Municipal Association of Victoria
Submission to the Office of Living
Victoria’s Melbourne’s Water Future
September 2013
© Copyright Municipal Association of Victoria, 2013.
The Municipal Association of Victoria is the owner of the copyright in the publication
Submission to the Office of Living Victoria’s Melbourne’s Water Future.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or transmitted in any form or by any
means without the prior permission in writing from the Municipal Association of Victoria.
All requests to reproduce, store or transmit material contained in the publication should be
addressed to James Cleaver on 03 9667 5519. September 2013.
The MAV can provide this publication in an alternative format upon request, including large
print, Braille and audio.
The Submission to the Office of Living Victoria’s Melbourne’s Water Future has been
prepared by the Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) for discussion with member councils,
Local Government Victoria and the State Government.
The MAV is the statutory peak body for local government in Victoria, representing all 79
municipalities. The MAV would also like to acknowledge the contribution of those who
provided their comments and advice during this project.
While this paper aims to broadly reflect the views of local government in Victoria, it does not
purport to reflect the exact views of individual councils. This submission has been approved
by the MAV Board as suitable for distribution and comment to members. September 2013.
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 3
Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 3
1
Introduction............................................................................................................... 4
2
Background .............................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Role of councils in stormwater management ......................................................... 4
2.2 Role of councils in IWCM ...................................................................................... 4
3
Implementing Melbourne’s Water Future Strategy .................................................... 5
3.1 Key linkages between councils and the OLV’s Melbourne’s Water Future ............. 5
3.2 Implementation challenges .................................................................................... 7
3.3 Costs and benefits................................................................................................. 9
3.4 Understanding councils’ role in the delivering IWCM ........................................... 10
3.5 Role of OLV, the State Government and water corporations ............................... 11
3.6 How to work with councils achieve IWCM?.......................................................... 11
3.7 Road funding model ............................................................................................ 13
3.8 Benefits of a flexible approach............................................................................. 15
4
2
Conclusions / Findings............................................................................................ 15
Executive Summary
The MAV welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Office of Living Victoria’s (OLV)
consultation draft Melbourne’s Water Future strategy, ‘the strategy’. There is a high level of
support for the strategy’s objectives among councils, many of whom have contributed
significant resources to their own integrated stormwater initiatives and strategies in recent
years. As such, the focus of this submission will be the role of local government as a key
‘implementer’ of the Strategy.
The MAV is wary of a ‘one size fits all’ approach to strategy implementation that fails to
accommodate the wide range of skill sets, context, technical capacity, financial resourcing
and competing priorities in the local government sector.
A particular challenge will be funding asset lifecycle costs. A sustainable implementation
model must monetise long-term benefits of Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) to
create an ongoing revenue stream for councils, and other significant asset managers, to
maintain and renew higher-performing stormwater assets.
Recommendations
3

A ‘one size fits all’ approach to implementing IWCM may fail to accommodate the
wide range of skill sets, hydrological context, technical capacity, financial resourcing
and competing priorities in the local government sector.

Strategy implementation must build technical capacity and community buy-in and
provide for equitable allocation of costs.

A principles-based approach to setting IWCM objectives, rather than contracted
service levels can reduce administrative burden, provide for more collaborative
delivery of infrastructure and services and ensure more funds are spent on ‘onground’ outcomes.

A sustainable implementation model must monetise long-term benefits of IWCM to
create an ongoing revenue stream for councils, and other significant asset managers,
to fund and maintain IWCM assets.

Councils must be given the opportunity to directly inform stormwater legislative
reviews to ensure existing barriers are overcome and unintended consequences are
minimised.

Local community support for IWCM projects is critical. The best demonstration
projects may not be those that claim the best outcomes based on the modelled
results, but those where community buy-in is high and council sufficiently resourced
to deliver.

A key driver for adoption of IWCM by councils will be the creation of a revenue
stream, be it saleable stormwater property rights or otherwise, to fund lifecycle costs.
