19 August 2011

 

Dear Councillor,

In pursuance of the provisions of the Local Government Act, 1993 and the Regulations thereunder, notice is hereby given that a POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING of Penrith City Council is to be held in the Passadena Room, Civic Centre, 601 High Street, Penrith on Monday 22 August 2011 at 7:30PM.

Attention is directed to the statement accompanying this notice of the business proposed to be transacted at the meeting.

Yours faithfully

 

Alan Stoneham

General Manager

BUSINESS

 

1.?????????? LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Leave of absence has been granted to:

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM - 19 August 2011 to 4 September 2011 inclusive.

 

2.?????????? APOLOGIES

 

3.?????????? CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 1 August 2011.

 

4.?????????? DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Pecuniary Interest (The Act requires Councillors who declare a pecuniary interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

Non-Pecuniary Conflict of Interest ? Significant and Less than Significant (The Code of Conduct requires Councillors who declare a significant non-pecuniary conflict of interest in an item to leave the meeting during discussion of that item)

 

5.?????????? ADDRESSING THE MEETING

 

6.?????????? MAYORAL MINUTES

 

7.?????????? NOTICES OF MOTION TO RESCIND A RESOLUTION

 

8.?????????? NOTICES OF MOTION

?

9.?????????? DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

10.???????? REQUESTS FOR REPORTS AND MEMORANDUMS

 

11.???????? URGENT BUSINESS

 

12.???????? CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS


POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING

 

Monday 22 August 2011

 

table of contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

meeting calendar

 

 

confirmation of minutes

 

 

DELIVERY program reports

 


B&WHORIZ

2011 MEETING CALENDAR

January 2011 - December 2011

(adopted by Council on 29 November 2010, amended by Council on 28 February 2011, revised March 2011)

 

 

 

TIME

JAN

FEB

MAR

APRIL

MAY

JUNE

JULY

AUG

SEPT

OCT

NOV

DEC

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

Mon

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.30pm

 

7

 

11v

2

 

 

15#@

5?

10

7

12

(7.00pm)

 

28#@

21

 

30#*

27

18

 

19^

(7.00pm)

 

21#

 

Policy Review Committee

7.30pm

 

 

14

4

9

6

4

1

 

 

14

5

31

21

 

 

 

 

 

22

26

31

 

 

Operational Plan Public Forum

 

6.00pm

 

 

 

 

Wed

4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?v

Meeting at which the Draft Operational Plan for 2011-2012 is adopted for exhibition

?*

Meeting at which the Operational Plan for 2011-2012 is adopted

?#

Meetings at which the Operational Plan quarterly reviews are presented

?@

Delivery Program progress reports

?^

Election of Mayor/Deputy Mayor

??

Meeting at which the 2010-2011 Annual Statements are presented

?

Meeting at which any comments on the 2010-2011 Annual Statements are presented

-           Extraordinary Meetings are held as required.

-           Members of the public are invited to observe meetings of the Council (Ordinary and Policy Review Committee).

Should you wish to address Council, please contact the Senior Governance Officer, Glenn Schuil.

?



UNCONFIRMED MINUTES

?OF THE POLICY REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF PENRITH CITY COUNCIL HELD IN THE PASSADENA ROOM, PENRITH

ON MONDAY 1 AUGUST 2011 AT 7:31PM

PRESENT

Deputy Mayor Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, Councillors, Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill (arrived 7.32pm), Kevin Crameri OAM, Greg Davies (arrived 7.33pm), Mark Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, Jackie Greenow, Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

?

APOLOGIES

PRC 36? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ross Fowler OAM seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that an apology be received for Councillor Tanya Davies.

?

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 6 June 2011

PRC 37? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 6 June 2011 be confirmed.

?

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

?

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM declared a Non Pecuniary Conflict of Interest ? Less than Significant in Item 3, as he resides in one of the suburbs subject to the report.

?

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

A City of Opportunities

 

3??????? Neighbourhood Renewal Program - Llandilo Neighbourhood Action Plan

Jeni Pollard, Neighbourhood Renewal Programme Coordinator and Katerina Tahija, Acting Community Engagement Officer gave a presentation on the Neighbourhood Renewal Program.

Councillor Karen McKeown left the meeting, the time being 7:53pm.????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 38? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch

That:

1.??????????????? The information contained in the report on Neighbourhood Renewal ??? Program - Llandilo Neighbourhood Action Plan be received

2.??????????????? Council endorse the Neighbourhood Action Plan for Llandilo as provided in ? Attachment 2 to this report.

3.??????????????? Council staff be thanked for their efforts in driving a successful program.

?????????????????? 4.?????? A letter of thanks be sent to the Principal of Llandilo Public School, ?????????????????????? ????????? thanking Colleen Williams for her assistance throughout the program.

 

Councillor Karen McKeown returned to the meeting, the time being 7:56pm.

 

A Leading City

 

1??????? Mount Vernon Development Contributions Plan???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 39? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report regarding the Mount Vernon Development Contributions Plan be received

2.???? Upon allocation of remaining funds in the Plan for traffic measures at the intersection of Kerrs Road and Mount Vernon Road (as described in this report), Council authorise staff to rescind the Mount Vernon Development Contributions Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act and Regulations.

In accordance with Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993, a DIVISION was then called with the following result:

For

Against

 

Councillor Kaylene Allison

 

Councillor Prue Guillaume

 

Councillor Kath Presdee

 

Councillor Greg Davies

 

Councillor Karen McKeown

 

Councillor John Thain

 

Councillor Jackie Greenow

 

Councillor Kevin Crameri OAM

 

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM

 

Councillor Robert Ardill

 

Councillor Mark Davies

 

Councillor Ben Goldfinch

 

Councillor Marko Malkoc

 

Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

 

 

2??????? 2011 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference???????????????????????????????

PRC 40? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor John Thain seconded Councillor Jackie Greenow

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on 2011 Local Government Association of NSW Annual Conference be received.

2.???? The seven motions detailed in the report including the amendment to Motion 6 with the addition of the words ?per lot/cap? be submitted for inclusion in the 2011 Local Government Association NSW Conference Business Paper.

3.???? Councillor Karen McKeown be nominated as an observer to attend the 2011 LGA Conference.

?A Vibrant City

 

4??????? Place Making and Public Art Policy????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 41? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Robert Ardill seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Place Making and Public Art Policy be received.

2.???? Council support the placing of the draft Place Making and Public Art Policy on 28 day public exhibition.

 

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 7:59pm.

????



DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

 

A Leading City

 

1??????? Penrith City Council Community Survey 2011

 

2??????? National Growth Areas Alliance Status Report

??

A Green City

 

3??????? Draft Water Efficiency Plan ??

?

A Liveable City

 

4??????? Parks and Leisure Association Conference

?

URGENT

 

5??????? Proposed Development of Andrews Road Baseball Facility

??

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

1??????? Penrith City Council Community Survey 2011

 

2??????? National Growth Areas Alliance Status Report

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 22 August 2011

A Leading City

 

 

1

Penrith City Council Community Survey 2011???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Ken Lim, Management Planning Co-ordinator

Authorised by:??????????? Vicki O?Kelly, Group Manager - Finance??

 

Objective

We demonstrate accountability, transparency and ethical conduct

Community Outcome

A Council that manages its finances, services and assets effectively (4)

Strategic Response

Deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability (4.1)

???????

 

Presenter:??????????????????? Simon Pomfret - IRIS Research - Penrith City Council Community Survey Results for 2011

Executive Summary

Since 2003, Council has conducted five biennial city-wide telephone surveys with over 600 households each time measuring resident perceptions about the importance of and satisfaction with external services and facilities provided by Penrith City Council. The 2011 survey was completed on 5 June this year with the results presented to Council tonight for its consideration.

The full report by IRIS Research is provided in Attachment 1: Penrith City Council Community Survey 2011.

The 2011 results suggest that Council has continued to maintain a high level of satisfaction with its residents but at the time of the survey was affected by Council?s Special Rate Variation initiative earlier in the year.

A summary of the highlights is provided below:

n?? Residents rated the Overall Satisfaction with Council Performance for 2011 as 6.77 out of 10 (compared to 7.16 in 2009 and 6.43 in 2007). This means that 80% of residents are satisfied with the overall satisfaction with Council Performance compared to 87% in 2009.

n?? Compared to other NSW councils, the Penrith City Council?s overall satisfaction score stands above the benchmark. Council?s overall satisfaction score for 2011 was 68 out of 100. This exceeds the comparable council average (60 out of 100) by 8 points.

n?? Residents (who had contact with staff during the last 12 months) rated Overall Satisfaction with Staff Performance as 7.18 out of 10 compared to 7.74 in 2009 and 7.58 in 2007. Therefore 75.1% of residents were satisfied with Council staff performance in 2011 compared to 89.8% in 2009. This represents a 14.7% decrease from the previous survey, the main reasons for which are mentioned later in this report.

n?? Residents rated Overall satisfaction with Value for Rates Dollar as 6.00 out of 10, compared to 6.72 in 2009 and 5.98 in 2007. This equates to 58.1% of residents who were satisfied with Value for Rates Dollar in 2011, compared to 74.7% in 2009. This 16.6% decrease is attributed to the timing of the SRV initiative at the time of the survey.

n?? Residents said the 10 most important Council services/facilities are:

1.???? Domestic Garbage Collection

2.???? Food Safety and Hygiene in Local Restaurants

3.???? Safety of Local Roads

4.???? Supporting and Encouraging Local Industry and Jobs

5.???? Ease of traffic flow

6.???? Cleanliness and Condition of

7.???? Public Toilets Provision of Parking

8.???? The Health of the Nepean River

9.???? Protection of bushland, natural environment and wildlife

10.?? Provision of Street & Public Space Lighting

 

n?? Residents said the 10 Council services/facilities that they were most satisfied with are:

1.???? Provision of library services

2.???? Provision of sporting fields

3.???? Condition of sporting fields

4.???? Condition of council buildings neighbourhood facilities etc

5.???? Condition of public spaces

6.???? Condition of swimming pools and leisure centres

7.???? Condition of cemeteries

8.???? Provision of council buildings neighbourhood facilities etc

9.???? Protection of bushland, natural environment and wildlife

10.?? Provision of parks, playgrounds & reserves

 

n?? Based on the 2011 results the following services/facilities are priorities requiring ongoing attention:

?????? Maintenance of Local Roads

?????? Ease of traffic flow

?????? Condition of public toilets

?????? Provision of parking

?????? Health of the Nepean River & creeks

?????? Provision of public toilets

?????? Council speaking to other levels of government about needs of the area

?????? Condition of local roads

?????? Provision of services and facilities for youth

?????? Graffiti removal

 

???????? Community Well-being measures were also included in the 2011 survey. The results which are provided later in this report relate to :

o?? Access to parks, playgrounds, reserves, public spaces, Council services and facilities

o?? Safety of the City?s public spaces, parks, playgrounds and reserves

o?? Public transport usage

o?? Walking or cycling to work

o?? Participation in sporting and recreational activities, cultural activities and events

o?? Communication ? The primary sources which residents use to obtain information or updates on Council activities

 

The report recommends that the information contained in the report be received.

