30 November 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 5 December 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 Robert Ardill - 20 November 2011 to 21 December 2011 inclusive.

 

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

 

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

Policy Review Committee Meeting - 14 November 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 5 December 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 14 NOVEMBER 2011 AT 7:36PM

PRESENT

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies, Deputy Mayor, Councillor Jackie Greenow and Councillors Jim Aitken OAM, Kaylene Allison, Robert Ardill, Mark Davies, Ross Fowler OAM, Ben Goldfinch, Prue Guillaume, Marko Malkoc, Karen McKeown, Kath Presdee and John Thain.

 

APOLOGIES

PRC 64? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Ben Goldfinch that apologies be received for Councillors Kevin Crameri OAM and Councillor Tanya Davies.

?

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES - Policy Review Committee Meeting - 31 October 2011

PRC 65? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Ben Goldfinch seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc that the minutes of the Policy Review Committee Meeting of 31 October 2011 be confirmed.

?

DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

?

There were no declarations of interest.

?

DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

Procedural Motion

PRC 66? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Jackie Greenow seconded Councillor Karen McKeown that agenda item 3 be brought forward to be considered before item 2.

 

A Liveable City

 

1??????? City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors

His Worship the Mayor, Councillor Greg Davies introduced the report and invited Greg Crawford, the General Manager of Ripples to give a presentation on the Annual Report and Board of Directors.

PRC 67? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Kath Presdee seconded Councillor Marko Malkoc

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd - Annual Report and Board of Directors be received

2.???? Council agree to underwrite the operations of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd until the presentation to the Council of the City of Penrith Regional Indoor Aquatic and Recreation Centre Ltd Annual Report for 2011/2012.

 

A Vibrant City

 

3??????? Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report

Councillor Ross Fowler OAM introduced the report and invited Mr John Kirkman, CEO, PPVA and Mr John Reed, Chief Financial Officer, PPVA? to give a presentation on the Annual Report and Board of Directors.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

PRC 68? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Karen McKeown seconded Councillor Jim Aitken OAM

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd - Annual Report be received.

2.???? Council agree to underwrite the operation of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd until the presentation to Council of the Penrith Performing and Visual Arts Ltd Annual Report for 2011/2012.

 

A Liveable City

 

2??????? Draft Penrith Accessible Trails Hierarchy Strategy (PATHS)??????????????????????????????????????

Engineering Services Manager, Adam Wilkinson introduced the report and gave a presentation on the Draft Penrith Accessible Trails Hierarchy Strategy.

Councillor Robert Ardill left the meeting, the time being 8:56pm and did not return.

PRC 69? RESOLVED on the MOTION of Councillor Marko Malkoc seconded Councillor Prue Guillaume

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Draft Penrith Accessible Trails Hierarchy Strategy (PATHS) be received

2.???? Council endorse the Draft Penrith Accessible Trails Hierarchy Strategy for the purpose of public exhibition.

3.???? A report be brought back to Council detailing the results of the consultation and for the adoption of the Penrith Accessible Trails Hierarchy Strategy.

?

There being no further business the Chairperson declared the meeting closed the time being 9:02pm.

????


DELIVERY PROGRAM REPORTS

 

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

 

 

A Leading City

 

1??????? Results of Consultation - Planning Proposal for Amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 and draft Heritage Local Environmental Plan

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

?

A City of Opportunities

 

2??????? Placement of Council's newspage

??

A Liveable City

 

3??????? Sportsground Management Strategy

?

A Vibrant City

 

4??????? Subsidies to Local Bands, Orchestras and Musical and Performance Groups

 

5??????? Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review

?

 


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


A Leading City

 

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

 

1??????? Results of Consultation - Planning Proposal for Amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 and draft Heritage Local Environmental Plan

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

A Leading City

 

 

1

Results of Consultation - Planning Proposal for Amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 and draft Heritage Local Environmental Plan???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Elizabeth Hanlon, Senior Environmental Planner

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

 

Objective

We plan responsibly for now and the future

Community Outcome

A Council that plans responsibly for a sustainable future (3)

Strategic Response

Build our City's future on the principles of sustainability (3.1)

??????

Procedural note: Section 375A of the Local Government Act 1993 requires that a division be called in relation to this matter.

 

Executive Summary

?? In May 2011, Council endorsed a Draft Planning Proposal to correct a number of minor anomalies that have emerged from the implementation of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010).? Council also resolved to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a ?Gateway Determination? to enable community and public authority consultation to proceed.

?? Following receipt of the Gateway Determination, the Planning Proposal has been publicly exhibited and the Roads and Maritime Services (formerly the Roads and Traffic Authority) (RMS) and the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS) consulted.

?? Submissions have been received from the Orchard Hills Action Group, the RMS and the RFS.

?? It is recommended that three minor amendments be made to the Planning Proposal, prior to forwarding the Planning Proposal to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure with a request to make the plan in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

Background

At its Ordinary meeting of 21 March 2011, Council endorsed a Draft Planning Proposal to correct a number of minor anomalies that have emerged from the implementation of Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 (LEP 2010).? The purpose of the Planning Proposal is principally to ensure that Council?s intent for LEP 2010 is achieved in relation to planning controls that apply to land in Orchard Hills and to subdivisions proposed under community title schemes.? In addition, the Planning Proposal addresses various minor discrepancies to ensure that the written instrument and maps for LEP 2010 are accurate.?

 

At its Ordinary meeting of 30 May 2011, Council further resolved to include two additional amendments in the Planning Proposal, relating to the Twin Creeks estate and land in Smeeton Road, Londonderry.? Council also resolved to forward the Planning Proposal to the Department of Planning and Infrastructure for a ?Gateway Determination?.

 

The Planning Proposal was submitted to the Department on 8 June 2011.? On 5 October 2011, Council received the Gateway Determination to enable consultation to proceed with the community and public authorities on the Planning Proposal.

The Planning Proposal

The Planning Proposal seeks to correct certain anomalies that have emerged from the everyday use of LEP 2010 since its publication in September 2010.? Specifically, the Planning Proposal will:

??? Clarify the relationship between LEP 2010 and Sydney Regional Environmental Plan No. 25 - Orchard Hills (SREP 25);

??? Make clear the minimum lot size requirements for subdivisions proposed under community title schemes;

??? Retain the prohibition on secondary dwellings in the Twin Creeks estate at Luddenham;

??? Amend the clause relating to development in the flight paths of the proposed Second Sydney Airport to ensure that it is consistent with the requirements of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure;

??? Correct minor discrepancies to ensure the written instruments and maps for LEP 2010 and the draft Heritage LEP are accurate.

Gateway Determination

The Gateway Determination for the Planning Proposal was received by Council on 5 October 2011 and required three amendments to the Planning Proposal, prior to its exhibition.? These amendments are minor and do not change the intended outcomes of the Planning Proposal previously presented to Council.? Instead, they help to better explain the intent of the Planning Proposal.

 

Further, the Gateway Determination required the Planning Proposal to be publicly available for comment for 14 days.? Council is also required to consult with Roads and Maritime Services (formerly the Roads and Traffic Authority) (RMS) and the NSW Rural Fire Service (RFS).

Community Consultation

The Planning Proposal was exhibited for comment from Monday 14 November 2011 to Monday 28 November 2011.? One submission was received from the Orchard Hills Action Group.? The submission requested a community meeting with Council officers to outline the proposed amendments to LEP 2010.? The submission also requested an extension of time for the exhibition and receipt of comments until the end of February 2012.

 

Prior to making the submission, Council officers met with the President of the Orchard Hills Action Group and explained the effect of the Planning Proposal on Orchard Hills.? The Planning Proposal simply clarifies that LEP 2010 will be the applicable planning document for Orchard Hills, as Council intended, and that SREP 25 will no longer apply, with the exception of one site.? That site is land known as ?The Knoll? at Nos.17-53 Caddens Road, Kingswood, which was deferred from LEP 2010 in response to a submission from Landcom.

 

During the meeting, the President of the Orchard Hills Action Group advocated for further subdivision and development in Orchard Hills.? Given the Planning Proposal does not directly relate to this issue and merely clarifies that LEP 2010 is the correct planning document, a community meeting and extension of time for the Planning Proposal was not considered necessary.? The President of the Orchard Hills Action Group was advised accordingly in writing and by telephone.

?

Council?s current position is to retain a rural zone for Orchard Hills, generally with a minimum lot size for subdivision of 2 hectares, consistent with the recommendations of Council?s adopted Rural Lands Strategy (2003).? Further, Council has resolved to undertake a future strategic review of Penrith rural lands, including consideration of the rural land uses in and gateway presentation of Orchard Hills.? This review, however, will not commence until completion of Stage 2 of Council?s principal local environmental plan, which is now expected to be completed by 2013.

Consultation with Public Authorities

The Gateway Determination required Council to consult with RMS and the RFS under section 56(2)(d) of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (EP&A Act).

 

RMS provided specific advice on the amendments in the Planning Proposal, which propose swapping the ?SP2 Classified Road? and ?SP2 Local Road? references on Mulgoa Road, Jamisontown on the Land Zoning Map and Land Reservation Acquisition Map for LEP 2010.? These amendments are shown in Figures 1 and 2 of Appendix 1.? (Coloured copies of these figures are provided under separate cover).? RMS support the amendments, however, indicated that the SP2 Classified Road zoning and reservation should only extend to Blaikie Road, as shown in Figure 3 of Appendix 1.? (A coloured copy of this figure is also provided under separate cover).? These changes will be made to the Planning Proposal.

