SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
Report prepared for DTPLI to assist Local
Government (Sunbury out of Hume City
Council) Panel
Prepared for DTPLI
June 2014
www.public-place.com.au
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
REPORT AUTHORS
Glenn Weston – Director
Public Place Melbourne Pty Ltd
ABN 45 165 088 951
Tel: 03 9078 4607
Website: www.public-place.com.au
i|P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
Contents
1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
RESEARCH TASKS ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2
OVERVIEW..................................................................................................................................... 2
3
FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES ............................................................................................... 3
3.1
LONG DAY CARE ...................................................................................................................................... 3
3.2
KINDERGARTEN ........................................................................................................................................ 5
3.3
MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH................................................................................................................. 10
4
HACC ........................................................................................................................................... 17
4.1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 17
4.2
EXISTING PROVISION ............................................................................................................................... 17
4.3
CATCHMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 18
4.4
OPERATING COSTS.................................................................................................................................. 18
4.5
FUTURE ROLE FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS ................................................................................................... 19
5
LIBRARIES .................................................................................................................................... 20
5.1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 20
5.2
EXISTING PROVISION ............................................................................................................................... 20
5.3
FUTURE PROVISION ................................................................................................................................ 22
6
LEISURE CENTRES ........................................................................................................................ 25
6.1
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 25
6.2
EXISTING PROVISION ............................................................................................................................... 25
6.3
CATCHMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 26
6.4
OPERATING COSTS.................................................................................................................................. 26
6.5
RATIONALE FOR COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................... 27
6.6
FUTURE PROVISION ................................................................................................................................ 28
6.7
MANAGEMENT MODELS.......................................................................................................................... 28
APPENDIX 1 – SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION RELATING TO COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST ................ 30
COMMUNITY OF INTEREST .................................................................................................................... 31
POPULATION
31
DEMOGRAPHY 31
ii | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
1
Introduction
Public Place was engaged by Local Government Victoria to conduct a study to support the
establishment of Sunbury as a new municipal authority. The investigation included analysis of
community service delivery methods and approaches currently being used by Hume. The aim was to
assess the suitability of existing practice for the potential new Council and suggest alternative
arrangements that would be better suited, given the new Council’s likely size and character.
Four service areas were investigated, based on direction from the Planning Panel convened to
consider the merits of the proposal to develop a new Council area around Sunbury, namely:

Family and Children’s Services

Home and Community Care (HACC)

Libraries

Aquatic and Leisure Centres
In addition, to assist the Panel’s enquiries in the area of ‘Communities of Interest’, demographic
analysis/thematic mapping was undertaken, the results of which are provided in the Appendix.
1.1
Research Tasks
A number of research tasks were undertaken as part of the project:

Review of relevant documents and data provided by Hume City Council (SCC) and sourced
independently (citations provided throughout report)

A series of interviews and follow up enquiries with HCC staff working in each of the nominated
service areas.