 


Background

 

Council?s first telephone customer survey of 623 households in Penrith was conducted in April 2003 with the assistance of IRIS Research. The same methodology was used in 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2011 to ensure that meaningful comparisons could be drawn across all five sets of results.

 

A sample target of adult respondents from a minimum of 600 households was chosen to provide accurate survey results that could be applied to the broader population. When analysing results for the entire sample, the maximum error rate will be about + or ? 4.1% at the 95% confidence level. That is, we are confident that if the survey was repeated there are 95 chances in 100 that the new results would be within + or ? 4.1% of the result achieved in this survey. This provides a sound statistical methodology.

 

The aim of the survey is to provide Council with an understanding of the perceptions and needs of the local community with respect to a broad range of services and facilities and in particular, provide the following :-

???????? Measurement of the importance of and satisfaction with external services and facilities provided by Council

???????? Measurement of perceived performance of Council staff

???????? Establishment of benchmark levels of satisfaction for Council services and facilities and customer service

???????? Information to help Council identify service use priorities for the Community

???????? Comparison of Penrith City Council?s overall satisfaction ratings with other councils.

For the 2011 survey the breadth of questions were broadened to include resident perceptions about community well being and community engagement.? The results from these questions are required for indicator measurement within Council?s Community Strategic Plan, Delivery Program 2009-2013 and Annual Report for 2010-2011.

Survey Methodology

605 completed telephone surveys were collected from a random sample of residents throughout the Penrith LGA. Strict sampling procedures ensured that characteristics of selected respondents mirrored the overall adult population with a representative distribution across age, gender, ward and defined land areas (eg rural, new release and established urban areas). A statistically valid sample was specified for each ward (minimum of 200 interviews per Ward). The survey was conducted from Monday 23 May to Sunday 5 June 2011.

 

The telephone survey covered Council?s external services and facility types to which respondents were asked to give both an importance and satisfaction rating (ie ?Not Important?/?Very Dissatisfied? = 1 to ?Very Important?/?Very Satisfied? = 5 or? ?Can?t Say? = Non Response). Results from these ratings form the basis of much of the analysis of the results.

 

The questionnaire used for the survey can be found on pages 94 to 102 of the Survey report.

 

The services and facilities covered in the survey are ones directly provided to the public. However, it is most important to note that not all these services are exclusively provided by local government. As previously discussed with Council in terms of the previous surveys, respondents cannot be expected to distinguish in all cases the respective contributions of other levels of government.

 

This survey methodology targets residents? perception of service provision and Council staff performance. Importantly, respondents are not limited to users of the particular services and facilities. Rather, this research tool provides a vehicle for residents (represented by an appropriate random sample) to express their views and priorities. User surveys of particular key services are an appropriate supplement to this broad City-wide survey.

 

The (external) services and facilities included in the 2011 survey were:

 

? Domestic Garbage Collection and other Recycling services

? Condition of local roads

? Safety of local roads

? Condition of footpaths

? Provision of footpaths

? Provision of cycle ways

? Condition of bus shelters

? Provision of bus shelters

? Condition of cycle ways

? Maintaining public drains

? Condition of council buildings, neighbourhood facilities, community halls and centres

? Provision of council buildings, neighbourhood facilities, community halls and centres

? Ease of traffic flow? (ie. ease with which traffic can flow around the city. How you get from place to place without unnecessary delays & safely)

? Condition of Cemeteries

? Condition of parks, playgrounds and reserves

? Provision of parks, playgrounds and reserves

? Condition of public spaces (for example public domain, City centres, local shopping areas)

? Condition of Sporting Fields

? Provision of Sporting Fields

? Condition of Swimming pools and Leisure Centres

? Domestic animal control (for example registration, stray animals)

? Cleanliness and condition of public toilets

? Provision of public toilets

? Graffiti removal

? Litter control and street cleaning

? Provision of parking

? Provision of street and public space lighting

? Provision of Information from Council about services and facilities

? Provision of library services

? Council speaking to other levels of government, business and community groups about what the City and residents need

? Balancing growth of our City whilst enhancing its unique qualities (for example rural character, natural areas, threatened species)

? Supporting and encouraging local industry and jobs

? Provision of children?s services, such as long day care centres, before and after school care and play van

? Provision of services and facilities for older people

? Provision of services and facilities for youth

? Food safety and hygiene in local eateries and restaurants

? The health of the Nepean River and creeks

? Building Construction and Development Application Service

? Protection of bushland, natural environment and wildlife

? Promoting the City and running community festivals and events

 

Note: In the 2009 there were 48 questions in the survey relating to Council?s services and facilities compared to the 40 questions in 2011. A number of measures were reworded, amalgamated or rationalised to improve resident understanding of what was being asked and to streamline the time taken to complete the survey.


 

Survey Alignment to Council?s Services

 

The identification of external services/facilities was derived from what other councils have used in similar surveys with IRIS Research. Although the number of service measures has decreased from 48 to 40 compared to 2009 the majority of service questions have been retained in order for comparisons to be made over the survey periods and with other councils. They do not correspond precisely to Council?s service plans but can be easily linked. The relationship between the above list and Council?s external services as listed in the 2010-2011 Operational Plan is provided in Attachment 2 ? 2011 Community Survey Measures Alignment with Council Services

 

Summary of Key Results

The survey findings provide indicators of resident perceptions and satisfaction with Council?s current services and facilities and by comparing previous survey results.

 

The key results from the 2011 survey are summarised under the following six headings :-

1.?????? Overall Council Performance

2.?????? Staff Performance

3.?????? Value for Money

4.?????? Resident Prioritisation of Council Services and Facilities

5.?????? Communication

6.?????? Community Well Being

7.?????? Benchmarking

Each following section of this report will briefly explain the results and provide a brief commentary as to implications for Council. Further discussion will be provided through today?s presentation by Simon Pomfret from IRIS Research.

 

 

1.???? Overall Council Performance

Residents were asked, ?how would you rate overall satisfaction with the performance of Penrith City Council?? The results in the table below are broken down by age, gender and location of respondent.

 

 

Demographic Breakdown

2011 Satisfaction Rating

(% of Respondents)

Mean Scores (out of 10)

No

Response

Low

(0-3)

Medium

(4-5)

High

(7-10)

2009

Overall

0.5%

4.6%

29.0%

65.9%

6.77

Age Ranges

18-24

0.0%

2.2%

26.4%

71.4%

7.00

25-44

0.8%

5.3%

31.3%

62.6%

6.59

45-65

0.5%

3.0%

30.5%

66.0%

6.81

65+

0.0%

9.0%

19.4%

71.6%

7.00

Gender

Males

1.0%

5.4%

32.9%

60.7%

6.63

Females

0.0%

3.9%

25.3%

70.8%

6.90

Ward

North

0.0%

2.7%

33.3%

64.0%

6.75

South

0.5%

5.5%

28.6%

65.3%

6.64

East

1.1%

6.0%

24.2%

68.7%

6.95

Area Type

Rural

0.0%

9.3%

25.9%

64.8%

6.74

Established

0.7%

4.0%

28.1%

67.2%

6.83

New Release

0.0%

5.5%

33.6%

60.9%

6.59

The above figures indicate that:

?? Residents aged between18-24 and 65+ are more likely to be highly satisfied with Council?s overall performance compared to those aged between 24-65. [However 9% of those aged 65+ also rated Council performance as low]

?? Residents living in the Established Areas are more likely to be ?satisfied than those living in the Rural Areas within Penrith LGA [9.3% of Rural residents rated overall Council performance as low, twice that of any other area surveyed]

Resident Satisfaction with Council?s Overall Performance

 

 

 


Overall Satisfaction with Council Performance ~ 2003 to-2011 Comparison Scores

(Mean Scores - out of 10)

 

 

Overall Satisfaction with Council ~ Performance comparisons with other councils (Scores out of 100)

 

Commentary

 

Council continues to maintain an extremely high level of resident satisfaction, with mean scores increasing from 6.43 in 2003 to 6.77 in 2011.? Based upon the 2011 survey results, 80% of all residents in the Penrith LGA were satisfied with Council?s overall performance versus only 9% of residents who were dissatisfied. Although these results show a 7% decrease compared to the 2009 survey results (87%), Penrith City Council has continued to outperform comparable NSW councils by 8 points in 2011.?

 

Compared to 2009, the marginal decrease in resident satisfaction is more than likely attributed to the timing of Council?s Special Rate Variation proposal. The survey was conducted in period, 23 May to 5 June 2011, just after the public exhibition period.

 

2.???? Staff Performance

To gauge the overall performance of Council staff in dealing with residents, survey respondents who had contact with Council staff within the last 12 months were asked to rate their level of satisfaction.

 

Commentary

 

The 2011 results indicate that three quarters (75.1%) residents were ?satisfied? with the performance of Council staff and 17.3% were ?dissatisfied?.