 

The RFS has advised that it has ?no concerns or special consideration in relation to bushfire matters?.

Post exhibition changes to the Planning Proposal

It is proposed to amend the Planning Proposal as follows:

??? Amend the extent of the SP2 Classified Road zoning and reservation on the LEP 2010 Land Zoning Map and Land Reservation Acquisition Map, respectively, on Mulgoa Road, Jamisontown as requested by RMS;

??? Correct the property description for the heritage item known as ?Regentville Workers? Terrace?, No.1 Bundarra Road, Regentville, to include Lot 3 DP 16540; and

??? Delete amendments 5(b), 5(c) and 5(d), which relate to land use terms used in the Land Use Table, as these amendments have subsequently been made following the publication of amendments to the Standard LEP Instrument in July 2011 by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.

 

Although it is unlikely that these changes will require re-exhibition of the Planning Proposal, the decision to re-exhibit rests with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure.

 

In accordance with section 57(5) of the EP&A Act, it is not proposed to arrange a public hearing on the issues raised in submissions.

Conclusion

Although minor in nature, the amendments to LEP 2010 and the draft Heritage LEP in the Planning Proposal are essential to ensure Council?s intent for LEP 2010 is achieved.? If endorsed by Council, it is proposed that the Planning Proposal will be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure with a request to consider the post-exhibition changes and make the plan in accordance with the EP&A Act.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Results of Consultation - Planning Proposal for Amendments to Penrith Local Environmental Plan 2010 and draft Heritage Local Environmental Plan be received.

2.???? Council endorse the post-exhibition changes to the Planning Proposal as outlined in the report.

3.???? Council not hold a public hearing in relation to the Planning Proposal.

4.???? Once the post-exhibition changes are made, the amended Planning Proposal, be forwarded to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure with a request to:

a.?? consider the changes made to the Planning Proposal in response to the public exhibition; and

b.?? make the plan in accordance with the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. ?

Mulgoa Road Widening

4 Pages

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

Appendix 1 - Mulgoa Road Widening

 

temp


temp


temp


temp

?


A City of Opportunities

 

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

 

2??????? Placement of Council's newspage

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

A City of Opportunities

 

 

2

Placement of Council's newspage???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Carl Spears, Principal Communications Officer

Authorised by:??????????? Brian Steffen, Group Manager - Information & Customer Relations??

 

Objective

We have a say in our future

Community Outcome

A Council that involves, informs and responds (10)

Strategic Response

Engage our communities by creating opportunities for participation, listening, provide information and responding (10.1)

???????

 

Executive Summary

Based on market testing conducted in October, the Advertising Working Party (AWP) agreed the Western Weekender has a strong readership across the Local Government Area (LGA) and is the most appropriate publication for Council?s regular newspage.

The Western Weekender provided the lowest price of all publications in the LGA with the advantage of reaching the LGA with one newspaper. Council staff will continue to monitor distribution and provide feedback about distribution to the publisher for action.

 

Further savings will be made by placing the newspage in the Western Weekender for a two year period, to which the AWP agreed. The savings will be used to further strategically promote Council?s services and activities both in print and electronic media.

 

The Corporate Communications and Marketing department will continue to review the design and effectiveness of Council?s regular and casual advertising to ensure value for money, reach and effectiveness.

 

The AWP also considered information provided with regard to services provided by Leonard Holt Robb (LHR) in terms of production, booking and placement of all of Council?s advertising needs. The AWP agreed that the services provided by LHR are economically reasonable and should be maintained. LHR provides administrative support, design support, and strategic campaign advice and scheduling to Council. To bring all the services provided in-house Council would need to employ up to two full time staff, which represents about double the cost of using LHR services.

 

Background

At the AWP?s meeting on 22 August 2011, a number of Councillors expressed concerns about price, readership, delivery, and acceptance of local papers, and directed the Communications team to investigate readership figures and options regarding pricing and concerns regarding distribution delivery standards.

The local publishers were contacted and advised of the AWP?s request. All agreed to honour their quoted pricing until the review and subsequent information could be reported back to the AWP at the meeting on 21 November 2011. All publishers also advised there was no scope to provide a lower price than that offered in their proposals.

 

Council and its entities spend a considerable amount of money on advertising ? this includes the weekly news page and human resources advertisements as well as campaign and event advertising. It?s essential that Council is comprehensively communicating its messages effectively and receiving value for money as well as reaching the widest possible audience.

 

In the recent Penrith City Council Community Survey 2011, 60.3% of respondents said their main source of information on Council?s activities came from newspapers.

 

This statistic gives a general indication that people receive information about Council from newspapers. This statistic does support newspapers as the most widely read communication medium for residents.

 

Conclusion

Council can receive full LGA coverage by using one publication with the Western Weekender and fulfil its legislative requirements. There is also significant cost benefit in continuing placement in the Western Weekender. A saving of $1140.50 can be made using the Western Weekender over the Penrith Press/Mt Druitt Standard and $724.90 over the Penrith/St Marys Star based on a one-year commitment.

A two-year commitment to the Western Weekender at a price of $1061.50 per week would realise further savings of $253.00 a week on the Western Weekender?s current price and is $1393.50 less per week than the Penrith Press/Mt Druitt Standard and $977.90 less per week than the Penrith Star/St Marys Star.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

????????? That:

 

1.???? The information contained in the report on Placement of Council's newspage be received

2.???? Council commit to placement of Council?s weekly newspage with the Western Weekender for a two year period effective immediately.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


 

 

A Green City

 

 

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


 

 

 

 

THIS PAGE HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK? INTENTIONALLY


A Liveable City

 

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

 

3??????? Sportsground Management Strategy

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

A Liveable City

 

 

3

Sportsground Management Strategy???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Virginia Tuckerman, Recreation Co-ordinator

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

A draft Sportsground Management Strategy was developed to assist Council to support the sustainable management and operations of sportsgrounds into the future. The strategy?s recommendations were based around the following themes and were developed after initial consultation and research:

-???? demand for, and capacity of, existing facilities;

-???? facility provision and their condition;

-???? planning and management; and

-???? resource availability and allocation.

 

The draft Sportsground Management Strategy has been presented to two Councillor Briefing Meetings on 23 August 2010 (presentation of strategy process and issues) and 14 February 2011 (presentation of strategy recommendations). Subsequently, at Council?s Ordinary Meeting on 15 August 2011 it was resolved that:

?The draft Sportsground Management Strategy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 30 days from 29 August 2011 and that the outcomes of the exhibition period be provided in a further report to Council.?

There have been 5 public submissions received during the exhibition period which have been provided to Council under separate cover. This report will outline the key points from the public submissions.

The report recommends that the information contained in the report on the draft Sportsground Management Strategy be received and that Council adopt the Sportsground Management Strategy also provided under separate cover. The draft Sportsground Management Strategy will be placed on the Council?s website also.

Background

As Penrith continues to develop as a Regional City, with regional facilities, so do the demands on sportsgrounds resulting from increasing population, the need to provide facilities for national, state, and local community competition, evolving and changing facility specifications of user sports as well as statutory regulations, the emergence and growth of new and traditional sports and other factors such as climate change. Therefore, a sportsground management study was commissioned with the objectives of:

?????????????? Examining usage capacities of existing sportsgrounds and associated facilities in Penrith LGA;

?????????????? Identifying sports that could co-locate at existing, or proposed new facilities, to maximise use of facilities and create efficiencies;

?????????????? Identifying schools and other sportsground facility providers that are willing to open their facilities for community sports use during their non core hours of operation;

?????????????? Ensuring that the provision of sportsgrounds meets the standards relevant to the sport and level of participation;

?????????????? Proposing a fees and charges structure for Council owned facilities which addresses community, school and commercial use;

?????????????? Determining policy guidelines, standards and frameworks;

 

?????????????? Providing a position statement / benchmark relating to Penrith City Council?s compliance with current legislative / statutory policies as well as relevant standards and guidelines relating to sportsground and associated facility provision;

?????????????? Ensuring stakeholders have regular opportunities to assist Council to plan, manage and develop sport and recreation facilities and services.

Penrith City Council engaged @Leisure Consultants to assist in the completion of a Sportsground Management Strategy for active recreation sites across the Local Government Area.

 

To prepare the draft Sportsground Management Strategy the consultants undertook research including:

 

?????????????? Asset and operational inventories of all Council owned sportsground complexes in Penrith Local Government Area (LGA);

?????????????? Consultation with sports clubs (surveys), peak sports organisations/associations, school and commercial operators, and relevant Council Officers (including grounds maintenance employees);

?????????????? Desk based research reviewing examples of best practice, policy, guidelines and standards relating to sportsground management, as well as a review of Council planning documentation including the PLANS study;

?????????????? A comprehensive floodlight audit of all facilities in the LGA.

 

 

As a result of this consultation process, several key themes and issues emerged. These have been presented to two Councillor Briefing Meetings on 23 August 2010 (presentation of strategy process and issues) and 14 February 2011 (presentation of strategy recommendations).

 

 

i)????????? Demand and capacity to meet demand

There are a number of sportsgrounds where carrying capacity is being exceeded whilst others are not being used to capacity.?

 

ii)???????? Facility provision and conditions

Operational and management practices need to develop to enable continuous improvement of building, ground and floodlight conditions, as well as spectator provision and access to facilities.

 

iii)??????? Planning and management

?????? An ongoing proactive approach to recreation planning and site specific master??? planning will contribute to the future cost effective management of the facilities, provision of facilities that meet the needs of the sport and statutory regulations, equitable funding allocation and readiness to take advantage of funding opportunities.

