Property Policy (September 2019) Council proposes to enter into a subsidised lease agreement with a peppercorn rent commencing at $104.00 per annum exclusive of GST. Further, it is proposed the tenant will be responsible for a schedule of maintenance and for all utilities and outgoings associated with the operation of their service.

7.2 In terms of lease length, a 15-year lease term is being proposed. Although Council tenancy agreements typically have terms of up to five years, Council’s Property Policy does allow it to negotiate a non-standard lease term. The policy stipulates that, ‘A lease term (including options) cannot exceed the maximum allowed for Crown Land in accordance with the Crown Land (Reserves) Act 1978 and Local Government Act 1989’ (p.12). This proposed length falls within these legislative limits.

7.3 It is noted that EcoCentre funding and associated agreements are subject to the Council Plan projects.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 The recommendations in this report are not considered to have a material environmental impact.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The EcoCentre redevelopment is a unique purpose-built facility co-funded by the Victorian Government for a particular purpose and use and is located on Crown Land. Officers considered that a departure from a 5-year lease term was justifiable in this instance and recommended consulting the community on a long-term lease duration up to 15 years.

9.2 Council has consulted on the length of the lease and may now make a decision which will complete the statutory procedures for the proposed lease.

10. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

10.1 Community consultation on the proposed lease supports the Council Plan strategic direction of “Well Governed Port Phillip”.

10.2 The proposed lease supports the Council Plan strategic directions of “Liveable Port Phillip” and “Sustainable Port Phillip’.

11. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

11.1 TIMELINE

11.1.1 If the proposed lease is approved, Council intends to negotiate a lease agreement with Port Phillip EcoCentre Incorporated.

11.1.2 Council would then need to seek approval of the lease by the Victorian Government prior to the signing, and in time for completion of the redevelopment of the site in mid-2024.

11.2 COMMUNICATION

11.2.1 If the proposed lease is approved, officers will update the Have Your Say webpage accordingly and notify respondents.

12. OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST

12.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Engagement Summary Report - EcoCentre Lease⇩

Meeting of the Port Phillip City Council

21 February 2024

13.2

Financial Update 2023-24: Mid-Year Review

Executive Member:

Lachlan Johnson, General Manager, Operations and Infrastructure

PREPARED BY:

Peter Liu, Chief Financial Officer

Spyros Karamesinis, Head of Financial Business Partnering, Analysis & Compliance

1. PURPOSE

1.1 To provide Council with an overview of the results of the mid-year 2023/24 performance to budget and seek approval for any unbudgeted items.

2. EXECUTIVE Summary

2.1 The Council Plan 2021-2031 (Year Three) and Budget 2023/24 was adopted at the 20 June 2023 Special Council meeting. Budget 2023/24 included a business-as-usual approach with key changes including a below rates cap rates increase (2.8 per cent increase) and continued implementation of the ‘Don’t Waste It!’ Waste Management Strategy 2022-2025.

2.2 Budget 2023/24 was adopted with a surplus of $0.87 million. During the mid-year review the forecast cumulative cash surplus has been updated to $0.1 million, this is a reduction of $0.77 million compared to Budget 2023/24 (see Attachment 1).

2.3 Despite the reduction in cumulative cash surplus, Council’s financial sustainability risk rating (see section 4) is expected to maintain an overall low risk rating (as budgeted). However, there are external and internal factors that may negatively impact our financial performance including transfer of responsibilities from State Government and high inflation which is increasing the cost base of our core services. Additionally, State and Federal Government reforms continue to challenge the way that Council delivers services including planning, aged care, and short stay accommodation.

2.4 During the first half of 2023/24, ongoing efficiency savings of $0.65 million were achieved as Council works towards its target for Budget 2024/25 of $1.8 million. Efficiencies occur where Council can deliver the same services for less, generate new revenue opportunities or through portfolio investments that generate positive returns.

2.5 The Project Portfolio has reduced by net $6.7 million to a 2023/24 forecast of $69.9 million. Year to date total portfolio spend of $18.7 million, $3.0 million less than year to date forecast. Portfolio deferrals and significant movements are published monthly in the CEO Report.

2.6 As part of the mid-year budget review, several funding requests relating to the project portfolio have been included for Council consideration.