 

Resident Satisfaction with Council Staff Performance ~ 2011 Survey (n=317)

The distribution of satisfaction ratings resulted in a mean score of 7.18 (out of 10) for Council?s staff performance. This represents a small decrease in satisfaction scores compared to the 2009 survey where a mean score of 7.74 was recorded.

It is important to note that only 13% of residents who had contact with Council staff in 2009 rated staff performance as ?low? (scoring 0-3 out of 10). This is consistent with the results in previous surveys.

Reasons for Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction with Staff Performance

 

As mentioned earlier the 2011 results revealed that 75% of residents were ?satisfied? with the performance of Council staff. This is a 10% decrease from the 2009 result of 85%. The reasons why residents were satisfied or dissatisfied are provided in the graph on the next page.

 

Reasons why Residents scored Council Staff Performance they way they did

 

3.???? Value for Money

The survey asked residents to rate their level of satisfaction with the value they feel they are receiving from their rates spend. A score of ?0?represented very poor value and ?10? represented very good value for money. The results are detailed in the graph below:

 

 

A demographic breakdown of the results is provided in the table on the next page.

Residents? Views on Value for Money of Rates

Demographic

Breakdown

2011 Value Ratings (%)

(% of Respondents)

Mean Scores

(out of 10)

No

Response

Low

(0-3)

Medium

(4-6)

High

(7-10)

Overall

5.1%

9.4%

40.5%

45.0%

6.00

Age Group

18-24

17.6%

2.2%

34.1%

46.2%

6.26

25-44

3.3%

9.8%

48.8%

38.2%

5.75

45-65

2.0%

9.5%

37.7%

50.8%

6.19

65+

4.3%

17.4%

27.5%

50.7%

6.05

Gender

Males

3.4%

11.1%

42.6%

42.9%

5.84

Females

6.8%

7.8%

38.53%

46.9%

6.16

Ward

North

6.7%

9.0%

42.2%

42.2%

5.98

South

5.0%

11.1%

44.7%

39.2%

5.73

East

3.3%

7.7%

33.9%

55.2%

6.31

Area Type

Rural

7.3%

20.0%

36.4%

36.4%

5.17

Established

5.2%

8.0%

39.9%

46.9%

6.16

New Release

4.0%

9.5%

44.4%

42.1%

5.83

 

 

 

Overall Satisfaction with Value for Rates Dollar- 2003 to 2009 Comparison Scores

(Mean Scores - out of 10)

Commentary

The results show that Council continues to deliver good value for rates dollar with mean scores steady from 5.95 in 2003 to 6.00 in 2011 despite a spike in the results in 2009. The survey showed that 58.1% of residents are ?satisfied? in this area with 18.6% dissatisfied.? This represents a 16.6% decrease compared to the previous 2009 survey highlighting the impact of the timing of the Special Rate Variation public exhibition which concluded only one week earlier on 16 May 2011.

?

It is still encouraging to note that based on the demographic breakdown figures 45% of residents still rated satisfaction with value for money of rates as ?high? and 40% rated it as ?medium?. Only 9.4% of residents rated satisfaction as ?low?.

 

Residents living in the established areas reported the highest satisfaction with the services they received for their rate dollar, while the rural areas reported the least satisfaction with 20% of respondents scoring value for rate as ?low?.

 

In general, these results indicate that the majority of residents perceive the amount of rates charged by Council is commensurate with the services or facilities they receive.

 

 

4.???? Resident Prioritisation of Council Services and Facilities

Section 3 of the survey report presents the responses of residents who were asked to rate the importance of key services and facilities provided by Council and then to rate their satisfaction with those same services and facilities.

 

???????? Importance Ratings

A summary of the Importance ratings (ranked highest to the lowest score) is provided in Table 3.9 of the report (page 34-35). The top 10 most important and the 10 least important services and facilities are provided in the tables on the next page.

 

Top Ten Council Services/Facilities rated as Most Important)

2011

Ranking

Service/Facility

Mean Score (out of 10)

2009 Ranking

2011

2009

1st

Domestic Garbage Collection

9.47

9.33

2nd

2nd

Food Safety and Hygiene in Local Restaurants

9.44

9.34

1st

3rd

Safety of Local Roads

9.32

-

-

4th

Supporting and Encouraging Local Industry and Jobs

9.26

9.26

3rd

5th

Ease of traffic flow

9.07

-

-

6th

Cleanliness and Condition of Public Toilets

9.05

9.05

12th

7th

Provision of Parking

8.96

8.91

7th

8th

The Health of the Nepean River

8.91

-

-

9th

Protection of bushland, natural environment and wildlife

8.88

8.69

14th

10th

Provision of Street & Public Space Lighting

8.83

8.86

9th

 


 

Ten Council Services/Facilities rated as Least Important

2011

Ranking

Service/Facility

Mean Score (out of 10)

2009 Ranking

2011

2009

31st

Condition of Footpaths

7.77

8.62

20th

32nd

Condition of Community Halls & Centres

7.73

6.73

47th

33rd

Promoting the City and running Community Festivals & Events

7.46

-

-

=35th

Provision of Community Halls & Centres

7.45

5.26

48th

=35th

Provision of Footpaths

7.45

8.52

24th

36th

Condition of Cemeteries

7.22

8.22

36th

37th

Condition of Bus Shelters

6.97

-

-

38th

Provision of Bus Shelters

6.31

7.82

41st

39th

Condition of Cycle Ways

5.20

-

-

40th

Provision of Cycle Ways

4.68

7.12

45th

 

Commentary

Although the top 10 most important services have varied little over the past two years the order of importance has changed.

???????? ?Domestic Garbage Collection? is now first and ?Food Safety and Hygiene in Local Restaurants? is second in 2001 as compared to the reverse order in 2009.

???????? Two new measures were introduced into the 2011 questionnaire; ?Safety of local roads? and ?Ease of traffic flow?, both debuted at 3rd and 5th most important service attribute respectively. ?Cleanliness and Condition of Public Toilets? jumped 6 places from 12th to 6th most important this year matching the expectations borne out from the resident feedback to Council?s SRV proposal in this area.

 

At the other end of the scale, the majority of the 10 least important services are still there from 2009 albeit a few changes in the order. The notable exceptions being the ?Condition of Footpaths? and ?Provision of Footpaths ? which have both dropped 11 places in terms of importance. It is interesting to note that both the condition and provision of bus shelters and cycleways are seen as least important compared to all other services and facilities Council provides in 2011. It should be noted that importance ratings are affected by the number of users of that service or facility. Accordingly, some services may be seen as less important by residents where they are only used by relatively number of people within the City.

???????? Satisfaction Ratings

A summary of Satisfaction ratings (ranked highest to the lowest score out of 10) is provided in Table 3.18 of the IRIS Survey Report (pages 47-48). The 10 services and facilities with the highest satisfaction and 10 services and facilities with the lowest satisfaction scores are provided in the next two tables.

 


Top 10 Satisfaction Scores for Council Services/Facilities (Mean Scores out of 10)

2011

Ranking

Service/Facility

Mean Score

(out of 10)

2009 Ranking

2011

2009

1st

Provision of library services

7.72

7.74

3rd

2nd

Provision of sporting fields

7.12

7.24

6th

=3rd

Condition of sporting fields

7.01

7.01

9th

=3rd

Condition of council buildings neighbourhood facilities etc

7.01

6.59

23rd

5th

Condition of public spaces

6.98

-

-

6th

Condition of swimming pools and leisure centres

6.94

7.19

7th

7th

Condition of cemeteries

6.90

7.16

8th

=8th

Provision of council buildings neighbourhood facilities etc

6.88

6.33

30th

=8th

Protection of bushland, natural environment and wildlife

6.88

6.75

17th

10th

Provision of parks, playgrounds and reserves

6.84

6.81

14th

 

17th

Domestic garbage service

6.61

8.11

1st

 

Commentary

 

There has been a considerable shakeup in the order of services and facilities residents are most satisfied compared to 2 years ago; with the exceptions being library services (1st), provision and condition of sporting fields (2nd and 3rd positions) , swimming pools/leisure centres (5th) and cemeteries (6th), all of which are still in the top 10.? The most notable changes include:

???????? Domestic Garbage Services which dropped 16 places from 1st in 2009 to 17th in 2011. This could be linked to the lingering perception around the 3 bin system which was introduced in August 2009.

???????? The Condition of public spaces was a new addition to the 2011 questionnaire replacing Appearance of the City previously used in the 2009 survey. This was the 4th highest area for resident satisfaction.

???????? In terms of satisfaction, the Condition of council buildings neighbourhood facilities rose by 20 places from 23rd in 2009 to =3rd in 2011.? This significant result could be attributed to Council?s attention to major renovations at a number of community halls (eg Berkshire Park and Castlereagh halls) and neighbourhood centres (eg Cranebrook Neighbourhood Centre) during 2010-11 made possible by an increase funding from the RLCIP and NSW Community Building Partnership grants.

???????? The Protection of bushland, natural environment and wildlife saw a rise in satisfaction levels moving up 10 places from 17th in 2009 to =7th in 2011. Food safety and hygiene in local restaurants also saw a rise in satisfaction levels moving up 8 places from 18th in 2009 to 10th in 2011. The reasons for these increases are not easy to pinpoint and would also need to be the subject of more focused customer research.

 

Lowest 10 Satisfaction Scores for Council Services/Facilities (descending order)

 

2011

Ranking

Service/Facility

Mean Score

(out of 5)

2009 Ranking

2011

2009

31st

Provision of services and facilities for youth

5.94

6.19

36th

32nd

Provision of parking

5.82

6.14

28th

33rd

Building construction and development application service

5.76

5.80

44th

34th

Condition of bus shelters

5.58

-

-

35th

Provision of bus shelters

5.56

5.86

42nd

36th

Provision of public toilets

5.36

5.29

47th

37th

Ease of traffic flow

5.31

-

-

38th

Condition of cycle ways

5.26

-

-

39th

Cleanliness and condition of public toilets

5.04

5.02

48th

40th

Provision of cycle ways

4.84

5.81

43rd

 

Commentary

 

???????? The cleanliness/condition and provision of public toilets again rated as the services providing low satisfaction as mirrored in previous surveys. According to IRIS Research, public toilets are a common problem for local councils. Even with a significant injection of funds, there are no guarantees that a marked improvement in resident satisfaction will result given its relative position against the other services and facilities provided by Council. However, Council?s efforts over the last 3 years in terms of refurbishment of public toilets in the CBD and new maintenance regimes have translated into measurable gains. Council continues to recognise the importance of this service by increasing the service level and funding of public toilet maintenance in its recent application to IPART for a section 508A Special Rate Variation.