A mix of face-to-face and telephone interviews with:
-
Department of Health
-
The Melbourne Planning Authority
-
K2 Planning
-
Cities of Brimbank, Yarra, Greater Geelong, Greater Bendigo
-
The Rural City of Wangaratta
-
Shires of Mitchell, Loddon and Wellington
-
Goulburn Valley Library Corporation
1|P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
2
Overview
This project has investigated potential service delivery approaches for the new municipality in a
number of key service areas. Each service reviewed responds to a different client group/need and
relies on different funding channels and supporting infrastructure. Private sector involvement also
varies by service category. However, a consistent theme across service areas is that the new Council’s
smaller scale and lower rate base coupled with significant projected growth make it essential that
services are well targeted to local needs and delivered using an efficient and effective service delivery
model.
At present, Hume City Council’s (HCC) service planning and social infrastructure investment are
heavily influenced by the Council’s ‘Social Justice Charter’. The Charter may not be an appropriate
guide to targeting services and investment in a new municipality, due to the new Council area’s likely
notably different demographic composition and level of socio-economic disadvantage, as compared
with the Balance of Hume.
In each case, there is potential for the new Council to divest responsibility (in whole or in part) for
direct service provision to other organisations with specialist capabilities. The merits of such an
approach include potential costs savings and improvements in service quality. Accordingly, a key
theme of this report is that the new Council seriously consider defining its role in relation to
community service delivery as a planner, funder and advocate and not as a direct service provider.
Moreover, direct service provision may still be the preferred approach of the new Council, even in
cases when it is a more expensive option. If a business case is to be made for social procurement then
it should be built upon the best value principles that take into account monetary costs as well as the
optimum result for the community; the least expensive option does not always constitute best value.
Feedback from stakeholders consulted as part of this project indicates that the complexity of service
delivery in the human services in particular means that at times at least, the extra expense associated
with in house delivery may be justifiable to gain greater control over service quality.
Development of a detailed business case for potential approaches to service delivery in each service
area will be required before the new Council can make a final decision regarding its preferred
approach.
2|P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
3
Family and Children’s Services
3.1
Long Day Care
3.1.1
Introduction
Long day care (LDC) programs provide centre based care for children aged 0-6 years whose parents
are working, studying or training, who are deemed to be at risk of significant abuse or neglect and/or
who require care for respite reasons.
3.1.2
Existing Provision
There are 38 LDC care centres located in Hume, four of which are owned and operated by Hume
Council (HCC). Council facilities contain approximately 8.5% of all licensed places (excluding rooms
devoted to delivery of sessional kindergarten programs).
In Sunbury there are eight LDC centres, which provide a total of 643 licensed places (21% of licenced
places in Hume). Consistent with conclusions drawn by KPMG in 2012, the data show that childcare
provision is higher per child (1 place per 5.4 children aged 0-6) compared with Hume overall (1 place
per 6.3 children aged 0-6). The Metro average rate of provision in 2011 was reported to be 1 place
per 6.8 children aged 0-6 by ASR1, indicating that current supply in Sunbury is more than adequate.
Table 3-1: Long Day care in Hume
Number of
Centers
Licensed Places
Children aged 0-6
Places per child
aged 0-6
Sunbury
8
643
3,445*
5.4
Hume
38
3046
19,290
6.3
*Based on i.d. consulting boundary for Sunbury, which is similar but not identical to the SLA boundary.
HCC owns and operates one of the eight LDC centres located in Sunbury, the Sunningdale Avenue
Children’s Centre. The centre is located in Goonawarra and accounts for approximately 10% of
licensed places in Sunbury. MCC also delivers MCH and sessional kindergarten from within the facility.
MCC therefore currently has slightly higher share of licensed places in Sunbury than in the Balance of
Hume. However, in each area HCC plays a limited role compared with independent providers.
3.1.3
Catchment
The families who access Sunningdale Avenue Children’s Centre predominantly live in Sunbury. A total
of 97 children from 80 families from Sunbury access the program and four families from outside
Sunbury and the municipality, namely, from Romsey, Diggers Rest, Maribyrnong and West Melton.
1
ASR 2011
3|P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
3.1.4
Operating Costs
The cost to HCC of delivering a long day service from the Sunningdale Avenue Children’s Centre in
2014/15 is projected to be $97, 902 (comprising income of $1,049,339 and expenses of $1,147,241).
This figure excludes corporate overheads, building maintenance ($80K) and management overheads.
Currently 15 staff EFT (19 employees) are employed to deliver the service. There are also three
leadership staff based in the Sunbury region. These staff also oversee HCC’s Preschools.
3.1.5
Future Demand
Demand for long day will increase in Sunbury as the population of the area grows. To illustrate, initial
analysis conducted by K2 Planning on behalf of the Melbourne Planning Authority (MPA) indicates
that in the order of seven additional long day care centres will be required in Sunbury to respond to
population growth associated with the Lancefield Road and Sunbury South Precinct Structure Plans
(PSPs).
3.1.6
Rationale for Council Involvement
HCC staff indicated that they retain a limited presence in the LDC market in order to ensure that there
is provision in areas which are not attractive to independent operators (Goonawarra is thought to be
such a location) and to ensure they retain a practical understating of the industry, which assists them
to perform their service/infrastructure planning role more effectively.
Plans being developed for the Lancefield Road and Sunbury South PSPs assume that infrastructure to
support delivery of long day care and the operation of the centres will both be funded privately. No
provision is currently being made for Council infrastructure to support delivery of long day care.
Rather, likely service requirements and strategic locations for future facilities are being identified, to
facilitate development of private centres adjacent to nominated clusters of Council infrastructure,
including kindergartens and MCH offices.
The approach to planning for the Lancefield Road and Sunbury South PSPs is indicative of that
occurring in other growth areas. Moreover, discussions with MAV conducted as part of this project
indicate that MAV recognises that many Councils are retreating from involvement in LDC provision (as
a service provider and/or infrastructure owner and manager).
If the new Council continues to operate Sunningdale Avenue Children’s Centre but is not directly
involved in LDC provision elsewhere in the new municipal area, over time costs associated with LDC
will decline proportionally to the size of the new municipality population/rate base.
4|P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
3.2
Kindergarten
3.2.1
Introduction
Kindergarten is used by children in the year prior to entering primary school. Children are usually aged
4-5 at this time. Historically in Victoria, kindergarten programs have been provided primarily by
voluntary, philanthropic, and community based groups and local government.
More recently the format for the delivery of kindergartens has evolved and diversified to respond to
changes in funding arrangements and consumer preferences and private sector providers are
becoming increasingly involved in delivery of kindergarten programs. The main approaches being
used are:

Stand-alone preschool - assets typically owned by a Council or community group. Children
attend discrete sessions typically between 5-7.5 hours in length. Service often make use of a
parent management community, particularly community run services. Private sector provision
is negligible/non-existent.

Early Years Hub - Sessional kindergarten program run within an early years hub (in dedicated
room). Children attend discrete sessions typically between 5-7.5 hours in length. LDC including
integrated kindergarten and potentially other services such as MCH also delivered under the
same roofline. Infrastructure typically developed and managed by a local Council. Service may
be delivered by a community organisation Private sector provision is negligible/non-existent.

Integrated Kindergarten - Kindergarten is delivered as part of a day at Long Day Care (up to 10
hours). Private sector provision is common. Councils and community organisations also use this
approach.

Pre-prep – Kindergarten is delivered by a private school often on the same grounds as the
primary school campus. Hours of attendance reflect particular educational philosophy of the
school. Represents only small proportion of total supply.
Across Melbourne, the proportion of Children attending a sessional kindergarten program within a
preschool or integrated early years hub has declined from around 85% in 20072 to 63% in 2012,
reflecting the increased popularity of ‘integrated’ kindergarten programs. Notwithstanding, sessional,
programs still dominate.
2
COAG 2007
5|P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
3.2.2
Existing Provision
In 2013 in HCC there were approximately 2,643 children attending kindergarten. About a quarter
(23%) of these children participated in an integrated program, with the balance (77%) attending a
sessional program in a preschool or early years’ hub. A similar proportion of kindergarten enrolments
were in an integrated program in Sunbury (26%) (see Table 3.2).
Table 3-2: Kindergarten Enrolments in Hume
Hume
Sunbury
Integrated
27%
26%
Sessional
73%
74%
Total
100%
100%
Source: HCC Direct Data Request
Across HCC, the Council is the main supplier of sessional kindergarten, with Council services taking
around 74% of all sessional enrolments (the figure is 86% for Sunbury) (see Table 3.3) . Just over 20%
of Council’s sessional kindergarten centres/licenced places are located in Sunbury, roughly
proportional to the split of population between Sunbury and the balance of Hume.
In Sunbury, there are five sessional kindergartens owned and operated by Council (the remaining
centre is owned and operated by the Uniting Church). One of the centres (Sunningdale) is a family and
children’s hub, whereas the other four are traditional stand-alone preschools.
Table 3-3: Sessional Kindergarten in Hume
Centers
Hume
Sunbury
Licensed Places
Enrolments
Other
Council
Other
Council
Other
Council
9
22
450
994
482
1,391
29%
71%
31%
69%
26%
74%
1
5
60
210
50
304
17%
83%
22%
78%
14%
86%
% Council located in
Sunbury
23%
21%
22%
Source: HCC Direct Data Request
6|P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
3.2.3
Catchment
Only six families who send their children to a Council operated preschool in Sunbury live outside
Sunbury (one family each in Melton, Avondale heights, Roxburgh Park, Sunshine, Meadow Heights
and Deer Park). Currently no children attend who live the non-urban area (i.e. Diggers Rest, Bulla,
Wildwood, etc.).
This suggests the service responds to demand generated locally in Sunbury. Also, attendance level at
local kindergartens is commensurate with locally generated demand, suggesting little net leakage of
demand from within Sunbury to other areas.
3.2.4
Operating Costs
As Table 3.4 indicates, Council operated centres are well utilised with almost all programmed places
offered in 2014 being used. Notwithstanding, programmed capacity could be increased across the
network, particularly at Dobell and Sunningdale. However, despite high utilisation each service
currently has a net operating deficit.
Operating costs are in large part associated with employing staff. At present 10.34 EFT are needed to
run the Sunbury centres. Service delivery staff are supported by a Regional Team Leader and Regional
Co-ordinator, a Children’s Services Coordinator and Manager of Family and Children’s Services.
Table 3-4: Operating Costs – Sessional Kindergartens in Sunbury
Centre
Licensed
Capacity
Programmed
Places
Enrollments
Net
Operational
Cost
Building
Maintenance
Dobell Avenue
29
28
26
$1,242
$30K
Learmonth Street
29
56
52
$17,509
$30K
McEwen Drive
30
56
55
$15,198
$45K
Sunningdale Avenue
66
84
84
$8,338
$80K*
Stewarts Lane
56
112
110
$108,712
$25K
Source: HCC Direct Data Request (* maintenance of entire building including LDC and MCH spaces)
3.2.5
Future Demand
Demand for kindergarten services will increase dramatically over the next 20 years in the new
municipality. For example, analysis undertaken by K2 Planning highlights the need for an additional
five kindergarten facilities in association with the projected population growth in the Lancefield Road
and Sunbury South PSPs.
7|P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
3.2.6
Rationale for Council Involvement
While utilisation of integrated kindergartens services will likely continue - potentially leading to a
further reduction in the market share for preschools - there will be continued demand for sessional
kindergarten programs and a community expectation that this option remain available.
Councils and community organisations are the main suppliers of sessional programs, with few if any
commercial operators choosing to use a sessional format. Moreover, it is unlikely that private
providers will enter the market for sessional programs due to a lack of commercial viability.3 In
contrast, Councils and community based cluster management organisations (see below) are eligible to
receive a number of subsidies from DEECD to offset the cost of delivering sessional programs,
including an annual grant (per kindergarten) and one off payments when additional kindergartens are
developed.4
Given the above, assuming the new municipality wishes to ensure that the sessional kindergartens
remain available to members of the local community, it will be required to play a role in the delivery
of the service, either as an asset manager and/or service provider, and/or service planner.
Cluster Management
Cluster management is the grouping of kindergarten services under one management organisation
which is responsible for the employment of staff, management and administration of the service, and
maintenance of licensing and regulatory responsibilities. The cluster manager becomes the licensee of
the service, the employer of kindergarten staff, and the funded entity.
Cluster management was introduced by the Victorian Government to address issues surrounding the
role, responsibilities and workload of kindergarten parent Committees of Management, and the
conditions and management of staff working in standalone kindergartens.
A number of local councils are cluster managers. However, other organisations also operate
kindergarten clusters. The four types of cluster managers are:

local government cluster managers;

community based organisation cluster managers;