3. RECOMMENDATION

That Council:

3.1 Notes that full year cumulative cash surplus before the mid-year budget requests is $0.1 million which is $0.77 million unfavourable compared to budget of $0.87 million with the following movements:

3.1.1 Notes additional funding of $0.18m approved by the Chief Executive Officer for emergency works related to the St Kilda Foreshore Lighting Renewal Project (funded from the Asset Renewal Reserve)

3.2 Notes attachment 1 – Financial Statements with accompanying explanatory notes.

3.3 Approves the following budget requests with a net financial impact of $0.07m for 2023/24 and $0.38m for 2024/25 including (see attachment 2):

3.3.1 $373,000 additional for the Elwood Reserve Change Rooms and Toilets project due to outcome of tender process. Noting funding of $277,000 from the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program Stage 4 and the remaining $96,000 to be included in Budget 2024/25.

3.3.2 $150,000 additional for the JL Murphy Baseball Infield project due to outcome of tender process. Noting funding of $75,000 from Open Space Reserves and remaining $75,000 to be funded from the 2023/24 cumulative cash surplus.

3.3.3 $359,000 additional for the Albert Parks Bowls Pavilion Upgrade to expand scope of works to include upgrade of the male facilities and office contingent on a financial contribution of $266,000 from the Albert Park Bowls Club and also addition scope to include accessibility compliance requirement with remaining $93,000 to be included in Budget 2024/25.

3.3.4 $372,000 additional for the JL Murphy Soccer Pitch 2 Reconstruction due to updated costings through the design phase. Noting funding of $186,000 from Open Space Reserves and remaining $186,000 to be included in Budget 2024/25.

4. KEY POINTS/ISSUES

Overview

4.1 The organisation carries out a monthly review of all operating revenue and expenditure as well as the project portfolio, which is then reported as part of the monthly CEO Report.

4.2 The results for the mid-year review are presented to Council using two sets of performance reporting instruments:

4.2.1 The Comprehensive Income Statement Converted to Cash.

4.2.2 The Victorian Auditor General Office’s (VAGO) Financial Sustainability Indicators.

Comprehensive Income Statement Converted to Cash

4.3 We use the Comprehensive Income Statement Converted to Cash to ensure prudent financial management by maintaining a modest cumulative cash surplus.

4.4 Councils forecast cumulative cash surplus for 2023/24 has been updated in following the mid-year review to $0.1 million (excluding budget requests subject to Council consideration), which is $0.77 million unfavourable compared to budget of $0.87 million (Attachment 1).

4.5 Council’s forecast operating surplus has also decreased by $4.47 million from $10.39 million to $5.93 million. Full details are contained in Attachment 1 financial statements including commentary on material variances. The following section provides a high-level overview of key movements.

4.6 Net revenue reduction of $2.47 million mainly due to:

4.6.1 $0.57 million improvement in grant income including additional funding Waste Transformation Program and additional funding in long day care centres due to current demographic profiles.

4.6.2 $0.25 million improvement in other income predominately due to increasing interest income due to favourable cash holdings and increasing investment yields due to improved investment returns projected for full year.

4.6.3 $0.25m increase in supplementary rates billing during July billing predominately due to growth in residential properties.

4.6.4 These improvements have been offset by the inclusion of a provision for the partial return of government funding for aged care services, due to service delivery challenges impacting the achievement of contracted performance targets. There are several factors that have impacted Councils ability to deliver service targets including the implementation of the Aged Care Reforms as the Federal Governments moves to a competitive marketplace reducing the volume of service referrals that Council receives, industry resourcing challenges, and the growing cost of delivering services above funding rates.

4.6.5 Council has also seen a significant decrease ($2.36 million) in forecast open space contributions (funds ringfenced in reserves). Primarily due to decreased subdivision activity caused by the increased number of build-to-rent developments. The loss of Open Space Contributions from Build-to-rent development is negatively impacting on our ability to sustainable fund open space assets.

4.7 Net expenditure increase of $2.0 million mainly due to:

4.7.1 $0.17 million decrease to right of use (financed leased asset) expenditure based on current mix of lease vehicles and equipment. These savings are used to funds the fleet renewal program (purchasing vehicles as opposed to leasing).