1 Introduction
The MAV welcomes the opportunity to respond to the OLV consultation draft Melbourne’s
Water Future strategy, ‘the strategy’. This submission continues the tradition of the councils’
role in water management, including: owning and managing an extensive system of local
drainage infrastructure; rural drainage and flood protection; onsite domestic wastewater
management; and historically providing communities’ potable water supply. Local
government will necessarily play a critical role in the delivery of the strategy. As such, the
MAV is pleased to be included, along with a number of councils, on the OLV’s Local
Government Taskforce and the Melbourne's Integrated Water Cycle Management
Framework (MIWF) Steering Committee.
The MAV has for many years been engaged in Integrated Water Cycle Management
(IWCM), both through the Victorian Stormwater Action Program, the Stormwater and Urban
Water Conservation Fund, and by establishing the Clearwater Association, which provides
IWCM project tools and training for local government and water industry employees.
Together these programs have delivered hundreds of stormwater management projects
throughout Victoria.
From the outset of this submission, it is worth emphasising the high level of support for the
Strategy’s objectives among councils, many of whom have contributed significant resources
to their own integrated stormwater initiatives and strategies in recent years.
2 Background
2.1
Role of councils in stormwater management
Councils play a critical role in managing stormwater. Councils own and manage a vast
network of local stormwater assets which, by length, significantly exceeds that of the water
corporations. Above the surface, other council assets are also important, including:



Council-owned parks and gardens provide active and passive recreation space and
rare permeable surfaces in urban areas
Council street trees absorb and transpire soil moisture and mitigate urban heat
Roads generate a significant amount of urban stormwater runoff.
Local government will necessarily be one of the key ‘implementers’ of this Strategy.
However, the implementation of this strategy will require a significant shift in how many
councils conceive of stormwater and manage stormwater assets. Historically, the primary
objective of stormwater asset managers has been the transmission of stormwater into main
drains, rivers and streams as soon as possible. This was in response to the public health
concerns and risks with flooding with councils’ liability for flows onto private property.
2.2
Role of councils in IWCM
A number of councils, nevertheless, have become stormwater innovators, either
independently, or in partnership with water corporations and the State Government. The
Melbourne Water Future document does a good job of highlighting many local government
Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) successes, therefore the specifics of won’t be
4
repeated here. However, it is worth emphasising the diverse ‘preconditions’ that have
encouraged councils to become innovators, these include:









To secure the water supply of parks and gardens during drought
Broad community concerns about drought and water supply security
Funding became available through a government grant process
General community environmental concerns about deteriorating waterway health
To achieve improvements to public health and liveability through more urban
vegetation and green space
Specific community concerns about the condition of a local waterway, including by
‘friends of …’ groups
Councillors and council-employed officers with particular IWCM skills became
organisational champions
Because IWCM features could be integrated into scheduled asset renewal or a new
asset, for example traffic calming infrastructure
Changes to legislation such as clause 56.07-04 in the Victorian Planning Provisions.
Local government, by its nature of being responsive to local communities, is not
homogenous. So, similarly, councils have varied in their adoption of IWCM, despite the
presence of a number of these preconditions in recent years.
This variation in adoption of IWCM is particularly important as OLV has communicated a
desire to identify a process for councils and water corporations to identify IWCM projects and
facilitate their delivery and lifecycle maintenance. Whilst a standard framework has merit, a
‘one size fits all’ approach may fail to accommodate the wide range of skill sets, context,
technical capacity, financial resourcing and competing priorities in the local government
sector.
In order to achieve Melbourne-wide outcomes, a suite of tools and delivery pathways,
accommodating the diversity of the local government sector, is required. This submission will
provide ideas and guidance on how that might be achieved.
Recommendation 1
A ‘one size fits all’ approach to implementing IWCM may fail to accommodate the
wide range of skill sets, hydrological context, technical capacity, financial resourcing
and competing priorities in the local government sector.