???????? What is different from 2009 is the low satisfaction scores residents gave regarding the condition and provision of both bus shelter and cycleways. A possible reason for this outcome is that for the majority of Penrith residents, cars continue to be the primary mode of transport as opposed to buses and bicycles. This rationale is supported by the public transport usage and walking and cycling habits results detailed later in this report.

???????? A new question added to the 2011 survey was ease of traffic flow. The survey results revealed this is a area requiring improvement along with the provision of parking which has also made it into the bottom 10.

 

????????
Prioritising Services and Facilities

Section 3 of the survey report analyses the results of the importance and satisfaction scores to arrive at an indicative priority rating for services and facilities. While further analysis of the priority ratings needs to be carried out, they can provide a guide to the allocation of resources and identification of areas for further investigation. This in-depth analysis of the importance and satisfaction scores was carried out by overlapping the results of two techniques, that is, Quadrant Analysis (QA) and Gap Analysis (GA).

 

In the Quadrant Analysis (QA), satisfaction scores are compared to importance scores for each of the 40 service and facility questions. This analysis allocates individual services/facilities to a particular quadrant by comparing single service scores against the entire population of 40 services/facilities questions. The QA results (also known as the Opportunity Matrix) is provided in the table on the next page and is also found on page 52 of the IRIS Survey report. Where an arrow follows a service (? ? ? ?), it shows that it has moved quadrant since the last survey in 2009. NC represents ?no change from 2009?.

 

Of the four quadrants, more attention needs to be given to Quadrant 2 which represents Higher Importance & Lower Satisfaction. The other three quadrants are further explained in the table on the next page.


 

Quadrant (Matrix) Analysis for Council Services and Facilities

[Legend : NC = No change from 2009;????? ? ? ? ?? = Movement in Quadrant from 2009 Survey]

?

? Indicates need for more immediate attention.

?

?????? Condition of local roads (NC)

?????? Ease of traffic flow (New)

?????? Provision of public toilets (?)

?????? Condition of public toilets (NC)

?????? Graffiti removal (NC)

?????? Provision of parking (NC)

?????? Council speaking to other levels of government about needs of the area (New)

?????? Provision of services and facilities for youth (NC)

?????? Health of the Nepean River and creeks (New)

?

? Not an issue for majority of population (ie minority user groups only)

? Not considered a problem at the moment but may need investigation

?

????? Provision of footpaths (?)

????? Provision of cycleways (NC)

????? Provision of bus shelters (NC)

????? Condition of footpaths (?)

????? Condition of cycleways (New)

????? Condition of bus shelters (New)

????? Building construction and development application service (NC)

Low ?????????????? Importance?????????????? ? High

Quadrant 2.

HIGHER IMPORTANCE

LOWER SATISFACTION

Quadrant 1.

HIGHER IMPORTANCE

HIGHER SATISFACTION

? Denotes services where satisfaction should be improved as areas not delivering expected value.

? Represents current Council strengths

? Areas are working well and delivering high value

? Models for other Services to capitalise on.

 

 

?????? Maintaining public drains (?)

?????? Safety of local roads (New)

?????? Provision of parks, playgrounds and reserves (NC)

?????? Condition of parks, playgrounds and reserves (NC)

?????? Condition of public spaces (New)

?????? Condition of sporting grounds (NC)

?????? Domestic garbage collection (NC)

?????? Litter control and street cleaning (NC)

?????? Provision of lighting in public spaces (?)

?????? Provision of information about council services and facilities (?)

?????? Balancing growth whilst enhancing unique qualities of the area (New)

?????? Supporting local industry and jobs (?)

?????? Provision of services for children (NC)

?????? Provision of services and facilities for older people(?)

?????? Food safety and hygiene in local eateries/restaurants (NC)

?????? Protection of bushland, natural environment and wildlife (NC)

Quadrant 3.

LOWER IMPORTANCE

LOWER SATISFACTION

Quadrant 4.

LOWER IMPORTANCE

HIGHER SATISFACTION

? Represents lower priority services

? Indicates doing an excellent job for those users who are interested

? Often interpreted as representing services where effort exceeds expectations.

 

 

?????? Provision of council buildings (?)

?????? Condition of council buildings (NC)

?????? Condition of cemeteries (NC)

?????? Provision of sporting grounds (?)

?????? Condition of public pools & leisure centres (NC)

?????? Domestic animal control (NC)

?????? Promoting the city and running events (New)

?????? Provision of library services (NC)

 

Low ?????????????? Satisfaction?????????????? ? High

 


Gap Analysis

 

Another important way to look at service performance against expectations is to carry out a Gap Analysis of the 2011 results. The Gap Analysis (GA) involves the measurement of the gap between importance and satisfaction. Gap measures are calculated by subtracting the mean satisfaction score from the mean importance score for each service/facility.

 

Usually the larger the gap between importance and satisfaction, the larger the gap between Council?s performance in provision of a service and residents? expectations. The larger the performance gap, the higher the priority for each Council service and greater attention required. It is important to note that these gap scores come only from users of the services identified.

 

The following table is an extract from the Gap Analysis (Table 3.19) on page 56 of the IRIS Survey report and includes only the priority 1 services.

 

Gap Analysis for Council Services and Facilities ~ 2011 Survey Results

Council Services and Facilities

Performance Gap Score*

Priority Level

Change from 2009

1.? Ease of traffic flow

3.6931

1

N/A

2.? Condition of public toilets

3.4746

1

NC

3.? Provision of parking

3.0882

1

NC

4.? Safety of local roads

2.8527

1

N/A

5.? Domestic garbage collection

2.8412

1

3?1

6.? Health of the Nepean River and creeks

2.7139

1

N/A

7.? Provision of public toilets

2.6824

1

NC

8.? Food safety and hygiene in local restaurants

2.5601

1

NC

9.? Condition of local roads

2.5407

1

NC

10.??? Supporting local industry and jobs

2.5366

1

NC

11.??? Provision of services and facilities for youth

2.1612

1

NC

12.??? Provision of public space lighting

2.1307

1

NC

13.??? Council speaking to other levels of government about needs of the area

2.0461

1

N/A

14.??? Condition of parks, playgrounds and reserves

2.0348

1

NC

15.??? Balancing growth with unique characteristics

1.9107

1

N/A

16.??? Protection of bushland

1.8759

1

2?1

17.??? Litter control and street cleaning

1.8419

1

Litter Control NC

Street Cleaning 3?1

18.??? Graffiti removal

1.8988

1

NC

19.??? Maintaining public drains

1.8474

1

NC

[* Note : Performance Gaps Scores are calculated by subtracting Satisfaction scores from Importance scores for each respondent]


 

Priority Analysis

 

A key outcome from the customer survey is the identification of services and facilities which may require extra attention.

 

This is achieved by combining the results from the Quadrant and Gap Analysis. It is then possible to compare both the services and facilities which have higher importance and lower satisfaction ratings (Quadrant 2 in the Opportunity Matrix) and larger performance gaps between service provision and resident?s expectations.

 

The results, as shown in the table below, indicate the priority order suggested by this survey (without bringing into account existing Council responses) for further investigation.

Combined Results Table ~ Quadrant Analysis and Gap Analysis

Council Service / Facility

Quadrant

Analysis

Gap

Analysis

Ease of traffic flow

Quadrant 2

(Higher Importance/

Lower Satisfaction)

Priority 1

Condition of public toilets

Provision of parking

Health of the Nepean River and creeks

Provision of public toilets

Council speaking to other levels of government about needs of the area

Condition of local roads

Provision of services and facilities for youth

Graffiti removal

 

Commentary

 

Based on the combined analysis, 9 services and facilities in this group require attention to improve satisfaction. Resident satisfaction for these services and facilities are low while importance is high comparatively. The gap between importance and satisfaction is significantly large enough to warrant a Priority 1 status.

 

Importantly, 6 out of the 9 services indicated by this analysis were previously identified as priorities in the 2009 customer survey. For these services Council has, in most instances, already responded through the provision of additional resources (for the maintenance of roads and public toilets) and strategies and actions embedded within Council?s Community Strategic Plan 2031 and the 4-Year Delivery Program 2009-13.

 

Council?s Service Review program will continue to provide more in-depth examinations of service delivery and service levels, addressing many of the areas identified in the survey as possibly requiring further attention.


5. ???? Communication

 

Residents were asked which source they mainly use to obtain information or updates on Council activities.

Sources of Council Information used by Residents

Source

Ward

Overall

North

South

East

Newspapers

61.3%

62.8%

56.5%

60.3%

Council website

17.1%

17.6%

16.8%

17.2%

Council newsletter

15.3%

11.6%

13.6%

13.5%

Social Media

1.4%

1.5%

1.6%

1.4%

Other

5.0%

6.5%

11.4%

7.4%

 

The results showed that :-

???????? 60% of residents indicated that they receive information about Council activities from newspapers as their primary source.

???????? Council website as a source of information has declined slightly from 19% in 2009 to 17% in 2011.

???????? 14% of the residents said that they receive information about Council activities from the Council community newsletter.

???????? The proportion of residents reportedly using social media, such as Twitter and Facebook as their main source of information remains currently small at 1.4%.

???????? A small number of ?other? sources of information were mentioned by residents. These included word of mouth, flyers/leaflets, rates notices, libraries, the internet, noticeboards , TV,? radio, calling Council on the phone.