 

iv)??????? Resources to provide new and manage existing sports grounds

?????? It is recognised that there are only finite resources and sportsground improvements?? need to be undertaken in a prioritised approach and through partnerships with facility user groups. Additional sources of funding will also need to be generated.

(The evidence collected in relation to this issue was utilised, in part, to support the development of the Parks Asset Renewal Program and the strategy recommendations have subsequently been significantly addressed in the recently approved Special Rate Variation.)?

 

In addition to these issues, the draft Sportsground Management Strategy highlights risks associated with the current management, provision and operation of sports grounds and also indicates that Council needs to resolve matters relating to seasonal transitions, events, school sport, occupancy agreements, seasonal allocations and utility services.

 

Responding to the issues that emerged the draft strategy made recommendations with the aim of achieving the following selected goals:

 

1.?????? To manage and respond to changes in demand through close communication with sports and the analysis of up to date membership and usage data.

 

2.?????? To maximise use of available resources at a level that does not impact on the sustainability of playing surfaces.

 

3.?????? To provide lights at local, district or regional playing fields to a quality that meets Australian Standards and the operational requirements of the Council, the sport and users.

 

4.?????? To ensure that sportsground fees provide choice, are fair and transparent, and encourage participation by all members of the community.

 

5.?????? To ensure that amenities will be fit for purpose, designed to meet sports codes and accessibility standards, located in prominent sites and maintained long term in good condition.

 

6.?????? To provide a consistent level of infrastructure on each ground to maximise use and flexibility.

 

7.?????? To provide an additional quantity of funds for sportsground infrastructure and its renewal, as well as club development.

 

8.?????? To provide a range of infrastructure to support sports use of Council grounds that is

consistent with peak bodies? requirements and Australian Standards, and that protects community access.

 

9.?????? To encourage clubs to take responsibility for the cost of utilities used, and to be more environmentally sustainable.

 

10.???? To provide choice to residents seeking fitness and non-club sports, and manage use fairly to protect the use of sports grounds.

 

11.???? To encourage casual sports use of grounds outside peak club times, and in suitable locations.

 

12.???? To maximise the value and efficiency of running events.

 

13.???? To implement a booking and allocation system that seeks to maximise participation and support sustainable use, is administratively efficient and can assist in planning and determining demand.

 

It should be noted that obtaining club views and membership data was found to be very difficult unless the sports had paid staff, thus limiting recommendations about ground capacities and usage.

 

Public Exhibition Submissions

 

Process

 

At Council?s Ordinary Meeting on 15 August 2011 it was resolved that:

?The draft Sportsground Management Strategy be placed on public exhibition for a period of 30 days from 29 August 2011 and that the outcomes of the exhibition period be provided in a further report to Council.?

The public exhibition period has now closed and 5 submissions were received as part of this process. These have been provided to Council under separate cover and have come from: Nepean District Soccer Football Association; Penrith Rams Australian Football Club; Cranebrook Little Athletics; Penrith Oztag Association Inc; and Penrith District Grade Cricket Club. Submissions have also been received previously from Personal Trainers, Commercial Fitness Groups and members of the community regarding the possible introduction of Personal Trainer and Commercial Fitness Group Policy and these have been reported, and are being managed, as part of a separate process.

The opportunity to make submissions on the policy was promoted through the Mayoral Column, a media release distributed to local media outlets, and Council?s website. The draft Sportsground Management Strategy was also placed on display at the Penrith Civic Centre and posters were displayed in libraries, at Penrith Swimming Centre and St Clair Recreation Centre advertising the study and providing information as to how to make submissions. Finally, copies of the study, and information about the process, was sent to sports clubs, associations, schools and the Penrith Valley Sports Foundation. Sports clubs and associations were also advised of the strategy?s development in regular network meetings (e.g. sportsground allocation forum and monthly sport association/Council Officer operational discussions).

 

Review of Submissions

 

i)?????? Penrith Rams Australian Football Club

 

The club has outlined their growth in numbers and that they have a five year business plan which calls for the club to be playing in the AFL Sydney Premier Division competition by 2015. Premier league football requires access to an appropriate standard facility. While providing an appropriate playing surface Greygums Oval does not provide an appropriate home venue for Premier Division AFL because of the lack of appropriate ancillary and amenity facilities. The club has therefore indicated that they would like to utilise Howell Oval for 9 home games per season and continue to use Greygums Oval as a training venue. To facilitate this, the club has indicated that it would consider contributing to the upkeep of Howell Oval if it was to become a co-tenant.

 

The Sportsground Management Strategy has identified that it may be possible for Howell Oval to be used for junior AFL or Auskick during winter. The strategy also indicates that AFL is likely to grow in numbers over the next few years. There is no direct recommendation in the strategy that Howell Oval should be used as a senior AFL oval. At a recent meeting with AFL NSW/ACT it was agreed that they would provide a more detailed participation profile and desired facility hierarchy detailing more specific evidence of facility need and requirements. Therefore, there have been no amendments made to the draft strategy.

 

ii)????? Cranebrook Little Athletics

 

Cranebrook Little Athletics have outlined that they have concerns regarding the establishment of fees and charges for field use based on the recovery of maintenance costs for the fields. The principles and policy directions in the strategy (Volume 3) address a range of fee and charges opportunities. The policy direction has been amended to clarify that there are a number of fee and charges considerations that need to take place and that this will be done in full consultation with users. The policy therefore reads: ?As part of establishing Council?s annual fees and charges, and in lease and licence negotiations sportsground users will be consulted? about the following initiatives??

 

The only other matter where Cranebrook Little Athletics sought clarification is surrounding the wet weather policy. Council?s current practice supports the club?s suggestion in their submission of involving the club more. The current practice is that Council Officers make the decision on closing grounds for school sport and casual use from Monday to Friday, the clubs make their own decision regarding training during the week and use of sports grounds for competition at the weekend. For casual/event use of sports grounds at the weekend use of the ground is finalised in consultation with grounds staff from the Parks Department.

 

 

 

iii)???? Nepean District Soccer Football Association

 

Nepean District Soccer Football Association (NDSFA) provided feedback regarding the accuracy of detail in ?Volume 1 ? Demand and Supply?, as well as comprehensive submissions about the policy direction recommendations in ?Volume 3 ? Sports Ground Policy?, particularly in relation to; Occupancy Agreements, Sportsground Allocations, Fees and Charges, Utility Charges and School Use of Sports Grounds.

 

In response to the commentary provided about field charges for Myrtle Fields in Volume 1, the information contained in the draft strategy was representative of the submission by an individual club to the consultant. After review and clarification from NDSFA, the final strategy has been adjusted with the reference from the club being deleted.

 

The NDSFA?s commentary in relation to Occupancy Agreements indicates that greater clarity is required in lease arrangements. The intent of the policy is to establish that leases will allow community access to the grounds, dependent on the usage rate of the lessee. This provision will be identified and brokered during any lease negotiations. The draft policy has been amended to clarify this.

 

The submission regarding fees and charges indicates that the NDSFA are supportive and agree with most of the principles outlined in this section. The principles and policy directions in the strategy (Volume 3) address a range of fee and charges opportunities. The policy direction has been amended to clarify that there are a number of fee and charges considerations that need to take place and that this will be done in full consultation with users. The policy direction has been amended to: ?As part of establishing Council?s annual fees and charges, and in lease and licence negotiations sportsground users will be consulted? about the following initiatives??

 

There have been concerns highlighted regarding the current practice of the payment of utility charges.? The intent of the policy direction in the strategy is appropriate, focusing on energy management as well as fair and equitable management of utility payments. Clubs are currently responsible for the payment of floodlight use only, all other utility charges are paod by Council. Clubs will be engaged in consultation prior to introducing any new practice or process. While NDSFA?s comments have been noted there have been no changes to the draft strategy.

 

It has been strongly expressed in the NDSFA?s submission that there should be no free use of sports fields for organised groups, including schools. It is also the NDSFA?s opinion that all schools should be made to utilise all of their existing facilities before being granted? use of public facilities. This level of free use is in line with a recent Ministerial Circular from NSW Government (21 September 2011) which, among other statements, advocates that:

 

?Council?s are encouraged to provide affordable and equitable access to sporting and recreational fields for their communities, particularly young people.?

 

In light of the Ministerial Circular and the submission from NDSFA it is proposed that the draft strategy is amended to identify that the ongoing ?free use of sporting fields by school groups will be evaluated annually as part of the establishment of Council?s fees and charges.?

 

 

iv)???? Penrith District Grade Cricket Club

 

The club highlighted the co-operative and healthy arrangements that have been maintained with Council over almost four decades. It was suggested that further discussion was required in relation to the policy suggestions on Occupancy Agreements and Financial Contributions to Sports Grounds by Clubs. A subsequent meeting has been held with the club and no amendment to the draft strategy document has been necessary.

 

v)????? Penrith Oztag

 

Penrith Oztag has requested that a number of terminology changes and clarification of issues from Volume 1 be included in the final document. The necessary amendments have been made to reflect:

 

-? The correct names of the clubs and assocations.

-? Clarification that it is Oztag and not League Tag.

-? Land ownership of the Kingsway Playing Fields is actually that of Department of ??Lands.

-? Floodlights do not comply with the appropriate standards.

 

The comments regarding the extension of the playing fields have already been included in the PLANS Study and, subsequently, the District Open Space Action Plan. In relation to improvement of existing facilities, the Sportsground Management Strategy has contributed to developing the Parks Asset Renewal program and, therefore, Penrith Oztag?s comment on this matter are placed on record only with no amendment to the strategy.