federated model cluster managers; and

amalgamated model cluster managers.
Community based organisations include church agencies and other non-government organisations.
Federated model cluster managers and amalgamated cluster managers arise where kindergartens join
3
4
DEECD pers.com 2014
Kindergarten Cluster Management – FAQs (DEECD 2014)
8|P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
forces to create a cluster management organisation. In a federated model, an overarching
incorporated association is formed as a management body and kindergartens retain their individual
incorporated association status. In an amalgamated model, kindergartens merge to create one
incorporated association.
DEECD is highly supportive of local governments making use of specialist cluster management
organisations to operate kindergarten services from Council buildings, and this model would
potentially suit the new municipality. Specialist cluster management organisations have developed
extensive expertise in the business of operating kindergartens including all associated administrative
responsibilities/regulations and due to the scale of their operation can provide a supportive
workplace for teachers. DEECD expressed the view that the expertise of the cluster managers has
potential flow on benefits for the quality of kindergarten services delivered in a local area.
DEECD has also advised that there are currently 10 cluster management organisations operating
within Victoria and that if the Council were to seek applications from cluster managers to take over
the operation of kindergarten services in Sunbury, it would be very unlikely that there would be no
interested parties.
A brief interview was conducted with the CEO of the Lodden Mallee Preschool Association (LMPA) to
explore further the benefits associated with engaging a cluster management specialist to deliver
kindergarten services from within existing Council assets. Feedback provided by LMPA is summarised
below:

Where kindergartens are brought under their management, a complete review of the existing
business model is undertaken, with the objective being to alter practice across a number of
areas to ensure the kindergarten can run at a surplus. Generation of an operating surplus is a
key of objective of LMPA and funds are re-invested into the organisations kindergartens to
improve physical conditions, buy equipment, etc.

When kindergartens are brought under LMPA management, every effort is taken to retain
existing staff.

LMPA pay staff in accordance with the Victorian Early Childhood Teachers and Assistants
Agreement 2009 (VECTAA). In some cases Councils pay staff at rates which exceed VECTAA
award rates, and therefore reduced staffing costs may be one source of cost savings.

Savings are also typically gained through improved administrative practice and increased
purchasing power, and additional revenues are sometimes generated through a review of fee
structures.

LMPA uses a global budget across its kindergartens and surpluses are shared, so that less viable
kindergartens do not miss out on investment on equipment, etc.
9|P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1