3 Implementing Melbourne’s Water Future Strategy
Melbourne’s Water Future chapter 3.2 outlines a series of initiatives through which the
strategy’s objectives will be delivered. In this section of the submission, strategy initiatives
that are relevant to local government are identified, followed by an analysis of challenges
and barriers. In section 3.7 and 3.8, the MAV will propose a model for how councils, the OLV
and water corporations can collaborate to successfully implement the strategy.
3.1
5
Key linkages between councils and the OLV’s Melbourne’s Water Future
3.1.1
Local and regional water cycle plans
Under the strategy, it is proposed that councils will develop 10 year local water cycle plans
that will include goals for reduced use of drinking water, reduced wastewater to treatment
plants, increased use of alternative local water sources and reduced peak flows and
pollutants in waterways. The plans will be developed within a template framework to be
established by the OLV and may commit councils to expenditure on IWCM in line with
projected likely expenditure on relevant assets, for example drains. The plans will also
include measures of tree canopy coverage and soil moisture for water-dependent open
spaces and provide for high-water use industrial customers in the local area.
3.1.2
Land use planning
Land use planning is a critical function of local government but one that occurs within a strict
legislative framework of the State Government – the Victorian Planning Policy Framework.
Under the strategy, existing barriers to IWCM will be removed, such as amendments to the
Victorian Planning Provisions. Home renovators and developers may be required to
integrate water sensitive design into established suburbs – via the planning and building
approval process. The Growth Areas Authority (GAA) will have additional responsibilities to
embed whole-of-water-cycle management into Precinct Structure Plans.
3.1.3
Licensing of stormwater
The strategy will extend Victoria’s water rights and trading framework to include alternative
water sources. As the current owner of stormwater within council assets, the creation of
property rights for the resource has the potential to provide an ongoing revenue stream for
council to fund and maintain new IWCM assets.
3.1.4
Reducing flooding
As a part of the strategy properties and infrastructure at risk of flash flooding from local
drainage systems will be mapped. Councils have a significant interest in identifying and
mitigating flash flooding risks. However, councils note that in some cases, action to restrict
development in flood prone areas has been overturned at VCAT. Council are also currently
liable for any “unreasonable” flows onto private property, although the MAV understands this
legislative deficiency may be rectified during the 2012-13 review of the Victorian Water Act.
3.1.5
Growth areas
The strategy will also increase to role of the GAA to plan for and deliver IWCM in growing
suburbs. Whilst councils and the MAV support this role for the GAA, it faces well
documented challenges funding and delivering other essential infrastructure - such as roads,
schools and hospitals – via the Growth Area Infrastructure Charge.
3.1.6
Implications for the strategy implementation
Critically, these linkages and new requirements of councils will draw together many areas of
council business and council planning processes, these include: the statutory council plan;
drainage, roads and roadside infrastructure; parks and open space; planning and land use;
environmental plans and others.
6
3.1.7
Other important linkages
Climate change will have significant implications for the strategy implementation, yet apart
from the Victorian Climate Change Adaptation Plan box on page 37 is little discussed.
Councils have a strong interest in ensuring that long lived infrastructure, such as roads,
drains and buildings are designed with a changed climate in mind. Therefore it is important
that up-to-date, modelling of water flows into the future is made available to assist local
government with this design challenge. The MAV welcomed the release of the Victorian
Climate Change Adaptation Plan, in which the Victorian Government has set out a plan for
managing the risks of a changing climate to assets, essential infrastructure and services.
However, much remains to be done.
As owner of 85 per cent of the road network, councils play an important role in traffic
management and road safety. Of particular relevance to the strategy, many councils are
investing in traffic calming infrastructure to improve road safety and promote active travel.
OLV should consider the potential traffic calming infrastructure combined with IWCM
features. An example of this integration, from the City of Yarra, is seen on page 8 of the
strategy.
3.2
3.2.1
Implementation challenges
Capacity
The strategy correctly acknowledges the numerous IWCM successes stories achieved by
local government in recent years. However, these projects have often travelled a bumpy
path to completion. They’ve faced a lack of technical capacity both internally and externally
to design, construct and maintain IWCM assets. Many councils observe a deficit of technical
capacity to manage IWCM infrastructure in commonly used contractors. In some cases,
costly rebuilds of infrastructure has been required, simply due to contractors not following
the plans as provided.