 

The Association makes a general comment questioning how capacities of fields can be assessed without a complete analysis of usage. Appendix 2 of Volume 2 of the strategy does make some suggestions about alternate field use and this has been developed as a result of the consultation and documented material available to the consultants.

 

This report has already identified the difficulty that the consultants had obtaining accurate statistical information making it difficult to assess use. In addition, it was not possible to set standards for playing fields because of the wide range of location and field construction e.g. Ched Towns Reserve in a drainage basin in comparison to the newly constructed field utilising recycled organics at Cranebrook Park.

 

In relation to the point made, the strategy does outline a number of recommendations to meet the goals, identified in Volume 2, of:

 

-? Managing and responding to changes in demand through close communication with sports and analysis of up to date membership and usage data.

-? Maximising use of available resources at a level that does not impact on the sustainability of playing surface.

 

Many of the recommendations are already being implemented, in particular, capture of information has been significantly improved through the implementation of sportsground allocation forums. Field allocation has benefited from the implementation of sportsground allocation criteria including an assessment of activity type proposed, number of teams and fields (location and number requested), as well as closer communication through the establishment of Council?s Recreation Department structure and regular meetings and discussions with the sports. The draft strategy has therefore not been amended and the commentary from Penrith Oztag about field capacity has been noted and placed on record.

 

A number of matters have been raised in relation to fees and charges, in particular in relation to maintenance of fields and where there is shared use of a field. The principles and policy directions in the strategy (Volume 3) address a range of fee and charges opportunities. The policy direction has been amended to: ?As part of establishing Council?s annual fees and charges, and in lease and licence negotiations sportsground users will be consulted? about the following initiatives??

 

Similarly to the comments made by the NDSFA it has been outlined by Penrith Oztag that it believes schools use of sports grounds should be more closely managed, in particular that schools should lodge a bond for every time that they use a field and that usage levels need to be reviewed. Current practice in relation to usage levels is that the clubs are consulted and applications from schools assessed in line with the ground allocation procedures. Closer links are also being established through the schools sports associations and teachers regarding and there is a better understanding of terms and conditions of use. The draft strategy does set out a number of recommendations relating to the management of school use of sports grounds and these, accompanied by ongoing management practices, have resulted in no amendments being required in the final strategy.

 

The final matter raised by Penrith Oztag Association is that of the project management of capital construction works funded by clubs. Operationally, Council Officers work in partnership with clubs on these projects within resource availability and capacity, as well as adhering to existing regulations. There is no requirement to amend the draft strategy as there is support for the principle.

 

Internal Review

 

The document has also been reviewed internally by Council Officers and comments have resulted in minor alterations to the draft Sportsground Management Strategy including typographical and terminology amendments, as well as confirmation of the accuracy of detail.

 

It should be noted that the research for the study commenced in 2009 and the club?s views were representative at the time, therefore the document has not be amended. However, Council has proactively sought to respond to matters raised, and the strategic priorities in the document. Since the research commenced it should be noted that the following selection and range of projects have been completed, or resolutions to issues implemented with funds from the Parks Asset Renewal Program, Waste and Sustainability Improvement Program (WASIP), grants, Telecommunications Access Fees (T.A.F) or Section 94 contributions:

 

Andromeda Drive????? ??????????? The surface condition has been improved through the re-turfing of? the Western Field in the 2009-2010.

 

Cranebrook Park??????????????????? Field reconstruction, floodlight installation and irrigation was completed with Section 94 Developer Contributions and the facility accommodates rugby league, grid iron and cricket. Use of Council?s recycled organics program has substantially improved the playing properties and sustainability of the surface.

 

?????????????????????????????????????????????? Cricket: Upgraded cricket practice facilities have been created with the installation of 2 new practice nets replacing a single practice net.

 

Eileen Cammack Reserve ????? The surface condition has been addressed through the ???????

2011-2012 Parks Asset Renewal Program involving a field reconstruction.

 

Mark Leece Oval ?????????????????? Soccer: The surface condition has been addressed through the installation of new irrigation on Fields 1&2 through the 2011-2012 Parks Asset Renewal Program, floodlights will also be installed as part of this program. There is also field reconstruction currently being undertaken and is due to be completed by the beginning of the winter season for 2012 funded through T.A.F .

??????????????????????????????????????????????

?????????????????????????????????????????????? Netball: Four courts have been resealed.

 

Gow Park ??????????????????????????????????????? The surface condition at Gow Park has been addressed as the????? field has now been provided with a bore and will have an irrigation system installed under the Section 94 Older Areas Program.

Parker Street Field 1,2&4????? Soccer: Lighting and field upgrades are being systematically addressed.? Field 4?s lighting has been upgraded to 100lux and fields 1 & 2 have been identified for upgrades in the 2012-2013 Parks Asset Renewal program.

Athletics: A grant funding submission to the Community Building Partnership is currently being evaluated for the upgrade to the athletics track which was identified as rough and uneven by the club.

 

Ched Towns Reserve ??????????? Rugby League:? Ched Towns Reserve Field 1 has been ??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? reconstructed and completed in October 2011 with ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? T.A.F funding. Irrigation has also been upgraded.

 

??????????????????????????????????????????????? Space was created to accommodate an additional mini-???????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? field.

 

??????????????????????????????????????????????? New floodlights, fencing and shade structures have been ???????????????????????????????????????? ????????? installed with partnership funds from the Community ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Partnership Funds, the club and Penrith City Council.

?????????

Soccer:??????????????????????????????????? New lights have been installed with the assistance of a ???????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? Community Partnership Grant.

 

??????????????????????????????????????????????? Soccer and Rugby League will benefit from the ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? provision of additional storage and seating through Section 94 ????????????????????????????????????????? Developer Contributions (Glenmore Park Stage 1)

 

Peppertree Reserve???????????????? Peppertree Reserve has also undergone field reconstruction in ????????????????????????????????? ????????? 2010 with funding from the WASIP Program. Peppertree ????????????????????????????????????????????????? Reserve is scheduled to have ????? flood-lighting renewed under the ???????????????????????????????????????? Parks Asset Renewal Program 2015-2016.

 

Peter Kearns?????????????????????????? Floodlighting upgrades have been scheduled as part of ???????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? the Parks Asset Renewal program in 2012-2013.

 

Doug Rennie Fields??????????????? Doug Rennie Fields has recently had irrigation installed ?????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? through Older Areas Section 94 funding. This will ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? considerably assist with surface condition.

 

Andrews Road?????????????????????? Rugby Union: Councils Building Asset Maintenance ??????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????? program has addressed a range of amenity and building ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? enhancements at Nepean Rugby Park in 2011. New turf ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? was also laid on the field.

 

??????????????????????????????????????????????? Baseball: Council has provided funds for the construction of ?????????????????????????????????? ????????? new batting cages in partnership with the club.

 

Londonderry Netball Courts? Upgrade of the courts has been identified in the 2015-2016 Parks Asset Renewal Program.

 

Jamison Park????????????????????????? Netball: 9 courts have been resurfaced, and pavilion upgrades have been completed as a result of a successful Community Building Partnership Grant. A subsequent Community Partnership grant application has been submitted to create 5 additional netball courts. 18 courts will be upgraded as part of the 2011-2012 Parks Asset Renewal program.

 

?????????????????????????????????????????????? Athletics: A Community Building Partnership grant has assisted with the development of the upgrade of the discus cage and long jump run ups.

 

?????????????????????????????????????????????? Cricket: Council has provided a contribution to the development of a new turf cricket wicket table, storage facility and worked in partnership with the Association to develop new cricket net practice facilities which were jointly funded through a grant, Association contribution and Council.

 

Cook Park??????????????????????????????????????? AFL: As a result of a Community Partnership grant, AFL and Council contributions new floodlights have been installed at Cook Park. Remaining funds will be allocated to a shade structures that will benefit both cricket and AFL.

 

Greygums Oval????????????????????? AFL: Resurfacing of the main oval has taken place in 2010 with ????????????????????????????? ????????? funds allocated from the WASIP program and utilising ???????????????????????????????????????????????????? Council?s recycled organics program. Additional tree planting ???????????????????????????????????????????? has also taken place at the facility. A Community Building ???????????????????????????????????????? Partnership has been utilised to improve irrigation on Field 2. ????? ????????????????????????????????????? TAF funds have contributed to the provision of seating, a ??????????????????????????????????????? ????????? scoreboard and new goal posts at the venue.

 

Athletics: ?????????????????????????????? TAF funds have realised the installation of an additional new ????????????????????????????????? ????????? long jump facility.

 

Dukes Oval??????????????????????????? AFL: The concerns of the club about the surface condition have been, in some part, addressed through the 2011-2012 Parks Asset Renewal program with the installation of an irrigation system.?

?????????????????????????????????????????????? Cricket: A jointly funded project between Council and the Association realised the development of a new turf cricket practice facility.

Surveyor Creek Softball???????? The issue about a lack of storage is currently being addressed. Funding has been allocated through Section 94 Developer Contributions (Glenmore Park Stage 1) and quotes for a storage facility are currently being obtained. Installation of additional shade structures and tree planting has also been achieved through the same funding.

 

Leonay Oval?????????????????????????? Improving the surface condition, as identified by the club, has been scheduled to take place in 2014-2015 as part of the Parks Asset Renewal Program.

In addition to these projects, both the regular parks maintenance and buildings asset maintenance projects continue to be implemented and are addressing many of the issues raised by the clubs or associations during the consultation process. In the case of the Building Asset Renewal program funds are being allocated to a rolling program of canteen upgrades at facilities, continued implementation of fire safety initiatives, and re-keying of the buildings to more secure system that allows Council Officers full access to all Council assets.