Local staff are supported by a management team which deals with issues such as recruitment,
payroll, employee training and development, etc. activities that are often undertaken by
teachers in smaller kindergartens. LMPA staff are encouraged to progress into managerial roles
over time.
Service Planning and Central Enrolment
Whether the new Council is a direct service provider or relies on a community based cluster manager,
it may still be beneficial for the new Council to manage the kindergarten enrolment process. The
Council will need to continue to play a role as planner and asset manager and therefore would benefit
from direct access to information about service utilisation.
3.3
Maternal and Child Health
3.3.1
Introduction
Local Governments have legislative responsibility to deliver the Maternal and Child Health Service.
The service comprises the ‘Universal Maternal and Child Health Service’ and the Enhanced Maternal
and Child Health.
Universal Maternal and Child Health Service
The Universal MCH Service is a free, universally accessible service for all families with children aged
from birth to school age. The Service supports families and their children with an emphasis on
parenting, prevention and health promotion, developmental assessment, early detection and referral
and social support. The Universal Maternal and Child Health Service comprises 10 Key Age and Stage
(KAS) consultations and a flexible service component. Funding for the KAS component of the Universal
Service is based on time allocation per KAS consultation as shown in Table 3-5. The flexible service
component allows additional needs of the child and family to be met through a range of activities
including parent groups, additional consultations, telephone consultations and community
strengthening activities.
Table 3-5: KAS Consultations
KAS Consultation
Time Allocation
Initial home visit
1 hour
2 weeks
30 minutes
4 weeks
1 hour
8 weeks
30 minutes
4 months
30 minutes
8 months
45 minutes
12 months
30 minutes
18 months
45 minutes
10 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
KAS Consultation
Time Allocation
2 years
30 minutes
3.5 years
45 minutes
Source: DEECD (2011)
Enhanced Service
The Enhanced Maternal and Child Health Service focuses on children, mothers and families at risk of
poor health and wellbeing outcomes, in particular where multiple risk factors for poor outcomes are
present. The Enhanced Maternal and Child Health Service is provided in addition to the suite of
services offered through the Universal Maternal and Child Health Service. The Enhanced Maternal
and Child Health Service provides a more intensive level of support, including short-term case
management in some circumstances. Support may be provided in a variety of settings, including the
family home, the maternal and child health centre, or other locations within the community.
3.3.2
Existing Provision
Maternal and Child Health services are delivered from two locations in the new municipality, Elizabeth
Drive MCH centre and Goonawarra MCH centre (see Figure 3.1). The Elizabeth Drive MCH centre is
used to accommodate 2.4 effective full time (EFT) MCH Nurse staff (91.2 hours per week), whereas
the Goonawarra MCH centre is used to accommodate 0 .6 effective full time (EFT) MCH Nurse staff
(22.8 hours per week).
Industry standards suggest that 0.56 EFT is required at Goonawarra and 2.85 EFT Elizabeth Drive.
Maternal Child Health relievers and/or casual staff back fill the EFT not currently permanently
allocated.
3.3.3
Catchment
The catchment areas for the two existing MCH centres located in the new municipality are shown on
Figure 3.1. As the Map shows, the catchment of the Elizabeth Drive encompasses the majority of the
urban component of the new municipality (excluding Goonawarra) and extends to the northern
municipal boundary and as far south as Diggers Rest. The catchment of the Goonawarra MCH centre
includes the Goonawarra area and areas to the east such as Wildwood and part of Bulla.
11 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
12 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
3.3.4
Operating Costs
Income to support delivery of the service is derived from DEECD who fund the Universal MCH
program on a 50/50 basis with Council. Total DEECD income for Hume City is estimated at $1,381,614.
Nominally the total service budget would be double this, or $2,763,228.
The budget for nurse salaries in the Sunbury centres is $440,845 or 16% of the nominal service