4.7.2 ($0.25) million re-instatement of budget for parking ticket machine maintenance contract due to budget efficiencies not able to be achieved through procurement of new contract.

4.7.3 ($0.11) million for St Kilda Triangle engagement with the market to further clarify the level of interest in investing in a new live music and performance venue

4.7.4 ($0.52) million increase current year non-capital spend associated with capital projects due to capital program deferrals from 2022/23 after budget adoption (offset against project reserves) and additional feasibility works approved for the Fishermen’s Bend Gymnastics Facility Feasibility Study.

4.7.5 ($0.60) million additional net cost due to delays in transitioning to fortnightly garbage service. This has been partially offset by delays in Multi Unit Development (MUDs) FOGO rollout.

4.7.6 ($0.63) million increase for 2022/23 operating projects deferred to 2023/24 after budget adoption. Key deferrals including Fishermans Bend and Greening Port Phillip Program (offset against reserves).

4.8 Net capital reduction of $7.5 million mainly due to:

4.8.1 $8.7 million capital expenditure deferrals to 2024/25 and future years

4.8.2 ($1.2) million 2022/23 deferrals post 2023/24 budget adoption

4.8.3 $1.4 million early purchase of land a year before budget for the Public Space Strategy Land Acquisition Program.

4.8.4 ($1.5) million other minor movements including additional projects, cost escalations and minor project savings.

4.8.5 See capital works statement for detailed breakdown (Attachment 1)

4.9 The forecasted drawdown on council reserves has decreased by $4.73 million. This is primarily related to delays in delivering project work (funds held in reserves). See reserve movements notes in Attachment 1 for detailed breakdown.

Assessment against VAGO Financial Sustainability Indicators

4.10 Council’s decision-making is reflected by the principles of sound financial management, to ensure our financial position is sustainable. We assess our financial performance using the VAGO financial sustainability indicators.

4.11 Council is forecasting a low-risk financial sustainability rating at the end of the second quarter, highlighted by the seven VAGO financial indicators below:

Indicator	Forecast 2023/24	Budget 2023/24	Variance	Risk
Net Result %	2.3%	4.0%	(1.7%)	Low
Adjusted Underlying Result %	(0.3%)	0.5%	(0.8%)	High
Working Capital %	326%	351%	(25%)	Low
Internal Financing %	100%	77%	23%	Low
Indebtedness %	1.3%	1.3%	0.0%	Low
Capital Replacement %	216%	267%	(51.0%)	Low
Infrastructure Renewal Gap %	168%	199%	(31.0%)	Low
Overall financial sustainability risk rating	Low	Low	No Change	Low

4.12 The indicators generally need to be considered from a medium-term trend perspective rather than annual basis. A medium rating over one or two years is acceptable particularly in response to short-term events such as COVID-19 but over the medium to long-term, Council aims to achieve a low-risk rating overall.

4.13 Net Result %:

4.13.1 Net Result % assesses Council's ability to generate an operating surplus. The greater the result, the stronger the operating surplus. Budget 2023/24 included a 4.0% net result due to an operating surplus of $10.4m.

4.13.2 Net Result % has decreased by (1.7%) to a forecast of 2.3% for 2023/24 maintaining a low-risk rating. This is caused by a decrease in operating surplus to $5.9 million due a reduction in grant income and open space contributions and an increase in expenditure for projects deferred from 2022/23 (noting these funds are held in reserves).

4.14 Adjusted Underlying Result %:

4.14.1 Adjusted Underlying Result % assesses council’s ability to generate surplus in the ordinary course of business excluding non-recurrent capital grants and contributions to fund capital expenditure from net result.

4.14.2 An underlying deficit is normally budgeted due to the reliance on external funding/contributions to fund our infrastructure assets works. For instance, Open Space Contributions are collected, held in reserve to fund upgrades, expansion and new of public space.

4.14.3 The mid-year review forecasts a marginal high risk result due to the same factors highlighted in the Net Result ratio (excluding open space contributions).

4.15 Workings Capital %:

4.15.1 This working capital ratio assesses Council’s ability to pay short-term liabilities as they fall due (current assets/ current liabilities).

4.15.2 Council has no working capital issues at the forecast 326% with a low-risk rating. This has improved slightly due to a projected decrease in liabilities at year-end (predominately payables).