3.2.2
Community buy-in
During the recent Millennium Drought, Melbournians demonstrated significant ability to
change water consumption perspectives and practices. The Federal and State
Governments, councils and water corporations collaborated effectively to communicate the
severity of the drought and the need for action, resulting in a 40 per cent reduction in per
person, per day water consumption. A similar level of collaboration will be required to
communicate the benefits of this strategy and the need for a long term planned approach.
3.2.3
Quantifying benefits
OLV are currently developing a systems analysis tool with the intent to “attach a value to
storage, consumption, transfers and stormwater processing at each point in the water
system”. This will “outline current and future required citywide infrastructure, guidelines for…
planning and overall pricing principles” (p10). Councils support the development of robust
project assessment guidelines to support long-term investment decisions. However, flexibility
must be maintained to accommodate different levels of technical capacity, community
7
support among project proponents and the need for an equitable geographic spread of
investment.
Historically, major initiatives such as this strategy have led to substantial inflation of
contractor and material costs. Councils already face considerable political pressure to
restrict growth in rates to CPI – despite the council costs growing at a faster rate1. As a part
of the strategy, a shared procurement model (possibly facilitated by MAV Procurement)
could be used to control contractor costs.
3.2.4
Legacy issues
As previously noted, many councils have made significant investments in IWCM, as well as
traditional drainage infrastructure. These investments were made on the basis of particular
assumptions, for example, the council ownership of recovered stormwater. As OLV and the
State Government consider regulatory reform to support the strategy implementation,
changes should not undermine councils capacity to fund and manage existing assets.
3.2.5
Boundaries
The OLV is currently considering appropriate boundaries for delivering the strategy’s
catchment-based outcomes. Councils understand that the most appropriate boundaries for
the strategy may require councils to work across multiple water corporations and the OLV to
deliver projects. Whilst this might present a minor inconvenience, of greater importance to
councils is that OLV reduce the administrative burden on councils’ participation in the
strategy, by developing simple and clear processes and contracts for project governance
and acquittal of funds. However, this approach reinforces the need for OLV to have an
ongoing facilitation role.
3.2.6
State and local government working together
The MAV and councils have a significant experience working with the State and Federal
government to fund and deliver services such as: home and community care, libraries,
school crossing supervisors and community transport, among others. Many councils view
lengthy contract negotiations to specify service levels as a distraction from “getting on with
the job”.
The OLV may take guidance from the partnership model for delivery of jointly-funded
maternal and child health services, which is formalised in a Memorandum of Understanding
between the State Government and the MAV. Another example is VicRoads, which has
recently undergone a transition from a prescriptive model to principles-based model for
setting speed limits on local roads. A principles-based approach can reduce administrative
burden, provide for more collaborative delivery of infrastructure and services and ensure
more funds are spent on ‘on-ground’ outcomes.
3.2.7
Links to Melbourne metro strategy
The MAV commends the OLV’s intention to integrate IWCM with the Melbourne Metropolitan
Planning Strategy. Council feedback to the Metropolitan Strategy has focused on providing
1
The council cost index is dominated by labour and construction costs. These have increased at 6-8
per cent in recent years.
8
high level structural advice about the framework within which the Metropolitan Strategy
should operate and its roll out and implementation. With that in mind, the Melbourne Water
Future Strategy and the Melbourne Metropolitan Strategy must not merely reference oneanother. The implementation of each strategy must be structurally linked to ensure synergies
and opportunities are identified and taken advantage of.
Recommendations 2 and 3
Strategy implementation must build technical capacity and community buy-in and
provide for equitable allocation of costs.
A principles-based approach to setting IWCM objectives, rather than contracted
service levels can reduce administrative burden, provide for more collaborative
delivery of infrastructure and services and ensure more funds are spent on ‘onground’ outcomes.