 

6. ???? Community Well Being

Section 4 of the report is based upon a number of key indictors of wellbeing which were measured in the survey. This is a new part of the Community Survey format and provides useful data in determining resident perceptions about Penrith as a place to live, work and travel around. The results also provide information for the indicators located in Council?s CSP, Delivery Program and Annual Report.

These specific 26 questions sought to measure:

???????? Access to parks, playgrounds, reserves, public spaces, Council services and facilities

???????? Safety of the City?s public spaces, parks, playgrounds and reserves

???????? Public transport usage, Walking or cycling to work

???????? Participation in sporting and recreational activities, cultural activities and events

???????? Community engagement

The results from these questions will become the baseline measures for future comparison surveys.
As summary of the 2011 results are as follows:

Community Well Being ????????????????? (Full results provided on page 58 of the IRIS Survey Report)

?????? 78% of residents are highly satisfied with their access to the City?s parks, playgrounds

?????? 79% of residents are highly satisfied with their access to the City?s public spaces (eg city centres, local shopping centres)

?????? 63% of residents are highly satisfied with the safety of the City?s public space

?????? 60% of residents are highly satisfied with the safety of the City?s parks, playgrounds and reserves

?????? 65% of residents are highly satisfied with their access to Council?s services, information and facilities

?????? 58% of residents are highly satisfied with the City?s community and recreation facilities and programs

?????? 60% of residents are highly satisfied with their ability to move in and around Penrith including all modes of transport.

Transport? ?????????????????? (Full results provided on pages 60-61 of the IRIS Survey Report)

???????? 18% of residents use public transport versus 82% who do not

???????? 11% of residents walk or cycle to work versus 89% who do not.

 

Participation in Sporting and Recreational Activities (Full results on page 62 of the Report)

???????? 25% of residents play organised sport

???????? 37% of residents participate in informal active recreation (eg ball games in the park, jogging, swimming etc)

???????? 51% of residents participate in informal passive recreation (eg walking, a picnic in the park)

???????? 34% of residents do not participate in any sporting or recreational activity

 

Participation or attendance at Cultural Activities and Events (Full results are provided on pages 64-65 of the IRIS Survey Report)

???????? 62% of residents attend festivals

???????? 23% of residents attend the Regional Gallery

???????? 23% of residents attend art exhibitions

???????? 55% of residents attend concerts

???????? 43% of residents attend theatre

???????? 15% of residents participate in craft groups

???????? 20% of residents do not participate or attend cultural activities or events

Rather than provide a detailed analysis of the results it is proposed that this be covered in the IRIS presentation to Council tonight. If more information is required page references to the report have been provided.


 

7. ??? Benchmarking

An added benefit of this survey has been the provision of benchmarking data for 28 satisfaction measures. The results have been displayed as bar charts in Attachment 1, pages 80-93of the IRIS Survey Report.

Each of these benchmark measures compare Council?s 2011 result with the average score of ?Comparable councils? versus the ?Best Performed? and ?Worst Performed? council score within that cohort. This data will be invaluable in any further Service Review work undertaken at Council over the next few years.

Benefits of this Survey

The survey results continue to provide useful information on resident perceptions and satisfaction regarding Council services and facilities as well as indications of where further investigations and analysis should be undertaken. As a supporting body of work to Council?s Community Strategic Planning, Delivery Programming and Operational Planning, the survey assists in providing a basis for considering short and long term priority setting, resource allocations and possible service adjustments and enhancements. They also provide baseline data for better understanding past and forecasting future trends.

 

The satisfaction ratings are a useful performance monitoring tool and are already included in adopted service specifications.

 

Conclusion

In comparison with the 2009 resident survey, Council has, in general, been able to maintain a consistently high level of satisfaction in 2011 in the following areas:

???????? Overall performance of Council service and facilities and in comparison with other councils

???????? Overall performance of Council?s staff

Results show that Penrith residents do perceive they are getting value from the amount of rates charged by Council and that these are commensurate with the services or facilities they received.

 

In terms of priorities, residents continue to rate domestic garbage collection, safety and condition of local roads, food safety and hygiene of local restaurants, provision of parking, the health of Nepean River and creeks and supporting and encouraging local industry and jobs as highly important. Ease of traffic flow is a new addition to this list.

 

In regard to resident customer satisfaction Council has achieved very high ratings for the provision of library services, the provision and condition of sporting fields, the condition of Council buildings/neighbourhood facilities,? the condition of public spaces, public swimming pools/leisure centres, cemeteries and the provision of sports and playing fields.

 

The results generally confirm the positions previously identified by Council in 2009 in areas of relatively low satisfaction, which will need to be addressed through the review of Council?s 4 year Delivery Program and annual Operational Plans. The effectiveness of these actions and Council?s performance will be further assessed in future resident surveys.

 

The ongoing program of customer research will further inform Council and management of priorities and performance of each service and will continue to assist in focusing Council operations on continuous improvement and benchmarking.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Penrith City Council Community Survey 2011 be received

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. View

Penrith City Council Community Survey 2011 Report

113 Pages

Attachment

2. View

2011 Community Survey Measures Alignment with Council Services

2 Pages

Attachment

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 22 August 2011

A Leading City

 

 

2

National Growth Areas Alliance Status Report???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Paul Battersby, Senior Environmental Planner

Authorised by:??????????? Craig Butler, Director ??

 

Objective

We demonstrate leadership, foster resilience and tenacity, and encourage innovation

Community Outcome

A Regional City that provides our jobs, education, services and entertainment (1)

Strategic Response

Share aspirations and work together to grow Penrith as a Regional City (1.2)

???????

 

Executive Summary

Council is a member of the National Growth Areas Alliance (NGAA), which represents the interests of growth area Councils across Australia. The NGAA aims to provide input to Federal Government policy and to advocate for needed infrastructure and services for member Councils.

 

The NGAA formed in response to the recognition by growth area Councils that the cost of building socially vibrant, economically viable and environmentally sustainable communities is high and is projected to increase.

 

This report provides information on NGAA?s activities and achievements over the last 12 months and outlines what is proposed for the coming year.

 

The report recommends that the information be received and that Council write to and request the support of local Members of Parliament about the outcomes NGAA is seeking.

Background

NGAA represents 24 of Australia?s fastest growing local government areas (LGAs) and 25% of Australia?s metropolitan population.? These LGAs currently house about 3.4 million people.? Over the next 20 years the population of these LGAs will grow at double the national rate.

 

While individual circumstances may differ, all 24 NGAA member Councils share the common characteristic of growth and the need to deal with the social, physical and planning challenges that come with it.

 

The growth area Councils play an integral role in accommodating growth in metropolitan regions across the nation but are not equitably equipped with public transport and social infrastructure and services or employment opportunities.

 

Growth areas on the fringes of Australian cities are significantly disadvantaged in regard to access to jobs and services.? Poor performance compared to metropolitan averages is demonstrated for indicators such as:

 

???????? Resident skills

???????? Local employment opportunities

???????? Education, health and community services

???????? Housing diversity

???????? Housing stress.

 

NGAA wants to close the gap between growth areas and metropolitan averages.? This means:

 

???????? Improved access to employment opportunities

???????? Better personal mobility

???????? More local community services

???????? More housing diversity.

 

To achieve this, NGAA is seeking:

 

???????? A National Urban Policy that supports the role of growth areas

???????? A new deal on coordination and delivery of infrastructure and services

???????? Funding methodologies that ensure the needs of communities in fast growing areas are met now and in the future.

NGAA Activities

NGAA has had a busy and productive year.? Activities over the last 12 months have included:

Advocacy

Meetings: During this period the NGAA Executive and/or Chief Executive Officer (CEO) met with some 23 Federal Ministers, Members of Parliament, Parliamentary Secretaries and their offices to appraise or update them of NGAA activities, good models of practice that can be built upon and proposals to meet the needs of growth areas.

Discussion at the meetings included:

???????? The impact of population growth in outer urban areas

???????? The strategic planning work that NGAA Councils are undertaking to meet growth commitments

???????? NGAA has solid research that is available

???????? NGAA interests intersect with Government?s in regard to improving access to education, employment and services.? There is a need for catalytic projects (infrastructure, training and education facilities, office development) to support these.

???????? Reinforcing the role of growth areas which can help ease pressure on cities and provide services to regional areas

???????? The opportunities in the growth areas for sustainable development

Submissions: ? During this period the NGAA has made submissions to the 2011/12 Federal Budget, the ?Our Cities? discussion paper and the ?Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia? discussion paper.

The Federal Budget submission identified the need to redress the lack of investment in infrastructure required to meet past growth and identified the opportunities for growth areas to be models of sustainability for the future. The submission urged the Federal Government to prepare strategic plans designed to support community interaction, improve access to education, employment and services, provide sustainable environmental outcomes and increase productivity.? It proposed the establishment of a ?sustainable population growth agreement? through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), supported by specific growth area infrastructure funds.

The NGAA submission on the ?Our Cities? and ?Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia? discussion papers sought recognition of growth areas as cities in their own right worthy of direct Federal funding initiatives, benchmarking of essential infrastructure to support planned development of growth areas, recognition of vibrant town centres for employment and community investment, the need to bring job diversity to growth areas through planning for industries of the future rather than those of the past.

Presentations: The NGAA CEO made presentations at or participated on panels at the following forums and conferences, which provided welcome opportunities to broaden awareness of the organisation and to advocate those issues of significance to growth areas:

???????? The UDIA Victoria State Conference, 8 October, Melbourne

???????? The Residential Development Council of the Property Council of Australia Leaders Summit, 11 October 2010, Adelaide

???????? The National Local Government Grants Commission Conference 13 October 2010, Melbourne

???????? Local Government Urban Planning & Development Summit, 19 and 20 October 2010, Sydney

???????? Built Environment Meets Parliament, 22 June 2011

Research

Late last year the NGAA engaged Auspoll to survey growth area residents to better understand their views and needs arising from urban growth.? The focus groups and online surveys identified the following key areas of concern:

???????? More forethought is needed in local infrastructure planning;

???????? Local public transport does not meet growth area residents? needs;

???????? There is a lack of recreational facilities and activities (particularly sporting clubs) to occupy young people;

???????? There is a low level of satisfaction with services that support young people (such as youth workers and youth centres);

???????? There is a low level of satisfaction with services designed to help families before problems arise;

???????? There is a reasonably good mix of housing types in growth areas but with more housing estates appearing, this diversity may be lost;

???????? There is a low level of satisfaction with the availability of rental housing; and

???????? There needs to be a greater range of employment opportunities in growth areas with more long term, white collar work.