The document also identifies the potential to utilise school facilities. As a result of a successful application to the Community Building Partnership, Council is working in partnership to develop the sports field at Erskine Park High School which will become a dual use facility.

 

Conclusion

 

As a result of the public exhibition period, this report has summarised the submissions received, provided responses to those submissions and in some instances outlined where amendments to the strategy documentation has been made. Should Council adopt the Sports Ground Management Strategy an implementation plan will be developed and included in Council?s future Operational Plans and Delivery Program.

 

Council?s management and operation of sportsgrounds has evolved to its current level of facility and service provision whereby over 1,300 (clubs, schools, events, casual users) annual bookings for sports grounds are facilitated and administered. To continually improve this provision it has been identified that a strategic approach is required to better enable the effective and planned delivery of sportsground facilities and services into the future for the estimated 35,000 ? 40,000 participants in active recreation. ?The strategy provides recommendations, as well as suggested policies, practices and opportunities which will provide guidance to Council into the future relating to sportsground management.

 

The strategy recognises the importance of continuing to engage sportsground users in the process of operating and delivering a range of outcomes in the strategy and, Council Officers are committed to consulting with these stakeholders regarding the further development and implementation of identified recommendations, policies and procedures to achieve an agreed solution. The report seeks that Council adopt the Sportsground Management Strategy.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Sportsground Management Strategy be received

2.???? Council adopt the Sportsground Management Strategy.

3.???? Council write to the organisations that made submissions notifying those groups of the response and Council?s decision regarding adoption of the draft Sportsground Management Strategy.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

There are no attachments for this report. ?


A Vibrant City

 

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

 

4??????? Subsidies to Local Bands, Orchestras and Musical and Performance Groups

 

5??????? Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review

?

 



Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

A Vibrant City

 

 

4

Subsidies to Local Bands, Orchestras and Musical and Performance Groups???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Karen Harris, Senior Cultural Development Officer

Authorised by:??????????? Erich Weller, Community and Cultural Development Manager ??

 

Objective

We build on our strengths, value our heritage, celebrate our cultural diversity, and foster creativity

Community Outcome

A City with people and places that are inclusive, foster creativity, and celebrate diversity (20)

Strategic Response

Support cultural initiatives that meet local needs, and attract regional interest (20.2)

???????

 

Executive Summary

Council has provided financial support by way of an annual donation to nine (9) local bands, orchestras, musical and performance groups as well as the local show society for many years.

 

The policy applying to this financial support specified that funds allocated to each group must be used for the purchase of equipment, uniforms and musical scores so as to encourage the participation of current and future members. The policy also requires a group receiving the subsidy to provide documentation to ensure expenditure is consistent with the policy.

 

As the groups have developed and their level of professionalism has increased the needs of each individual group has changed over the years. Following an extensive survey of the activities, membership and capacity of each group in 2010, a follow up meeting was convened by Council officers in August 2011 with representatives of each group.

 

From the survey and meeting a number of priority needs were identified.? These included support for developmental opportunities (including options to work with guest musicians or performers), publicity and marketing (including the building and maintenance of a website to increase audience numbers), attracting new members and highlighting the valuable contribution each group makes to the cultural vitality and diversity of Penrith City.

 

There was also general consensus that greater flexibility was required in the utilisation of Council?s subsidies if the organisations were to maintain current membership and attract new members, especially younger members. Providing this flexibility requires a change in the policy applying to the subsidies program. The revised policy is provided as Appendix 1 to this report.

 

This report also changes the name of the subsidies program policy to the Subsidies to Performance Groups Program.

 

The report recommends that the report be received and that the policy document on the Subsidies to Performance Groups Program provided at Appendix 1 to this report be adopted.

Background

The Local Bands, Orchestras and Theatre Groups Policy Document CD005 was adopted by Council on 19 December 1989 and reviewed in September 1990. Council officers have reviewed the policy on a number of occasions since that time but no changes have been made. Subsidies are provided to a specific group of local bands, orchestras and musical and performance groups for the purchase of equipment, uniforms and musical scores to encourage the participation in, and provision of, cultural services and activities in the community. The level of subsidy to the ten (10) groups has remained unchanged for a number of years. The groups that receive a subsidy from Council also includes the Penrith Agricultural, Horticultural and Industrial (AH&I) Society Ltd. This Society coordinates the Penrith Show and their subsidy contributes funding for prizes for various art forms.

 

With Council?s endorsement of the Penrith Cultural Framework and the Cultural Development Action Plan 2007-2011, Council recognised the importance of the City?s cultural resources to enhancing its role as a Regional City. To support the most effective use of available resources, the current annual subsidies to orchestras, bands and theatre groups in Penrith City were reviewed. In addition, the total level of subsidy was reduced from $33,000 to $25,000 per annum as part of the 2011-2012 budget review.? This in effect has required an approximate 25% reduction in the subsidy to each group. Appendix 2 to this report provides the projected allocation to each of the performance groups and the AH&I Society in 2012/13.

Current Situation

In September 2010 each of the performance groups (with the exception of the Penrith A&HI Society) were surveyed to assist in the review of the subsidies allocated and to provide information to ensure that the best outcomes are achieved to support cultural development and sustainability across the City. The Penrith A&HI Society was not surveyed as their subsidy allocation is used each year to support the twelve (12) prizes for the Art Exhibition held as part of the annual Penrith Show.

 

All groups responded in detail to the survey. The key findings of the survey responses focussed on membership, the rehearsal and performance capacity of the organisation, the audience mix, the range of venues utilised, marketing, and financial capacity. The table below summarises the outcomes of the survey of all the performance groups.

 

Membership

Current membership per group

Ranges from 13 to 65 active participants

Age range across all groups

16 years to 80 years

Gender mix across all groups

57% female ? 43% male

LGA residents

70% of total membership for all groups

Membership growth

Stable with some growth in some groups.

Capacity of the Organisations

Number of Rehearsals

One group rehearses twice weekly ? the rest once a week

Number of Performances

Average per year ? 11

Location of Performances

Majority of performances in Penrith LGA

Original Compositions

55% of groups perform original compositions

Partnerships

89% of groups perform in partnership with other groups

Audiences

Average attendance numbers

200 per performance (based on 5 responses)

Free Performances

40% of all performances are free of charge

Ticket Prices (where charged)

Average ticket price is $24.00

Increasing Audience Numbers

89% of groups have a strategy in place to increase numbers

Venues

Rehearsals

JSPAC; Orchard Hills Masonic Hall; Penrith PCYC; Glenmore Park Child & Family Centre; John Lees Christian Centre; GP Salvation Army Hall; Emu Plains Community Centre; Penrith Regional Gallery

Performances

JSPAC, Springwood Civic Centre; PCYC, Various Clubs, Arms of Australia Museum, Penrith Paceway, school halls, Melrose Hall, St Stephens Church, Westfields, Howell Oval, Penrith Regional Gallery, Regatta Park, Norman Lindsay Gallery

Venue Hire

A significant component of each group?s operating costs

Marketing

Own website

78% of groups

Link to another website

33% of groups

Local newspaper editorial

77% of groups

Local newspaper advertising

67% of groups

Utilise flyers and/or mail outs

78% of groups

Attracting new members

Free tickets, advertising, website, open evenings, membership drives, Facebook, audience becomes members

Budget and Finances

 

Average operating budget

$33,850 per group per annum

Financial support from PCC

14% of budget average per group

Other sources of income

Grants, sponsorship, donations, membership dues, ticket sales, fundraising

 

What emerged from the survey was the significant contribution that the performance groups make to the cultural fabric and vitality of the City.? They provide opportunities for young musicians, actors and others to continue to maintain involvement in the arts.? The groups have extensive local networks that also contribute to audience development and support for the arts.? The performing groups complement the role of the Penrith Conservatorium of Music and local high schools which also offer music, drama, and dance.? The performing groups also rely heavily on volunteers.? A number of the performance groups also actively seek grants, donations and other financial support.? It is clear from the survey that Council and the City receive value from the modest subsidy program.

 

The groups all identified that there were a number of future challenges that were inhibiting their ability to grow. These included the ability to better resource the group?s administration and management capacity with less reliance on members? goodwill and volunteers. In addition attracting new members, especially younger members, and retaining existing members and therefore increasing the group?s sustainability were issues that faced most groups. To improve their capacity to market and promote their group, the building and maintenance of a website and a supporters? database were additional needs. To increase the level of professionalism and expand repertoires all groups identified the need to hire educators in their relevant art form.

 

Officers of the Community and Cultural Development Department met with representatives of each organisation on 29 August 2011 to discuss the proposed allocation of subsidies given the reduction in the total funds available from $33,000 to $25,000 and the results of the survey. All of the groups agreed that Council?s current policy which stipulates that the subsidy be used for purchase of equipment including uniforms, musical scores and instruments is too restrictive.

 

There was a general consensus that there was a need for greater flexibility around the utilisation of Council?s subsidies. The priority needs identified were support for developmental opportunities for groups (including the options to work with guest musicians or performers), publicity and marketing, including the building and maintenance of a website to increase audience numbers, attracting new members and highlighting the valuable contribution each group makes to the cultural vitality and diversity of Penrith City.

 

Following these consultations an amended Policy Document has been developed to ensure the subsidies program meets the needs of the organisations and better contributes to the cultural vitality of the City. The new policy is provided as Appendix 1 to this report.

 

Summary

 

Council has provided subsidies to a number of bands, orchestras and musical and performance groups as well as the local show society for many years.