3.3
Costs and benefits
The strategy outlines a clear vision for IWCM in Melbourne which will have significant
benefits for the environment, waterway health, liveability and green space. OLV has
calculated total savings of $6 billion to $7 billion by 2050 and a 10-15 per cent reduction in
annual water sector costs, associated with lower water transmission costs, lower water
supply augmentation costs and improved water security. When considering how and where
to pay for these benefits, it is important to distinguish as much as possible between local
community benefits, water corporation benefits and broader state-wide benefits. This would
provide for an appropriate basis for apportioning costs among beneficiaries.
3.3.1
Funding IWCM
The progressive replacement of existing drainage assets with higher performing IWCM
infrastructure is likely to increase both upfront and lifecycle costs. The appropriate
apportionment of these costs will be a significant challenge for the implementation of the
strategy. The MAV highlighted at the meeting of Melbourne's Integrated Water Cycle
Management Framework (MIWF) Steering Committee in August councils’ difficulty funding
recurrent asset renewal expenditure via the rate base. This is most clearly demonstrated by
the road maintenance and renewal funding gaps within local government, and the reliance of
government grants such as Roads to Recovery. Councils are very sensitive to the risk of
grant-funded or gifted assets that become long term financial liabilities due to their
maintenance and renewal requirements. For example, as has been experienced with some
Water Sensitive Urban Design infrastructure and decorative street lighting in greenfield
developments.
It is unclear whether the expansion of Victoria’s water rights and trading framework to
stormwater will be either a net cost or benefit for councils. Whereas, a saleable stormwater
property right may form part of a revenue stream for councils to fund asset lifecycle costs,
the MAV is also aware of potential proposals to charge councils for water transmission into
the Melbourne Water regional drainage network. To charge councils thus, is likely to
significantly hamper, rather than promote adoption of IWCM.
A particular challenge for the strategy implementation will be to establish funding for asset
life-cycle costs. A sustainable implementation model for this strategy must monetise long-
9
term benefits to create an ongoing revenue stream for councils, and other significant asset
managers, like VicRoads, to fund and maintain IWCM assets.
Recommendation 4
A sustainable implementation model must monetise long-term benefits of IWCM to
create an ongoing revenue stream for councils, and other significant asset managers,
to fund and maintain IWCM assets.
3.4
Understanding councils’ role in the delivering IWCM
There are numerous established council functions which impact stormwater and must be
leveraged by the strategy to achieve IWCM outcomes. Some of these are listed in figure 1.
Within a complex project delivery framework, OLV have expressed a desire to identify
existing council processes that impact on the stormwater system. This would help identify
appropriate policy levers and lead to the establishment of a process for councils and water
corporations to identify IWCM projects, facilitate their delivery and fund lifecycle costs.
local drains
community
engagement
local roads
IWCM
Outcome
open space
and parks
street trees
planning
Figure 1: council functions which impact stormwater
The MAV acknowledges the value of OLV undertaking work to understand the complexity of
interactions between council business areas that influence IWCM and to identify
implementation models which have proven successful. The MAV is committed to assisting
OLV understand council processes, investment timing and drivers for increased IWCM, by
hosting a workshop for councils.
10
However, the MAV cautions OLV against using this process and timing map to identify a
‘one size fits all’ approach to implementing the strategy across all metropolitan councils. This
is because existing local government structures and institutions do not exist in a vacuum,
they have evolved over many years and in response to community, government and
statutory requirements, primarily to deliver over 100 community services2 and maintain
approximately $55 billion worth of assets3. They reflect a wide range of skill sets, context,
technical capacity, financial resourcing and competing priorities in the local government
sector.
Given the pre-existing machinery of 31 metropolitan councils, the implementation of this
strategy can only be achieved through investment in technical capacity, supportive
legislation, community engagement and financial resources.
3.5
Role of OLV, the State Government and water corporations
The challenge for OLV to identify an effective process for the State Government, water
corporations and councils to identify IWCM projects and facilitate their delivery will be to
develop a suite of tools or delivery pathways that accommodate the diversity of the local
government sector. A multi-faceted approach, as outlined in figure 2, has the best chance of
achieving Melbourne-wide IWCM outcomes.