4.16 Internal Financing %:

4.16.1 The internal financial ratio assesses Council’s ability to finance capital works using cash generated from its operations. A ratio below 100 means cash reserves or borrowing are being used to fund capital works, which is acceptable on occasions.

4.16.2 Internal financing has improved to 77% with a low-risk rating primarily due to updating timing of collection of cashflows and a minor reduction in capital expenditure (delayed to future years, with funds held in reserves).

4.17 Indebtedness %:

4.17.1 The indebtedness ratio assesses Council’s ability to repay its non-current debt from its own source revenue.

4.17.2 This indicator shows a low risk for Council with a forecast of 1.3% which is consistent with budget and significantly lower than the 40% target. Council has no current or planned borrowings Budget 2023/24 and Long-Term Financial Plan.

4.18 Capital Replacement %:

4.18.1 The capital replacement ratio assesses whether Council’s overall cash spend in renewing, growing and improving its asset base is enough.

4.18.2 Capital replacement % has reduced slightly from budget to 267% with a low-risk rating caused by a small reduction in capital expenditure (delayed to future years, with funds held in reserves).

4.19 Infrastructure Renewal Gap %:

4.19.1 The infrastructure renewal gap ratio assesses Council’s spend on its asset base is keeping up with the rate of asset depletion (depreciation).

4.19.2 Infrastructure renewal gap % has reduced slightly from budget to 195% with a low-risk rating caused by a small reduction in capital expenditure (delayed to future years, with funds held in reserves).

Project Portfolio Update

4.20 The Project Portfolio has reduced by net $6.7 million to a 2023/24 forecast of $69.9 million. Year to date total portfolio spend of $18.7 million, $3.0 million less than year to date forecast. Portfolio deferrals and significant movements are published monthly in the CEO Report.

4.21 The portfolio status is tracking similar to the 12-month average with 68% of projects reported On Track, 21% At-Risk and 11% Off Track.

4.22 The key challenges impacting delivery continue to be:

4.22.1 Construction costs: Tenders and cost plans are still returning with significant increase in costs compared to budget.

4.22.2 Contractor availability: Competition for resources for design and construction with the State Government Big Build and other Councils that are also in year three of their council plans.

4.22.3 Resource market: recruitment is still competitive for project management and specialised roles.

Mid-Year Budget Requests

4.23 The quarterly review process is also used to identify and assess urgent and unbudgeted expenditure proposals.

4.24 The following funding requests have been identified as part of the mid-year review for Council consideration (see attachment 2).

4.25 The following budget requests have been identified as part of the mid-year review. If approved, the 2023/24 cumulative cash surplus would reduce from $0.1 million to $0.02 million.

4.25.1 Elwood Reserve Change Rooms and Toilets

· $373,000 additional budget has been requested for the Elwood Reserve Change Rooms and Toilets project due to outcome of tender process.

· Noting funding of $277,000 from the Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program Stage 4 and the remaining $96,000 to be funded from the 2024/25 Budget.

4.25.2 JL Murphy Baseball Infield

· $150,000 additional budget requested for the JL Murphy Baseball Infield project due to outcome of tender process.

· Noting funding of $75,000 from Open Space Reserves and remaining $75,000 to be funded from the 2023/24 cumulative cash surplus.

4.25.3 Albert Parks Bowls Pavilion Upgrade

· $359,000 additional budget requested for the Albert Parks Bowls Pavilion Upgrade to expand scope of works.

· The Albert Park Bowls club has requested the project scope be expanded to include upgrade of the male facilities and office.

· Council is proposing to combine the works to take advantage of efficiencies and ensure an integrated outcome. This is contingent on Albert Park Bowls Club funding the additional scope items with a financial contribution of $266,000.

· The remaining cost of $98,000 is primarily due to the inclusion of an accessible compliant toilet which was additional to the original project scope to be funded from the 2024/25 Budget.

4.25.4 JL Murphy Soccer Pitch 2 Reconstruction

· $372,000 additional budget requested for the JL Murphy Soccer Pitch 2 Reconstruction due to updated costings through the design phase.

· Noting funding of $186,000 from Open Space Reserves and remaining $186,000 from the 2024/25 Budget.