 

The policy governing the use of these subsidies has been too restrictive requiring recipient groups to use the funds for the purchase of equipment, uniforms and musical scores.

 

A survey of all the performing groups confirms that Council and the City receive value for the modest subsidy provided to the organisations.

 

The report summarises changes to the policy applying to this subsidies program to enable better outcomes to be achieved thus enhancing the cultural vitality of the City.

 

The revised policy determining how the subsidy funds are to be utilised is provided as Appendix 1 to this report.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Subsidies to Local Bands, Orchestras and Musical and Performance Groups be received.

2.???? The amended policy document on Subsidies to Performance Groups provided at Appendix 1 to this report be adopted.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. ?

Policy Document - Subsidies to Performance Groups Program

1 Page

Appendix

2. ?

Proposed 2012-2013 Allocation for Performance Groups

1 Page

Appendix

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

Appendix 1 - Policy Document - Subsidies to Performance Groups Program

 

Large_Council_Brand??????????? POLICY DOCUMENT

 

POLICY NAME:

Subsidies to Performance Groups Program

Policy No:? ?

Adopted by Council:

??

Minute No: ?

Review:

??

File No:?

Relevant Legislation: (if applicable)??????

??

Responsible Department:

Community and Cultural Development

 

 

Policy Statement:? ?????

 

The Subsidies to Performance Groups Program encourages participation in and provision of cultural services and activities in the Penrith community.? The subsidies can be used for capital equipment as well as for the provision of developmental opportunities for groups (including the option to work with guest musicians and performers), publicity and marketing strategies to increase audience numbers and new members, and performances that assist to highlight the cultural vitality and diversity of Penrith City. The following clauses have been considered and must be applied in application of this policy:

a)?? Council may contribute money or otherwise grant financial assistance to persons for the purpose of exercising its functions under Section 356 of the Local Government Act 1993 as a donation.

 

b)?? The level of subsidy is determined by receipt of a twelve (12) month budget from the group which details proposed activities, expenses and income. The attached table details the subsidy provided to each group.

c)?? All expenditure made by subsidy is to be verified by appropriate documentation.

d)?? All groups acknowledge the support of Penrith City Council in the publicity and marketing of events.

e)?? If any local band, orchestra, musical or performance group does not meet the requirements of this policy the available funds can be utilised by an alternative community cultural group subject to the relevant documentation being provided.

f)??? The General Manager is authorised to apply subsidies to performance groups in accordance with this policy.

g)?? Council will be provided information annually concerning the administration of this policy.

 

 

 


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

Appendix 2 - Proposed 2012-2013 Allocation for Performance Groups

 

temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

A Vibrant City

 

 

5

Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review???

?

Compiled by:?????????????? Terry Agar, Acting Centres Co-ordinator

Authorised by:??????????? Roger Nethercote, Group Manager - People and Places ??

 

Objective

We play an active role in our communities

Community Outcome

A City with opportunities to engage, participate and connect (23)

Strategic Response

Enhance community strengths and capacity by supporting collaborative networks and partnerships (23.1)

???????

 

Executive Summary

Council resolved on 4 April 2011 to advance an independent review of the management of the Penrith and St Marys centres with the aim of ensuring that contemporary and best practice centres management is implemented in the future. The review has been underway since late June and since that time the consultant, Jo Kelly, from People Place and Partnership Pty Ltd, has undertaken extensive stakeholder consultation and assessed the current management performance, resource needs and relationships between key stakeholders.

 

The review has found that there is significant room for improvement in the way in which the centres are managed.? In particular, the management focus needs to be broadened beyond the current retail marketing and promotion to include increasing business diversity, urban improvement, public spaces activation, access improvement and social programs. This requires longer term strategic planning and creation of a new management model with stronger governance controls.

 

The report recommends that Council work towards the dissolution of the current Centre Associations and create two new centre management entities with new governance arrangements, to be operational by 1 July 2012.? It also recommends that an independent review panel be set up to oversee the transitional arrangements and ongoing operational reporting.? To assist in the implementation of the new management arrangements, it is recommended that a special funding arrangement as outlined in the report be instituted.

Background

Council has been assisting the two centre associations in their marketing and promotion of the centres since 1998 with the collection of a business sub-category rate for both of the centres. In that time, some $5.69 m has been passed onto the centre associations for that purpose.? Council also delivers a range of important services and infrastructure to the centres and it is important that the most effective framework is in place for delivery of the adopted Centre Strategies.

 

Council considered that it was timely to undertake a review to ensure that a contemporary management regime is in place which obtains best value for ratepayers? money and ensures the expectations of businesses, property owners and other key stakeholders are met. Importantly, the management arrangements should promote the ongoing revitalisation and viability of the centres and assist in responding to the challenges raised by the substantial projected growth of the centres over the next 20-25 years.

 

Council appointed Jo Kelly, of People Place & Partnership Pty Ltd to undertake a review of the Management of the Penrith and St Marys Centres. Ms Kelly has considerable Australian and International expertise in assessing the performance of town centre management entities and making recommendations for change.

?

The Review commenced in late June initially focussing on consultation with all stakeholders such as the Penrith and St Marys Centres Associations, the Penrith Business Alliance (PBA), the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce (PVCC) and Council.? In parallel with the consultation, the consultant assessed the current management performance, the available resources and relationships between key stakeholders.?

 

The consultant?s final report became available in mid November and was recently distributed under separate cover to Councillors. The report has also been provided to the two Centre Associations who have made written submissions on the proposed recommendations. Those submissions are included in Attachment No. 1. The report recommends a series of management options be considered and new governance arrangements be installed to support the operation of new centre entities. These aspects form the focus of our assessment and recommendation for Council.

 

Consultation Process Summary

 

The Review involved an extensive consultation process that included the associations, key stakeholders, surveys and Councillor briefings. The Penrith City Centre Association and the St Marys Association have been involved in the review as partners with Council.? To ensure that inputs from broader interests in the process, a reference group consisting of the associations, the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce and the Penrith Business Alliance was created.

 

In summary, the consultation consisted of the following components:

 

???? ?????? 4 Review Partners meetings (PCC, PCCA, SMTCA)

???? ?????? 2 Reference group meetings (Review partners, PBA, PVCC)

???? ?????? Business and owners surveys in Penrith and St Marys Centres

???? ?????? Councillor phone surveys

???? ?????? 2 Councillor Briefings

??????????? Discussions with the association committees and other stakeholders including PBA and PVCC

 

 

Review Structure Summary

 

The consultant?s Review report is structured in the following way:

 

1.?? Contextual analysis ? it looks at the historical background of the formation of the Penrith associations within the framework of the centres management movement development internationally and its translation into NSW and Australia.

2.?? Local context description ?charts the formation of the St Marys and Penrith Associations, their legal status, structure, function, role, responsibilities and relationships with other entities.

3.?? Success measurement ? a comparative analysis of the performance of the associations with best practice and a description of the factors that lead to better centres management.

4.?? Management models ? a detailed discussion of the possible options that may work in the local context and necessary governance structures.

5.?? Implementation program ? a suggested integrated approach to change that includes communication, resources and timing

 

 

Review Report Findings

 

1.?? Assessment of the Current Agreement

 

The existing agreements between Council and the associations with its dedicated annual funding through the Business Sub Category rate mechanism is rare in NSW and demonstrates commitment to a partnership in centres management by all entities.

 

The weaknesses in the current agreement between the Council and the associations were found to be:

1.????????? A narrow focus on marketing

2.????????? Council?s role is more as an auditor, rather than as a partner

3.????????? Current agreements with the associations do not establish a vision or targets to assess performance

4.????????? A short term annual view rather than a longer strategic outlook

 

2.?? Assessment of PCCA Objectives, Activities, Budget and Expenditure

 

The Review found that the PCCA?s own constitution objectives were much broader than the central marketing objective within the Agreement. There is also economic development overlap with the PBA and the Penrith Valley Business Enterprise Centre (BEC).

 

A significant weakness identified in the delivery of some activities by the PCCA has been the lack of a longer term strategic planning agreement with Council and other entities.

 

In regard to budgeting and expenditure the Review summarised PCCA?s performance as follows:

???? ?????? Additional funds have been sourced from sponsors to run events

???? ?????? Limited State or Federal funding has been pursued

???? ?????? Unspent funds have accrued and continue to accrue

???? ?????? The annual budget exceeds that of many comparable centre management entities

 

3.?? Assessment of SMTCA Objectives, Activities, Budget and Expenditure

 

The Review found that the SMTCA?s own constitution objectives were much broader than the central marketing objective within the Agreement and there is little evidence of success for the non-marketing activities.?

 

The constitutional objective of developing a 5 to 10 year plan for the association was not achieved.