This research has been instrumental in informing and supporting the NGAA advocacy program.

More recently the NGAA engaged SGS Economics and Planning to develop a model for a ?Sustainable Growth Areas Fund?.? This research will provide empirical evidence of the need for and value of such a fund for the delivery of sustainable growth areas.? The research indicates that effective outcomes are best achieved through a Federal, State and Local Government partnership approach to formulate programs, policies and measurable targets, with specific project decision making made at the local level. It recommends the creation of three urban policy funds focussing on the national priorities of productivity, sustainability and liveability. Funding would need to be tied to agreed targets and performance agreements.

Member Services

A Members Summit was held in Canberra on 25 March 2011 and Council was represented by Councillor Jim Aitken OAM, Deputy Mayor, Alan Stoneham, General Manager and Craig Butler, Director. The summit was addressed by Scott Morrison, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Productivity and Population. Mr Morrison expressed the view that population must be considered in association with productivity and workforce participation. He indicated that liveability is the key measure and that Local Government is at the forefront of and best to deal with population growth at the local level.?

The Summit provided the opportunity to hear how other States are tackling issues arising from existing and planned growth, primarily around the structure and mechanisms for the delivery of essential infrastructure.

NSW Chapter has met on a number of occasions over the past 12 months to coordinate input to and participate in NGAA research, submissions and advocacy actions previously mentioned in this report.

Highlights

???????? Chairman of the NGAA appointed to the Steering Committee for Australian Council of Local Government.

???????? CEO of NGAA appointed to National Housing Supply Council and to the Federal Governments Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia ? Demographic change and Liveability Panel.

???????? NGAA input reflected in ?National Urban Policy?, the ?Sustainable Population Strategy Demographic Change and Liveability Panel report?, the ?Cities Strategy Discussion Paper? and Infrastructure Australia?s report ?Getting the Fundamentals Right for Australia?s Infrastructure Priorities?.

???????? NGAA invited to participate in the 2011/12 Federal Budget lockup.

???????? Completion of the Auspoll resident survey

???????? NGAA research cited by Minister Burke in opening of the ?Built Environment Meets Parliament? forum.

NGAA Strategic Plan 2011 - 2014

The NGAA Strategic Plan 2011 ? 2014 was endorsed by the membership in April 2011.? The Plan reports on the achievements from the 2008 ? 2010 Strategic Plan, restates the vision, mission and charter of the organisation and identifies the strategic objectives of the NGAA as being:

???????? NGAA areas are seen as places to invest in education, employment, infrastructure and services.

???????? NGAA priorities and objectives are reflected in Federal Government policies and strategies.

???????? NGAA is recognised as the expert on outer urban growth issues.

???????? Increase membership and member and community engagement.

 

The Strategic Plan is supported by a detailed work plan endorsed by the NGAA Executive.

Conclusion

Council has been a member of the NGAA since its inception.? The organisation is gaining success at encouraging decision makers at the Federal level to look outwards at the needs and opportunities of growth areas. All levels of government can and must contribute to an address of the challenges and the opportunities within the growth areas. The NGAA most prudently focuses its attention on the Federal decision makers. It relies, however, on the NGAA members to extend the advocacy to State decision makers. Penrith?s officers have been active in briefing the Local Members and promoting NGAA principles and research findings to State Politicians and bureaucrats. More is required, however, and so this will continue.

 

As the highlights indicate, the NGAA is recognised for its expertise in growth area issues and as an organisation that advocates government policy based on empirical evidence and sound research.? The current focus of the NGAA is advocating for the establishment of a Sustainable Growth Areas Fund to ensure the coordinated and timely delivery of essential infrastructure necessary to sustain planned growth.????

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on National Growth Areas Alliance Status Report be received

2.???? Council continue to brief local Members of Parliament about the outcomes NGAA is seeking and request their support.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


 

 

A City of Opportunities

 

 

There were no reports under this Delivery Program when the Business Paper was compiled


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


A Green City

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

3??????? Draft Water Efficiency Plan ??

 

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 22 August 2011

A Green City

 

 

3

Draft Water Efficiency Plan????

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Jennifer Moses, Sustainability Research Planner

Carmel Hamilton, Sustainability Co-ordinator

Authorised by:??????????? Paul Grimson, Sustainability & Planning Manager ??

 

Objective

We use our resources wisely, and take responsibility for our levels of consumption

Community Outcome

A Council with a smaller ecological footprint (13)

Strategic Response

Work to reduce the organisation's ecological footprint (13.1)

???????

 

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to seek Council?s adoption of the Draft Water Efficiency Plan 2011-15 (the Draft WEP).? This Plan has been developed in order to meet our obligations under the Energy Administration Amendment (Water and Energy Savings) Act 2005 (EAA Act) and to satisfy funding criteria set by the NSW Government?s Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payments (WaSIP) program.

 

The Draft WEP outlines the results of an assessment of Council?s commitment to water management and the systems and processes in place to support this. It also identifies Council?s top ten water consuming facilities and the findings of water efficiency audits conducted at each of these facilities. A range of actions have been identified for implementation from 2011-15 to improve water management at specific facilities, and across the organisation as a whole.?

 

The Draft WEP has been provided to Councillors under separate cover.

 

Background

The sustainable management of resources is an integral part of Penrith City Council?s operations. Council has a strong history of water management and over the years has realised significant improvements in water efficiency while still delivering a comprehensive and varied array of services, facilities and activities to our local community.

 

Council?s participation in the Sydney Water Every Drop Counts program and the ICLEI Water Campaign saw the commencement of our program of strategic water management, with development of our first comprehensive water management plan ?Water Way? in 2005.

 

In 2006 Penrith City Council was among the first councils in the state to develop a Water Savings Action Plan (WSAP) in response to the statutory requirement of the Energy Administration Amendment (Water and Energy Savings) Act 2005.? Focusing on our most water intensive facilities, this plan identified a program of works to be implemented over the four year period from 2006-10.

 

The improvements to Council?s water management practices were recognised in April 2009, when Council was acknowledged as having an accredited 5-Star Water Management System under the Sydney Water Every Drop Counts Business Program. This was confirmed through an independently verified Water Management Audit.

 

This Draft WEP has been prepared as the next version of the WSAP in order to meet our obligations under the EAA Act 2005 while also satisfying criteria for ongoing eligibility for funding under the NSW Government?s Waste and Sustainability Improvement Payments (WaSIP) Program.

 

Preparation of the Water Efficiency Plan

The Draft WEP has been developed by the Sustainability Team with assistance and input from a number of departments and individual facilities managers and operators, and has been prepared in accordance with the ?Local Council Guide for Water Efficiency Plans? produced by the former Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (now the Office of Environment and Heritage).

 

These guidelines identify three main components of Water Efficiency Plans:

???? Identifying baseline water consumption and the top ten water using facilities;

???? An assessment of commitment at management level to water management; and

???? The completion of water audits at each of the identified water intensive facilities.

?

The resulting Draft WEP is a report combining the baseline water consumption, Council?s commitments to water management actions as well as the specific water saving opportunities that are identified for each individual facility. The Draft WEP has been provided to Councillors under separate cover.

 

Following adoption of the Draft WEP by Council it will be submitted to the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage for their review to assess compliance with the EAA Act and the requirements of the WaSIP program. Given the regular engagement with the Office during the preparation of the plan, it is expected that any feedback provided to Council would be minor in nature, requiring only small changes to the Draft WEP.

 

Baseline Water Consumption and Identification of Water Intensive Facilities

Historically, Council has compared its annual water consumption against a baseline year of 2001-02, with water consumption of 286,189 kilolitres. Council?s water consumption for all facilities, including the controlled entities, in 2009-10 was 207,847 kilolitres, a reduction of 27% on the baseline year.

 

As illustrated in Figure 1 over page, Council has achieved significant water savings since the baseline year. These savings have been achieved through the implementation of a wide range of water efficiency initiatives including the installation of rainwater tanks, the use of alternative water sources, upgrades of water using fixtures and improved management practices.

 

This overall decrease becomes even more significant as Penrith Whitewater Stadium, a large water user, was not included in the baseline consumption data. Consumption for the Whitewater Stadium has been included in the water consumption figures from 2006 onwards.

 

 

Figure 1 ? Historical corporate water use of all Penrith City Council facilities

 

 

 

Figure 1 also shows that despite an overall decrease since 2001-02 that there has been an increasing trend since 2007-08. This increasing trend can be attributed to the following:

???? An increase in the number of facilities owned and operated by Penrith City Council since the baseline year; and

???? Changes to Level 3 water restrictions in June 2008, and the introduction of Water Wise Rules by Sydney Water Corporation in June 2009, resulting in an increase in the irrigation of Council?s sporting fields and gardens.

Data from the 2009-10 financial year was used to identify Council?s ten highest water consuming facilities to be covered by this plan. These are outlined in Table 1.

 

Table 1: Top ten water consuming facilities (2009-10)

 


Facility


Facility Type

2009-10
Consumption

kL/yr

Ripples Leisure Centre
Creek Rd, St Marys

Swimming and Fitness Centre

16,152

Civic Centre
High St, Penrith

Administration Building and Library

12,476

Peppertree Reserve
Swallow Dr, Erskine Park

Playing Fields, Children?s Centre and Community Centres

9,119

Mark Leece Sporting Oval
Bennett Rd St Clair

Playing Fields

8,432

Penrith Swim Centre
Station St, Penrith

Swimming Centre

7,096

Banks Drive Reserve
Banks Dr St Clair

Playing Fields

6,511

Cook Park
Wilson St St Marys

Playing Fields

5,645

Ripples Hydrotherapy
Creek Rd St Marys

Hydrotherapy Centre

5,325

Parker Street Reserve
King St Penrith

Playing Fields

5,036

Depot
Copeland St Kingswood

Works Depot

4,910

Total

80,702

 

Commitment at Management Level

A key component in the development of the Water Efficiency Plan is the completion of an assessment of commitment to water efficiency at management level. This is an assessment of the systems Council has in place for managing water use, with the opportunity to identify actions for improving water management across the organisation.