3.6
How to work with councils achieve IWCM?
This submission has demonstrated a wide range of skill sets, contexts, technical capacity,
community support for IWCM and financial resourcing and competing priorities in the local
government sector. A one-size-fits-all model for implementing IWCM is unlikely to achieve
city-wide outcomes. Historically, the most effective joint implementation models between
councils and the State Government have been a partnership approach, in which the
strengths of each party are leveraged. This section of the report will identify five areas to
focus the partnership.
3.6.1
Technical capacity
Although a number of councils have developed considerable in-house IWCM technical
capacity in recent years, capacity is not evenly spread across the local government sector.
Some councils will be reliant on partnerships with OLV and water corporations to identify and
deliver IWCM opportunities. The OLV system analysis tool may be particularly useful to
target the most important outcomes and projects.
OLV could also assist councils with technical guidelines for infrastructure assets (for
example through the Australian Rainfall and Runoff national guidelines) and by facilitating
efficient procurement of appropriately qualified contractors. Historically, when new, higher
standards have been imposed on councils, they have resulted in an over-reliance on
opportunistic contractors which can be costly and can lead to a box-ticking, compliancebased mentality, rather than achieving integrated outcomes.
2
Including: maternal and child health, rubbish, community transport, street lighting, home care and
school crossing supervisors.
3 Including: roads, bridges, drains, town halls, recreation and leisure facilities, community service
facilities, libraries and parks. Councils spend 25% their budgets on the provision of infrastructure.
11
Over the longer term, the strategy should aim to develop IWCM capacity across relevant
council business areas such as: planning, open space, parks, asset and roads.
enabling
legislation
shared
procurement
shared
funding
Councils
systems
analysis tool
community
engagement
technical
expertise
template
asset designs
Figure 2: Role of OLV, the State Government and water corporations
3.6.2
Supportive legislation
OLV have forecast significant legislative change to embed IWCM into the land use planning
system, water property rights and other areas to provide levers that drive IWCM outcomes.
Councils must be given the opportunity to directly inform this process to ensure existing
legislative barriers are overcome and unintended consequences are minimised.
Recommendation 5
Councils must be given the opportunity to directly inform stormwater legislative
reviews to ensure existing barriers are overcome and unintended consequences are
minimised.
3.6.3
Community engagement
All levels of government and the water corporations must work together to engage with the
community to share the benefits of IWCM, including to the environment, waterway health,
liveability and green space, and to promote a shared vision for the future. The consistent
12
communication of challenges and responses during the millennium drought, by councils,
government and water corporations should be used as a model for the strategy.
OLV should also note the critical importance of local community support for demonstration
projects. The best demonstration projects may not be those that claim the best outcomes
based on the modelled results, but those where community buy-in is high and council
sufficiently resourced to deliver.
Recommendation 6
Local community support for IWCM projects is critical. The best demonstration
projects may not be those that claim the best outcomes based on the modelled
results, but those where community buy-in is high and council sufficiently resourced
to deliver.
3.6.4
Leveraging councils’ asset management functions
OLV have forecast an intention to leverage council asset renewal functions to embed a longterm transition to ICWM. Although a long-term, incremental transition has merit, forcing the
adoption of higher-cost IWCM assets as a part of council’s drainage asset renewal functions
is likely to have unintended consequences.
As mentioned previously in section 3.3.1 ‘Funding IWCM’, councils already face significant
challenges renewing other assets such as roads and bridges. This is clearly demonstrated
by road maintenance and renewal funding gaps within councils, and the reliance of
government grants such as Roads to Recovery. Stormwater infrastructure is likely to share
many of these challenges. If councils are forced to install higher-cost IWCM assets during
routine stormwater system maintenance and renewal, less well-resourced councils may
delay necessary upgrades and maintenance.