 

In regards to budgeting and expenditure the SMTCA?s performance is summarised as follows:

???? ?????? Limited additional funds have been sourced from sponsors to run events

???? ?????? Limited State or Federal funding has been pursued

???? ?????? Unspent funds have accrued and continue to accrue

??????????? The annual budget is comparable with other similar sized centre management entities

 

4.?? Assessment Based on a Comparison with Best Practice

 

The Review made an assessment of the performance of the Centres overall management based on the key elements of successful centre management. It identified the following list of issues that need to be addressed in a future management model and the over-arching governance arrangements:

 

??????????? The critical role of the centre in the development of the local economy, job creation and the provision of retail, service, entertainment and social benefits;

???? ?????? Integration of policy approach with Council and Key stakeholders;

???? ?????? Existing agreements are weak;

???? ?????? Lack of effective measurement practices;

???? ?????? Lack of a custodian to the process;

???? ?????? No sunset clause (defined timeframe)for the agreements operating;

??????????? Large discrepancies between the perceived success of the associations and constituent support;

??????????? Demonstration of the benefit to the land owners of the Business Sub category Rate and the additional cleaning levy;

??????????? Need for basic communication about the programs in each centre to all stakeholders;

??????????? Clarification of the roles and responsibilities of all local entities involved in the decision making in each centre;

??????????? Benefits of the existing management model are unclear due to the lack of performance criteria;

??????????? Lack of an effective partnership with Council and the associations leading to an adversarial approach;

???? ?????? Lack of diversity in the activities delivered by the associations;

???? ?????? Implementation of questionable activities

???? ?????? Uncertain financial clarity around some activities

??????????? Lack of strategic planning by the associations and alignment with the implementation of Council?s 2006 Penrith City Centre Strategy and St Marys Town Centre Strategy

???? ?????? Focus of associations primarily on promotion and marketing

???? ?????? Restricted decision making capabilities of the associations

 

Whilst the criticisms identified by the consultant are generally accepted, it is recognised that the original agreements established between Council and the centre associations and the focus of those entities activities was a product of, and seen to be right for their time when the associations were first inaugurated. It is also true to observe the efforts of the two associations have been advanced in accordance with their agreed charter, and indeed the Review has noted that many of the initiatives pursued, particularly those of the Penrith City Centre Association, have embraced national best practice in a number of areas. Of course, centres management responses have greatly advanced in the intervening period since the original agreements were entered into and as pointed out by the consultant, the governance arrangements required to effectively guide entities engaged in centre management and promotion activities have over time become far more decisive, robust and directive.

 

The issues identified in the Review signal a clear need for a more robust centres management response and a contemporisation of the entity governance arrangements. This also points to a new opportunity for a closer integration of centre management entities, Council and other key stakeholder activities and will foster stronger links between these efforts.

 

The Review highlights the current centre management approaches for Penrith and St Marys are not delivering the effective results needed to achieve the long-term visions and strategies created for each centre. It also observes that to ensure public and private funding being collected and administered by Council is achieving the most effective outcomes, a number of recommendations for fundamental changes to the existing management arrangements have been made by the consultant and are outlined below.

 

Governance

 

Central to the successful implementation of any centres management model is good governance arrangements.? To achieve the long term visions for Penrith and St Marys regardless of what management model is implemented, it is essential that the management entities are accountable to those who fund it.? Equally important is defining the roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders to build a partnership of management.

 

The review describes the governance arrangements that should apply to an accountable centre management entity.? Essentially it should have the following elements:

 

???? ?????? A strategic focus

???? ?????? Objective success measures

???? ?????? A sunset clause which ensures periodic review

 

The consultant has proposed a governance structure outline which is presented in Appendix No. 1.? In summary, the structure is comprised of the following components:

 

??????????? New Agreements between Council and the new centre entities (MoU, Financial Agreement and Baseline Service Agreement)

???? ?????? New Council Centres Management Policy

???? ?????? An Independent Review Panel

??????????? Annual Operations Plan with annual review and progress reporting and half yearly progress reports

 

The matters to be dealt with by these new components are described as follows:

 

 

 

1.?? New Agreements

 

The Review recommends a number of new agreements be established between Council and the new centre entities will include a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), Finance agreement and a Baseline Services agreement.

 

a)?? Memorandum of Understanding

??????????? ????????? Clarifies the roles and responsibilities of all parties (PCC, PBA, PVCC, BEC)

???? ?????? Requires 3 year strategic management plan

???? ?????? Communication and consultation

???? ?????? Performance measurement

???? ?????? Management structure and process

???? ?????? Annual and half yearly Operations Plan reporting

???? ?????? Sunset clause

 

The consultant has prepared a draft MoU which is included as an appendix to the consultant?s Review report. The MoU could serve as the basis for a new agreement between Council and a new entity and if Council decides to advance a new management model, it would be finalised in consultation with the suggested Independent Review Panel and representatives of the existing associations. Council officers will need to review the draft MoU as proposed and recommend any changes to the Independent Review Panel and Council. The final MoU will be reported to Council next year for endorsement.

 

b)?? Financial Agreement

???? ?????? Basis for funding related to agreed performance measures

??????????? ????????? Would outline outcomes which would need to be achieved to release future funding

 

c)?? Baseline Services Agreement

???? ?????? Outlines minimum service levels to be provided by Council to each centre

??????????? ????????? Enables the centre entities to determine supplementary services above Council?s standard delivery program

 

2.?? New Council Centres Management Policy

 

The Review recommends the establishment of an LGA wide policy statement for the delivery of a revised centres management program. This policy should be aligned with the existing adopted Centres Strategies which articulate their visions for future growth and revitalisation and provide a series of key actions for implementation. The policy would establish clear strategic directions for each of the centre entities to pursue and articulate the operational requirements they would need to advance under the entity funding obligations.

 

3.?? Independent Review Panel

 

The consultant recommends that Council sets up an Independent Review Panel.? The panel would advise Council on the transition to the new management arrangements and related agreements and make recommendations on the initial membership of the Boards for the new entities.

 

The Panel would also assess and make recommendations to Council on the annual performance of the entities and the achievement of strategic management plan objectives and performance measures outlined in the MoU. This arrangement provides an ?arms length? assessment of the true performance of the entities and would provide a solid platform for judgements around the financial accountability of the entities and related funding provision and an annual business plan preparation.

 

The panel would consist of an executive officer of Council, a Councillor, an independent community member from the LGA, an independent expert and two independent local business representatives from Penrith and St Marys. Council would be responsible for resourcing this panel. An outline of the proposed structure and responsibilities of the Panel as recommended by the consultant is included in Appendix No. 2.

 

Centres Management Model Options

 

The Review process has identified the current centre management approaches for Penrith and St Marys are not delivering the most effective results needed to achieve the long-term visions created for each centre. As a result, the consultant has presented 4 alternative management model options for consideration.? They are:

 

Option 1.????? Establishment of a new entity for both Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre;

Option 2.????? Amalgamation of the existing associations into a new single entity;

Option 3.????? Absorb the Penrith City Centre Association into the Penrith Business Alliance and create a new entity for St Marys Town Centre; and

Option 4.????? Absorb the functions of the existing associations into Council.

 

The Review report discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the different options at some length.? The consultant has noted that each of the options advanced are workable, but highlights the critical importance of the new governance arrangements and implementation tools outlined above in the report in achieving long-term success.

 

Recent advice from the consultant is that given the context, history of present arrangements and current local issues in each centre, Option 1 is recommended to provide the most effective implementation outcome and will allow the following issues to be addressed:

 

??????????? Allow each centre to maintain autonomy to deliver the key strategic directions outlined in the 3 Year Strategic Plan.

???? ?????? A broader representation of local stakeholders

??????????? A professional set of criteria for the establishment of the new Board/ Committee to oversee the management of the organisation.

??????????? Change the focus of the existing Agreements with Penrith City Council for each centre to 3 years and be more strategic.

??????????? A detailed MOU with Penrith City Council and each centre for the implementation of the key initiatives aligned with the 3 Year Strategic Plan.

??????????? Provide a formal mechanism for a service contract to be established with PBA to deliver specific local economic development strategies for each centre.

??????????? This option also allows for the formal articulation that PBA will deliver local economic initiatives for each of the centres, but doing so without absorbing any of the other functions of the centre management tasks that PBA may not be best to deliver

 

The consultant has also identified the PBA has a significant role to play in promoting economic development, business investment and job creation for the City and it is important that this function is delivered for both Penrith and St Marys Centres. This is particularly important in recognising the 10,000 jobs target for Penrith as a growing Regional City articulated in the State Government?s Metro Plan and the PBA?s own strategic program.

 

Concerns were raised during the review process that there was a possible duplication in the roles and responsibilities for economic development and investment in the centres between the associations and the PBA.? In moving forward, the consultant has identified the need to ensure that local economic development initiatives for each centre are clearly identified and that specific targets and performance indicators for its implementation are established.

 

A key component of a new management arrangement will be to ensure that the economic development and jobs growth leadership by PBA is incorporated into the proposed three year Strategic Plan and annual Operational Plan of both centre entities.? In this regard, it is envisaged that the entity?s agreement with Council will require it to align these Plans with the PBA?s strategic directions.? To this end, the PBA can become in effect a service provider, working in collaboration with the new entities in determining the future direction of economic development and jobs growth in Penrith and St Marys Centres and providing guidance as to how this may be achieved.

?

Centre Management Recommendations

 

The Review has made a number of specific recommendations to improve the management outcomes of the Penrith City Centre and the St Marys Town Centre.

 

1.?? Management Model

The consultant recommends that the existing Penrith City Centre Association and the St Marys Town Centre Association be dissolved and replaced with the creation of two new centre management entities, each with new governance arrangements (namely Option 1). This would also see a stronger collaborative relationship between the PBA and the new centre entities in terms of the delivery strategic, centre based economic development and job creation outcomes.

 

The proposed entities would comprise a Board of 9 voluntary members, with the following areas of interest:

 

???? 5 business/property representatives

???? 1 Penrith community organisation representative

???? 1 Community leader/resident

???? 1 industry expert

???? 1 person under the age of 25

 

Board membership is suggested to be for a 1-2 year term of office. The Board role and responsibilities would focus on providing purpose, leadership and strategic direction to the centre management entity, ensure the group?s finances are sound and ensure that the group?s operation is effective, transparent and legally robust. The day to day operations of the centre entity would be undertaken by a centre manager/service provider, to be engaged by and answerable to the Board.