 

The biannual Facility Managers Meeting, held 18 April 2011, was used to complete the suggested template provided in the DECCW Guidelines. Eighteen staff members from across the operational areas of Council participated in this process.?

 

The actions arising out of this process, along with other actions that have been identified through discussions with managers and through the water auditing process have been combined into one action table with responsibility and timeframes for completion. All management actions are included as Appendix A to this report.

 

Water Audits

Council engaged the Department of Public Works to undertake comprehensive water audits of each of the ten facilities identified in Table 1. The audits were undertaken to assess water usage at the site and to identify potential actions to improve water efficiency. Each water audit includes the following components:

-???? A brief description of the site;

-???? An examination of historical water use at the site;

-???? Identification of site baseline water use and relevant Key Performance Indicators;

-???? Hydraulic diagram;

-???? Water using fixtures inventory;

-???? A breakdown of normal water use at the site; and

-???? Identification of potential water saving opportunities / projects.

The identified water savings actions for each site are broken into the following categories:

-???? Cost Effective Actions ? those with a payback period of 5 years and less;

-???? Potentially Cost Effective Actions ? those with a payback period between 5 and 7 years; and

-???? Other Actions ? those with a payback period of greater than 7 years, or where further investigation is required to determine with certainty the savings, capital costs and paybacks involved.

 

Only the cost-effective actions have been allocated completion dates in the WEP. It is expected that funding for these cost-effective actions would come from general revenue budgets as many of the actions could be incorporated into existing budgets and maintenance programs. There is also the opportunity for projects to be funded from other sources including Council?s Sustainability Revolving Fund and government grants and funds, such as the WaSIP program.

?

The potentially cost effective actions have not been tasked for completion, however they are included as there may be opportunities in the future to seek additional funding for these actions, or to include them as part of larger planned upgrades and projects.

 

All water efficiency actions identified through the audits are included as Appendix B to this report.? Cumulatively these actions will save Council 39.2 kilolitres per day when implemented. This is equivalent to a saving of 18% of the water use of these ten facilities, or 7% of Council?s total water use.

 

It is important to note that the number of cost effective actions that have been identified through the water audits is relatively low. This is primarily a result of the extensive program of water efficiency improvements that have been undertaken across Council?s operations over previous years.

 

Conclusion

The adoption of the Draft WEP provides an excellent opportunity for Council to demonstrate its ongoing commitment to reducing its water consumption. The Draft WEP outlines a comprehensive series of actions for completion between 2011 and 2015 which will act to further improve the efficiency of water management across Council and within our most water intensive facilities.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Draft Water Efficiency Plan be received.

2.???? The draft Water Efficiency Plan be adopted.

3.???? Council?s Sustainability and Planning Manager be authorised to make any minor changes to the Plan if required by the NSW Office of Environment and Heritage.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. ?

Appendix A:? Water Management Actions

1 Page

Appendix

2. ?

Appendix B:? Summary of Water Efficiency Actions

4 Pages

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 22 August 2011

Appendix 1 - Appendix A:? Water Management Actions

-??????????

Appendix A ? Water Management Actions for Implementation 2011-15

Action

Planned Completion Date

Responsibility

Undertake a staff engagement program to encourage water efficiency at Council facilities.

Jul-2012

SPM

Install signage and / or stickers to encourage the reporting of leaks.

Jul-2012

SPM

Produce biannual water reports to review consumption, leakage and tracking against water efficiency key performance indicators.

Jul-2013

SPM

Audit and record the efficiency of all water using fixtures in Council?s Asset Management System.

Jul-2013

CWM

Undertake a review of the availability of keys to access Council?s sporting facilities, and if required implement a program to ensure access is available in order to carry out urgent maintenance.

Jul-2015

CWM

Progressively implement back to base monitoring systems at playing fields which report moisture levels and water consumption.   

Ongoing

PM

Ensure all new water using fixtures installed have a minimum five star WELS rating.

Ongoing

CWM

Undertake biannual Facility Managers meeting to discuss water management and prioritise activities.

Ongoing

SPM



 


Policy Review Committee Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 22 August 2011

Appendix 2 - Appendix B:? Summary of Water Efficiency Actions

 

temp


temp


temp


temp

?


A Liveable City

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

4??????? Parks and Leisure Association Conference

?

URGENT

 

5??????? Proposed Development of Andrews Road Baseball Facility

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 22 August 2011

A Liveable City

 

 

4

Parks and Leisure Association Conference???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Andrew Robinson, Recreation Manager

Authorised by:??????????? Andrew Robinson, Recreation Manager??

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with active and healthy communities (19)

Strategic Response

Provide community facilities, and recreation and leisure programs, that encourage healthy activity (19.1)

???????

 

Executive Summary

The 13th Parks and Leisure Association (PLA) Annual National Conference is being held between 18 - 21 September 2011 at the Esplanade Hotel in Fremantle, Western Australia. The conference which is themed ?Partnering?, is the premier industry conference and, for the first time, will incorporate the International Federation of Parks and Recreation Administration Asia-Pacific Congress.

 

Consisting of technical tours, keynote speakers, forums and seminars, the conference will focus on the immediate and future challenges facing the parks and leisure profession.

 

This report suggests that Council nominate interested Councillors to attend the Parks and Leisure Association Annual National Conference.?

 

Background

The Conference is attended by parks and leisure industry professionals from a diverse range of sectors including public, commercial and voluntary. Conference delegates have the opportunity to listen to keynote speakers, take part in seminar sessions and visit a range of parks and recreation facilities as field studies.

 

Some of the themes of the topics that will be the focus of workshops, panel sessions, presentations, and technical tours to parks, recreation and municipal facilities in Fremantle? are:

-??????? Developing healthy lifestyles through parks

-?????????? The relevance of leisure to national and city strategies

-?????????? Good green space governance for healthy and competitive cities.

 

The diverse and interactive program will be designed to stimulate thinking, showcase best practice, provide ideas and suggest solutions to ensure parks and leisure continue to be responsive to the community and the industry.

 

A conference program outlining more detail about the subject matter and key note speakers has been provided to Councillors under separate cover.

 

 

Conclusion

The Conference addresses many of the issues confronting recreation facility and parks and leisure provision in Penrith. It is anticipated that attendance at the Conference will:

 

-??????? Provide insight into innovative research or practice relating to conference themes and

????????? topics;

-??????? Provide a forum at which delegates can discuss and seek answers to related problems

and issues, or challenge convention;

-??????? Provide lessons which conference delegates can put into practice;

-??????? Illustrate current issues that affect others;

-??????? Provide the opportunity to exchange practice and research learning;

-??????? Demonstrate to delegates examples of how to break new ground on an old issue;

-??????? Inspire delegates through the presentation of creative and exciting projects, programs

????????? and ideas.

 

It is therefore suggested that Council nominates interested Councillors to attend the Parks and Leisure Association Annual National Conference.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Parks and Leisure Association Conference be received

2.???? Council nominate interested and available Councillors to attend the Parks and Leisure Association Annual National Conference.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


 

 

A Vibrant City

 

 

There were no reports under this Delivery Program when the Business Paper was compiled


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


Urgent Report

 

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

CONTENTS

 

Item?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Page

 

A LIVEABLE CITY

 

5??????? Proposed Development of Andrews Road Baseball Facility

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting - Urgent Report?????????????????????????????????????????? 22 August 2011

A Liveable City

 

 

5

Proposed Development of Andrews Road Baseball Facility???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Andrew Robinson, Recreation Manager

Authorised by:??????????? David Burns, Group Manager - City Presentation ??

 

Objective

Our public spaces encourage safe and healthy communities

Community Outcome

A City with active and healthy communities (19)

Strategic Response

Provide community facilities, and recreation and leisure programs, that encourage healthy activity (19.1)

???????

 

Executive Summary

At Council?s Ordinary Meeting on 15 August 2011 a report was presented outlining representations made by Penrith Baseball Club to Councillors and Council Officers seeking funding to assist the Club develop batting cages and pitching cages/bullpens at Andrews Road baseball facility. It was resolved that a further report providing additional detail about the project be brought to tonight?s Policy Review Committee meeting.

 

Council?s Recreation Manager has reviewed the project with a representative of Penrith Baseball Club and established that the Club?s priority will be to build the batting cages first and, as a second priority, provide the pitching cages/bullpens. The Club has indicated that to construct the batting cages a financial contribution of $22,320 is required and that an ?in kind? contribution of $28,732 has been agreed in principle for this project. Similarly, to install the pitching cages/bull pens a financial contribution of $9,086 is required, with $4,758 being agreed to in principle as an ?in kind? contribution. Letters of commitment have been requested confirming the ?in kind? contribution however these have not been received at the time of submitting the report.

 

Material specifications have been provided by Penrith Baseball Club, for the construction of the facilities, and these meet the requirements of Council Officers.

Background

Penrith Baseball Club has been utilising the Andrews Road Complex since 1988. The Club currently provides baseball programs such as Aussie T-Ball for children from 4 years old, as well as the opportunity for adults to train and compete in matches. Competitively, the Club competes in the Sydney Major League, Women?s Major League, and senior and junior competitions in the Greater Western Baseball Association. The Sydney Major League is the highest level semi-professional baseball league in Sydney. The Club has provided membership numbers for the last three years however, despite requesting a breakdown of where members reside, this detail has not been provided at the time of submitting this report. Member number details are:

 

 

 

 

 

Year

Juniors Teeball

Seniors Summer League

Seniors Winter League

Womens League

Major League

Non-Playing Members

Total Membership

2008-2009

102

24

122

26

53

50

377

2009-2010

104

0 (* Note 1)

120

26

55

35

340

2010-2011

118

25

129

26

55

53

406 (*Note 2)

2011-2012

137

22

0

26

50

51

286 (*Note 3)

 

*Note 1:???? Senior Summer League cancelled by the Greater West Baseball Association.