3.6.5
Financial resources
The financial implication of replacing existing drainage assets with higher performing IWCM
infrastructure has been a key theme of this submission. Many councils have already
demonstrated a willingness to invest in IWCM. However, to achieve city-wide outcomes, a
significant increase in investment across the system is required and the costs apportioned in
line with where the benefits will fall.
Councils are very sensitive to the risk of grant-funded or gifted assets that become long term
financial liabilities due to their maintenance and renewal requirements. Broadly speaking, a
key driver for adoption of IWCM by councils will be the creation of a revenue stream, be it
saleable stormwater property rights or otherwise, to fund lifecycle costs.
Recommendation 7
A key driver for adoption of IWCM by councils will be the creation of a revenue
stream, be it saleable stormwater property rights or otherwise, to fund lifecycle costs.
3.7
13
Road funding model
The delivery of local road infrastructure and services is a mature model for a partnership
between councils, State Government and the private sector which OLV should consider as a
template (see figure 3).
Funding
Grants
Contractors
Rates
Council
roads
VicRoads
Developer
Contributions
Technical
guidelines
Road Mgt. Act
Figure 3: the road funding model
3.7.1
A partnership approach
Councils have a very close working relationship with the State Government via VicRoads
and collaborate closely on technical guidelines (for example setting speed limits),
infrastructure standards and responding to emerging issues. VicRoads has established a
‘principles-based’ approach to regulations that promotes ongoing engagement and allows
councils flexibility to respond to local priorities within a consistent State-wide policy
framework.
3.7.2
Multiple sources of funding
Acknowledging local, state-wide and national benefits for the road network, there are
similarly multiple sources of funding targeting specific outcomes and challenges. The
Federal and State Government contribute untied grants, including Roads to Recovery and
the Country Roads and Bridges Program. The grants emphasis administrative simplicity and
provide critical support for councils with low revenue-generating capacity – particularly to
meet asset maintenance and renewal objectives. Tied grant programs have evolved to target
14
specific priority outcomes, for example network bottle necks, freight capacity and road
safety. Councils are also a major funding partner via council rates.
3.7.3
Legislative framework
The Victorian Road Management Act 2004 sets the high level legislative framework for
roads. The Act established councils as ‘road managers’ and requires councils prepare road
management plans that set out procedures, systems and standards for council-owned public
roads. Councils also benefit from protections against legal liability provided they met the
infrastructure standards established within their plan. Regulations within the act allow for a
flexible response to a changing environment, for example setting speed limits.
3.7.4
Capacity to deliver projects and outcomes
Government, private sector and professional organisations work together to build capacity to
deliver projects and outcomes. Councils have developed in-house skills, in addition to using
external contractors to deliver projects. Developers play a key role in building new road
infrastructure guided by clear design and construction standards, particularly in growing
suburbs
3.8
Benefits of a flexible approach
The framework under which councils manage local roads allows for a flexible, locallyresponsive approach to road management. In particular it:





Recognises that councils have different contexts, capacities and challenges
Allows councils flexibility to respond to local priorities, whilst achieving state-wide
objectives
Provides for a partnership across multiple government, private sector and
professional entities
Provides multiple sources of funding targeting specific outcomes and challenges
Provides legal protections from liability.
Councils and the MAV aim to embed these features into the delivery of Melbourne’s Water
Future.
4 Conclusions / Findings
There is a high level of support for IWCM among councils, many of whom have contributed
significant resources to their own integrated stormwater initiatives and strategies in recent
years.
However, the implementation of the strategy will require a significant shift in how many
councils management of stormwater, requiring investment in technical capacity, supportive
legislation, community engagement and financial resources. In particular, a sustainable
implementation model must monetise long-term benefits of IWCM to create an ongoing
revenue stream for councils, and other significant asset managers, to fund and maintain
IWCM assets.
15
The MAV specifically cautions the OLV against a ‘one size fits all’ approach to strategy
implementation may fail to accommodate the wide range of skill sets, context, technical
capacity, financial resourcing and competing priorities in the local government sector. OLV
may take heed of the suite of suite of tools or delivery pathways which target specific
outcomes and challenges associated with managing local roads.
16