 

The consultant?s suggested outline of the new entity Board terms of reference and call for EOI document are included in Appendix 3 & 4.

 

2.?? Governance

A new governance arrangement be put in place for the new entities as part of the new agreements with the Council. This has been described in detail in the governance section of this report.

 

3.?? Independent Review Panel

As part of the new governance structure an independent review panel should be set up.? The panel would advise on the transition to the new management regime and agreements with Council, recommend committee members for the new entities and objectively assess and report the annual performance of the centre management entities to Council.? The Panel can also provide advice in the development of annual operational plans and 3 year strategic plans recommended to be established for each new centre entity.

 

4.?? Budget Allocation

The current budget allocation is sufficient to implement a centre based management model.? However, the governance agreements should stipulate that the entities must seek additional revenue to the Business sub-category rate annual allocation to expand and improve management activities.? This should be by way of seeking sponsorships, donations, promotional revenues, government grants/subsidies and investments.

 

5.?? Administration costs

The governance agreements should stipulate that the total annual administrative budget should not exceed 40% of the overall budget.

 

6.?? Reporting

The new entities should be required to report half yearly and annually to the Independent Review Panel. The panel will in turn report to the Council on the progress and success or otherwise of the new entities during those periods.

 

Implementation Process

 

The timely and efficient implementation of the recommendations of the Review are critical to the successful transition from the current management regime to a new one.? Subject to Council making a decision on the future management model for the centres, a large number of actions need to be undertaken to ensure that the new model and governance arrangements are in place for the commencement of the new financial year on 1 July 2012. For this reason, it is important that Council take a decision on the new centres management recommendations prior to the end of 2011.?

 

 

 

 

Resources

 

The implementation of the Review recommendations in the first half of 2012 has resource implications for Council. Initially, the transition arrangement to a new management structure will require substantial resource focus and expertise which, given the condensed timeframe for implementation, is beyond our current capacity. Therefore, it is recommended Council appoint a suitably qualified consultant to assist in the preparation of new agreements between Council and the new entities, setting up and guidance of the Independent Review Panel and the development of the proposed draft three year Strategic Plans and initial annual Operation Plans. Funding for this resourcing would be available from the 2012/13 centres budget allocation. In principle support from the two centre associations to this approach has been received.

 

Over time Council will need to effectively resource and respond to the new management and governance arrangements including the annual review and half yearly review of the operation plans of the associations, the ongoing need to maintain an Independent Review Panel response and the ongoing need to review the Strategic Plans of the associations every 3 years. In addition, there will also be a need for a closer working relationship, support and engagement between Council, the centre entities and other key stakeholders. These initial and ongoing requirements to make the new management regime work effectively and efficiently will place an added burden on Council?s resources.

 

To address this need, the opportunity for additional resourcing to be funded from the centres budget has been initially raised with the centre associations. This opportunity will be further explored with the stakeholders and the Independent Review Panel if established by Council.

 

Next Steps

 

Implementation of a new management regime will involve the following key steps:

 

1.????????? Council internal working party formation

2.????????? Engagement of consultant to facilitate transitional arrangements

3.????????? Finalising Independent Review Panel terms of reference

4.????????? Establishment of an Independent Review Panel

5.????????? Development of a draft 3 year Strategic Plan for each centre entity

6.????????? Legal drafting of Agreements (MoU?s, Financial Agreement, Service ?? Agreements)

7.????????? Development of a Centre?s Policy Statement

8.????????? Finalise terms of reference and establish the new Centre Boards

9.????????? Formal signing of agreements with new entities

10. ?????? Dissolution of existing centre associations and transfer of assets

 

A program for achieving these critical steps in establishing a new arrangement has been identified by the consultant and is outlined in Appendix No. 5 ? Implementation Program. In addition, the effective communication of the implementation process and the key steps required to be advanced to all critical stakeholders will be important. To that end, a communications plan has been prepared by the consultant and is outlined in Appendix No. 6 ? Communications.

 

 

Centre Associations? responses

 

Both the Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre Associations have provided a written submission to the consultant?s Review report. Those advices are included in Attachment No. 1. In summary, both associations indicate a strong preference for pursuing management model Option 1, namely the establishment of a new management entity for each centre. The associations both indicate support for more effective and robust governance and management arrangements identified in the Review and particularly for closer communication and co-operation between the stakeholders.

 

Some specific matters have been identified by the associations in their responses which relate to some of the details of the governance arrangements and they will be the subject of further discussion and resolution.

 

Financial Services Manager?s comments

 

Currently the Penrith City Centre Association and the St Marys Town Centre Association are funded each year by a business sub category rate with $322,658 and $242,059 being raised respectively in 2011-12. 

 

This report proposes that to support the further works needed to be undertaken in the implementation of new centre management arrangements to take effect from the beginning of 2012-13, additional resourcing is required. Quotations from suitable consultants will be required to undertake this work and a sufficient budget allocated.

 

The report notes that in principle support has been secured from both associations to fund these proposed works however they have requested, given that budgets and programs are in place for 2011-12, that consideration be given to Council forward funding the works in the remainder of this financial year and recovering their contributions from 2012-13 allocations.  If Council is of a mind to support this request a budget can be established to facilitate the works being completed and recovered from the Associations? 2012-13 allocations.

 

The consultant?s suggestion to build into MoUs with entities an obligation to leverage additional funding through government grants and subsidies, contributions and donations is strongly supported.

 

Conclusion

 

Since the late 1990s, Council has been involved in delivering centre initiatives for Penrith and St Marys, in conjunction with the two independent centre associations. The Centres Management Review was undertaken primarily to assess the performance of the centres? in comparison with contemporary best practice both nationally and internationally and to identify the most effective management response required to ensure the centres ongoing revitalisation and viability.

 

The Review has identified a broad range of issues and related areas for improvement in the current Penrith and St Marys centres management regimes. In particular, strong emphasis is given to the identification of alternative management models which would provide a more effective and contemporary response to the identified issues and a suite of new governance arrangements required to ensure transparent, robust and accountable management outcomes.

 

In our view, the fundamental principles embraced in the governance arrangements identified by the Review will be essential to achieve these aims, irrespective of which management model is selected and are accordingly recommended for Council?s endorsement.

 

The Review consultant has made a specific recommendation that Option 1, which would see the establishment of two new centre management entities with new governance arrangements, would be the most effective model to implement. This model is supported by the centre associations and in our view would provide the most effective way forward in delivering the adopted vision and strategic responses identified for the centres and in building an effective partnership between the key stakeholders. Accordingly, management Option 1 is recommended for Council?s endorsement.

 

To implement any new centres management arrangement by the beginning of the new financial year, a substantial body of work is required for which additional resourcing will need to be applied. A recommendation in this regard is also put forward.

 

The proposed management arrangements incorporate a number of agreements which will appropriately require Council?s further consideration and endorsement. They will be the subject of a further report to Council once they have been progressed in discussion with the relevant stakeholders. We will also provide updates to Councillors on progress of the advancement of the new arrangements.

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

That:

1.???? The information contained in the report on Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review be received

2.???? Council create new centre management entities for Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre in accordance with the management model Option 1 and the new governance arrangements as described in this report

3.???? Council write to the Penrith City Centre Association and the St Marys Town Centre Association to obtain their undertaking to the dissolution of the associations effective from 30 June 2012

4.???? Council establish an Independent Review Panel to advise Council in the setting up of the new centre management entities and then to advise and make recommendations to Council in relation to the ongoing operational reviews and reporting on the new entities in accordance with the recommended governance arrangements

5.???? Council endorse the appointment of a suitably qualified consultant to assist in the implementation of the new management arrangements with costs to be funded from the Penrith City Centre and St Marys Town Centre 2012/13 budget allocations

6.???? The General Manager be authorised to advance the establishment of the new entities and associated management arrangements as recommended and a further report be provided to Council for Council?s formal endorsement to the final agreements as outlined in the report

7.???? The Penrith City Centre Association, the St Marys Town Centre Association, the Penrith Business Alliance and the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce be formally thanked for their support of the Centre?s Review process and their valuable contributions to it.

 

ATTACHMENTS/APPENDICES

1. ?

Governance Structure

2 Pages

Appendix

2. ?

Independent Review Panel Structure & Responsibilities

1 Page

Appendix

3. ?

Implementation Program

1 Page

Appendix

4. ?

Communications Plan

1 Page

Appendix

5. ?

Board Terms of Reference

1 Page

Appendix

6. ?

EOI documents

1 Page

Appendix

7. View

Associations' Submissions

10 Pages

Attachment

??


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

Appendix 1 - Governance Structure

 

temp


temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

Appendix 2 - Independent Review Panel Structure & Responsibilities

 

temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

Appendix 3 - Implementation Program

 

temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

Appendix 4 - Communications Plan

 

temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

Appendix 5 - Board Terms of Reference

 

temp


Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

Appendix 6 - EOI documents

 

temp

?


 

ATTACHMENTS???

 

 

Date of Meeting:???????? Monday 5 December 2011

Delivery Program:????? A Vibrant City

Issue:??????????????????????????? Enhance community strengths and capacity by supporting collaborative networks and partnerships (23.1)

Report Title:??????????????? Penrith and St Marys Centres Management Review

Attachments:?????????????? Associations' Submissions



Policy Review Committee Meeting?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 5 December 2011

Attachment 1 - Associations' Submissions

 

temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp


temp

 

 

 

temp

temp

?