 

*Note 2:???? Member figures in the Council report on 15 August of 450 were supplied by the Club and have been subsequently revised.

 

*Note 3:???? Summer registrations are still open. Winter registrations take place in May 2012. The Club is anticipating a 20-25% increase in membership based on registrations at a comparable stage last year.

 

Since 1988, Penrith City Council has provided a range of facility infrastructure improvements at Andrews Road, and these include to the amenities building, lighting to the main diamond, backstops to both fields, an automatic irrigation system, sealed car park and driveway, fencing to both fields, and the provision of bollards, seating and bins.

 

There are 3 other baseball venues in the Penrith Local Government Area at Monfarville Reserve, Chapman Gardens and Samuel Marsden Fields. Representation has been received during the last eighteen months from clubs, utilising the 4 baseball venues in the LGA, for facility enhancement or the provision of new facilities.

 

Current Situation

At Andrews Road baseball complex Penrith Baseball Club has provided a proposed 5 year facility development plan.

 

As a first stage, the Club has identified the provision of batting cages and pitching bullpens for development in 2011-2012. Since the report to the Ordinary Meeting on 15 August 2011, Council Officers have met with a representative of the Club and refined the project budget. The total project cost, based on the figures provided, is $64,896 (incl GST). It has been established that the Club?s priority will be to build the batting cages first and, as a second priority, provide the pitching cages/bullpens.

 

The Club has demonstrated, through the provision of quotes, that to construct the batting cages it will cost $51,052 (incl. GST). The Club has indicated that an ?in kind? contribution of $28,732 has been agreed in principle for this project which means that financial contribution of $22,320 is required to enable the installation.

 

To install the pitching cages/bull pens the quotes provided indicate that it will cost $13,844 (incl. GST). The Club has indicated that an ?in kind? contribution of $4,758 has been agreed to in principle for this project which means that a financial contribution of $9,086 is required to enable the installation.

 

Letters of commitment have been requested confirming the ?in kind? contribution for both elements of the project however only one of these has been received by Council Officers at the time of submitting the report. This commitment was to supply concrete to the value $3,080 ?in kind? leaving a further $4,400 of concrete to be funded. It has also been explored as to whether Council can provide any services ?in kind?. At this stage this is not required as the services that could be provided are already being provided in principle as ?in kind?.

 

The Club has indicated that it would like the entire project to be completed prior to the baseball season commencing on 17 September.? It has also outlined that should the financial contributions required not become available, a significantly reduced project can be implemented, however this is unlikely to meet current and future needs, delivering a limited product built to minimum specifications.?

 

In the previous report submitted to Council, the Club had indicated that $8,000 could be made available to enable the completion of the project. Council Officers have since had the Club?s financial statements (from 2009 ? 2011) made available to them and, in discussion with the Club, have determined that it would be more prudent for the Club to allocate a sum of $3,000 towards the project. While the Club does have $8,000 in its accounts, the lesser contribution will enable the Club to retain sufficient reserves to support its current ongoing operations and future sustainability (e.g. contributing to the ongoing repair and maintenance of the new facilities).

 

Council Officers have met with Baseball NSW who confirmed that Penrith Baseball, playing the highest level of baseball of the clubs in the City, would benefit from additional facilities to help with the Club?s development in the league and that they were one of the few clubs without such a facility. Traditionally placed in the lower reaches of the league, Baseball NSW indicated that the Club had made improvements administratively and on the playing field during the course of the last twelve months.

 

Baseball NSW supported the Council Officer?s desire to develop a strategic facility development plan for baseball across the Local Government Area, coordinated by Baseball NSW and involving engagement with the clubs. It was also recognised that player development pathways need to be more clearly established and that Baseball NSW had commenced this process through the development of its Strategic Plan 2011-2016.

 

Financial Services Manager?s Comment

Council recently adopted the 2011-12 Operational Plan.? No additional capacity has been identified in the 2011-12 budget(s) to include this project.? Council?s Parks Asset Renewal Program has been developed on a facility asset condition basis and prioritised accordingly.? Funding through this program is for the renewal of existing infrastructure.

 

The Recreation Reserve has a projected balance of $55,290 as at 30 June 2012. A report will be presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council scheduled for 5 September 2011 where consideration will be given to a feasibility study for the potential redevelopment of the Woodriff Gardens Tennis Complex as a Regional Tennis Facility.? It is anticipated that the study would require funding of up to $30,000 and leave the balance in the Reserve at $25,920.? This sum could be required for tennis facility maintenance requirements and as a contingency for other urgent recreation works required. Should Council determine that the Reserve be utilised contribution could of $6,086 could be provided still allowing for a limited contingency for other priorities within the Reserve. This amount, added to the Club?s contribution of $3,000, would allow the completion of the pitching cages/bullpens.

 

The Club could also be assisted in making an application to the NSW Communities Sports and Recreation Department Facilities Grant for any outstanding shortfall.? It is anticipated that applications will need to be made later this year, or early 2012, following confirmation of the funding availability. This grant requires matching funds and under this program grants will not be made available for projects that have already commenced. Should the Club?s in principle ?in kind? support be confirmed then this would be sufficient to act as match funding.??

 

Conclusion

Development of the bull pens and practice batting cages will further allow the Club to promote the sport, as well as develop players? skills to ensure that the Club remains competitive in the various competitions in which it is represented. Most notably, player development is important for continued improvement in the Sydney Major League where the Club finished 8th in a 10 team league in 2010-2011, competing against teams from the Central Coast, McArthur and Cronulla among others.

 

While this project has some merit and would benefit a Club of approximately 400-500 members, it is one of a range of competing new initiatives which clubs across all sporting codes, including other baseball clubs, are seeking to implement across the Local Government Area and which also may be the subject of future bids for Council funds. It has been identified that in future a policy and guidelines should be developed for the allocation and prioritisation of Council funds for new sport and recreation projects proposed by clubs.

 

For both the pitching cages/bull pens and batting cages to be constructed the financial summary is:

 

Facility

In Principle ?In Kind?

Financial Shortfall

Batting Cages

$28,732

$22,320

Bull Pens/Pitching Cages

$4,758

$9,086

Total

$33,490

$31,406

 

As a contribution towards the shortfall the Club will provide $3,000 leaving $28,406 unfunded.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That the information contained in the report on Proposed Development of Andrews Road Baseball Facility be received.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


 

ATTACHMENTS???

 

 

Date of Meeting:???????? Monday 22 August 2011

Delivery Program:????? A Leading City

Issue:??????????????????????????? Deliver services for the City and its communities, and maintain our long term financial sustainability (4.1)

Report Title:??????????????? Penrith City Council Community Survey 2011

Attachments:?????????????? Penrith City Council Community Survey 2011 Report

????????????????????????????????????? 2011 Community Survey Measures Alignment with Council Services



Policy Review Committee Meeting????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 22 August 2011

Attachment 1 - Penrith City Council Community Survey 2011 Report

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 22 August 2011

Attachment 2 - 2011 Community Survey Measures Alignment with Council Services

 

Attachment 2

 

2011 Community Survey Measures Alignment to Council Services

 

1.???

1.?

1.?

Service / Facility

(as listed in the 2011 Community Survey)

Council?s External Services

(as listed in the 2010-2011 Operational Plan)

Resp.

Mgr

1.??? Provision of services and facilities for older people

Community & Cultural Development

CCDM

 

2.??? Provision of services and facilities for youth

 

3.??? Promoting the city and running community festivals and events

Marketing

CMM

 

4.??? Provision of information from Council about services and facilities

Communication

 

5.??? Provision of services and facilities for children

Children?s Services

CSMO

 

6.??? Provision of bus shelters

Building Maintenance & Construction

CWM

 

7.??? Provision of public toilets

 

8.??? Condition of local roads

Civil Construction and Maintenance

 

9.??? Maintaining public drains

 

10.? Provision of cycleways

 

11.? Provision of footpaths

 

12.? Condition of cycleways

 

13.? Condition of footpaths

 

14.? Building construction and development application service

Development Applications

DSM

 

Building Approvals and Certificates

 

15.? The health of Nepean River and creeks

Environmental Health

EHM

 

16.? Food safety and hygiene in local restaurants

 

17.? Provision of parking

Traffic Management, Parking & Road Safety

ESM

 

18.? Ease of traffic flow

 

19.? Safety of local roads

 

20.? Provision of library? services

Libraries

LSM

 

21.? Condition of? Cemeteries

Cemeteries

PDASM

 

22.? Provision of street and public space lighting

Community Safety

 

23.? Condition of council buildings, neighbourhood facilities etc

Neighbourhood Facilities Management

 

24.? Provision of council buildings, neighbourhood facilities etc

 

25.? Condition of public spaces

Public Domain Maintenance

 

26.? Cleanliness and condition of public toilets

 

27.? Condition of bus shelters

 

28.? Graffiti removal

 

29.? Litter control and street cleaning

 

30.? Condition of parks, playgrounds and reserves

Parks Management & Maintenance

PM

 

31.? Condition of sporting fields

 

32.? Provision of sporting fields

 

33.? Provision of parks, playgrounds and reserves

 

34.? Condition of swimming pools and leisure centres

Recreation & Leisure Facilities Management

RM

 

35.? Balancing growth of our city whilst enhancing its unique characteristics eg rural character, natural areas, threatened species

City Planning

SPM

 

36.? Supporting and encouraging local industry and jobs

 

37.? Council speaking to other levels of government, business and community groups

Regional Planning and Advocacy

 

38.? Domestic animal control

Animal Control

WCPM

 

39.? Domestic garbage collection

Waste Management

 

40.? Protection of bushland, natural environment and wildlife

Bushland Management

PM

 

Environmental Protection

EHM

 

Regulatory Control

WCPM

 

 

 

?