5. CONSULTATION AND STAKEHOLDERS

5.1 The mid-year 2023/24 budget review and consideration of unbudgeted initiatives has been conducted after engagement with relevant stakeholders from across the business if required.

6. LEGAL AND RISK IMPLICATIONS

6.1 As outlined in section 4, the Council’s financial sustainability risk is considered low based on projections resulting from the mid-year review (as budgeted). However, there are several specific risks that Council is facing:

6.1.1 Open Space Contributions – The increase of build-to-rent developments has significantly impacted Council’s ability to collect developer open space contributions. The impact of known developments equates to a $4.9m loss to council of open space contributions. These contributions are vital to fund our growing public and open space portfolio. Advocacy work is in progress.

6.1.2 Persistent Inflation - High inflation continues to increase the cost base of our core services and projects. Melbourne all groups CPI rose by 1.9 per cent in the first half of 2023/24. Recent overseas conflict is likely to cause further economic uncertainty and result in higher inflation. This remains one of our key risks in Budget 23/24 and our 10-year financial plan.

6.1.3 Childcare Centres experiencing low utilisation – Staffing shortages continues to be a significant barrier to opening more classrooms and increasing utilisation. Officers are working through agreed actions to encourage an improvement in utilisation.

6.1.4 Planning Reforms - State Government Planning Reforms are likely to impact revenue, particularly for large planning approvals over $50 million to be managed by the state and changes to planning requirements for residential backyard studios. Revenue is being closely monitored. The full impacts of the reforms are still being investigated.

6.1.5 Project Delivery – the portfolio (including both capital and operating programs) continues to experience increasing delivery risks due to staff resourcing, external dependencies, external approval, and statutory approvals.

6.1.6 Fishermans Bend Funding Gap – Ongoing significant risk of unfunded local infrastructure putting risk on delivery. Current economic environment means external funding opportunities may not be possible.

7. FINANCIAL IMPACT

7.1 Budget 2023/24 was adopted with a surplus of $0.87 million. As at the end of the second quarter the surplus has reduced to $0.1 million, this is a reduction of $0.77 million compared to Budget 2023/24 (see Attachment 1).

7.2 If the above budget requests are approved, this will reduce the surplus from $0.1 million to $0.02 million for 2023/24. Noting that the budget requests also have impacts on future year budgets which will have to be managed during the development of draft budget 2024/25.

8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

8.1 The mid-year review includes adjustments to Council’s project portfolio and considers delivery and environmental impacts.

9. COMMUNITY IMPACT

9.1 The updated financial information presented as part of the mid-year budget 2023/24 review including ongoing careful financial management will continue to deliver benefits to the community and support to the local economy.

9.2 The unbudgeted initiatives requested in section 4 will directly benefit the community members using various sporting fields and associated facilities. This will be achieved through improved facilities including accessibility improvements available to community members using the facility.

10. ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL PLAN AND COUNCIL POLICY

10.1 The mid-year Budget 2023/24 review supports strategic direction 5 – “Well Governed Port Phillip” as a city that is a leading local government authority, where our community and our organisation are in a better place as a result of our collective efforts. This review helps to ensure that Port Phillip Council is cost-effective, efficient and delivers with speed, simplicity, and confidence.

11. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

11.1 TIMELINE

11.1.1 The initiatives proposed can commence immediately if approved by Council.

11.2 COMMUNICATION

11.2.1 Since the Budget was set new information on the costs of initiatives and accuracy of forecasts has been received.

11.2.2 These changes are reflected in updated forecasts in the monthly CEO report. This includes major changes including deferrals associated with the project portfolio.

12. OFFICER DIRECT OR INDIRECT INTEREST

12.1 No officers involved in the preparation of this report have any material or general interest in the matter.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Mid-Year 2023-24 Financial Statements⇩

2. Budget Requests December 2023⇩

8.1	Presentation of December CEO Report - Issue 103
Executive Member:	Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager, Governance and Organisational Performance
PREPARED BY:	Jacky Bailey, Head of Corporate Planning

13.4	Records of Informal Meetings of Council
Executive Member:	Joanne McNeill, Executive Manager, Governance and Organisational Performance
PREPARED BY:	Emily Williams, Council Business Advisor