budget. The Sunbury nurses are supported by a MCH Team Leader, Family Services Coordinator and
Manager Family and Children’s Services and an administration team of 1.2 EFT
HCC reports that it currently makes an additional contribution toward delivery of the MCH service
beyond the notional 50/50 split, resulting in a 60/40 funding mix. The implication is that HCC expends
an additional $650-$700K above and beyond matching DEECD funding. This is despite the fact that
HCC has already implemented a number of innovative practices which reduce the cost associated
with service delivery, including the use of non-MCH qualified Nurses to deliver some of the nonclinical aspects of the service, such as parents groups.
3.3.5
Future Demand
Demand for MCH services will likely increase over the next 20 years in the new municipality due to
projected large increases in the area’s population. However, analysis undertaken by K2 Planning has
not yet quantified the need for additional MCH facilities in association with the projected population
growth in the Lancefield Road and Sunbury South PSPs.
3.3.6
Future Funding
It is difficult to know what level of funding the new Council would receive from the State government,
although it is likely to be less than that received by Hume on a per capita basis. This is because the
DEECD funding formula includes a weightings component partly based on a measure of socioeconomic disadvantage. When compared with other metropolitan Councils, HCC currently receives
the highest level of funding per child aged 0-6 ($112 per child). Councils with a similar SEIFA score to
the Sunbury SLA receive approximately 20% less funding per child aged 0-6 ($85-$95 per child aged 06).
13 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
Figure 3-1: MCH Funding (Universal and Enhanced Combined) per child aged 0-6 by Metro LGA
Additional funds allocated to Councils with higher levels of socio-economic disadvantage reflect the
increased cost of service delivery in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage and high need. In principle
therefore, costs associated with service delivery in a new municipality should be lower. However, HCC
staff report that Sunbury residents currently receive at least the same and in some cases a more
flexible service than the balance of Hume, which is funded primarily from the enhanced MCH budget.
3.3.7
Rationale for Council Involvement
Local government jointly fund the MCH service in partnership with the State Government
While this does not necessarily mean that Local Government must provide the service directly, local
government has a long standing association with the service and in metropolitan Melbourne all local
governments are direct service providers.
3.3.8
Contracting Out
The following highlights the experiences of the City of Brimbank and a selection of Regional Councils
which have delivered the service via contractors.
The City of Brimbank
City of Brimbank contracted out the MCH service to a community health provider between 1997 and
2012. In 2012 Council ended the arrangement and resumed the role of direct service provider.
The decision to resume the role of direct service provider was taken so that the Council could have
greater control over all aspects of service quality (including recruitment) and data collection, and be
more responsive to the emerging needs of the community. Representatives of Brimbank consulted
characterised the service needs of the Brimbank community as diverse and ever changing, which
creates difficulties developing a service specification years in advance to adequately respond to
community needs.
14 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
Notwithstanding, Brimbank reported positive aspects of contracting out the service, including nurses
having more direct access to other clinical professionals working for the contracting agency. A major
benefit of contracting out MCH was the reduced cost of service delivery. Brimbank reported that
recurrent costs associated with wages and the administration of the service increased by over 30%
following Council resuming the role of direct service provider.
Contracting Out in Regional Areas
A number of LGAs with small and/or geographically dispersed populations currently contract out their
MCH service, typically to a local community health service. As table 3.6 shows, the LGAs have a
population ranging from 5,798 to 42,196 people. Comments made by a representative of Wangaratta
Rural City are provided below:

Wangaratta Rural City – has used Ovens & King Community Health Service to deliver the service
since 1997. A service review will be undertaken next year to assess the financial costs of
contracting out the service compared with direct delivery using Council staff, as this
comparison has not been made for some time. It was noted that hourly rates paid to nurses by
Ovens & King Community Health Service would likely be lower than that paid under Council
awards. However, salary packaging privileges available to the health centre employees meant
that for the Nurses the wages would be comparable. Wangaratta Rural City has been very
satisfied with the quality of the service delivered by Ovens & King Community Health Service.
Table 3-6: LGA where MCH services are contracted out
Local Government Area
Contracted Agencies Providing MCH
Service
Population
East Gippsland
Gippsland Lakes Community Health
42,196
Orbost Regional Health
Wellington
Yarram District Health Service
41,440
Central Gippsland Health Service
Bass Coast Shire Council
Bass Coast Community Health Service
29,614
Hepburn Shire
Hepburn Health Service
14,367
Hindmarsh Shire
West Wimmera Health Service
5,798
Wangaratta Rural City
Ovens and King Health Services
26,815
Source: MAV, City of Brimbank 2014
Sunbury Community Health Centre
There is a local community health service currently operating within Sunbury (Sunbury
Community Health Centre - SCHC) which has expressed an interest in delivering the MCH service
on the new Council’s behalf. In its submission to the Panel, SCHC states that:
15 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
Contracting out of services (such as MCH), to, for example, SCHC would provide
opportunities to leverage an inherently lower service delivery cost base. In addition,
contracting out maternal and child health nursing services to established local
agencies could utilise established clinical governance and supervision, risk
management, quality assurance and accreditation systems within external agencies
and avoid the need to replicate such systems within Council
The views put by SCHC are consistent with feedback provided by City of Brimbank and regional
Councils consulted as part of this project.
16 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
4
HACC
4.1
Introduction
The HACC Program provides services that support older people (65+) or those with a disability to stay
at home and be more independent in the community.
Local Government has been involved in the HACC Program since it creation in 1985 and has delivered
services now funded under the HACC program since the 1950s. Local Government is the main
provider of particular components of the program such as home and personal care, property
maintenance and delivered meals.
4.2
Existing provision
HCC currently provides a range of HACC services as listed in the Table below. Across Victoria
approximately 70% of service hours are delivered to the +65 aged group, and 30% delivered to those
with a disability.
Approximately 26% of Hume’s service hours are delivered in Sunbury (varies by service category from
20% to 34%), reflecting the older population profile of Sunbury (10.7% aged over 65) compared with
Hume as a whole (9.1% aged over 65).
Table 4-1: HACC Service Hours Delivered by Hume Council (2012/13)
Service
Total Hrs Delivered
Hrs Delivery Sunbury
% Sunbury
Home
Support
Services
Home Care
56,679
14,956
26%
Personal Care
26,466
5,280
20%
Respite Care
23,983
6,519
27%
Community
Support
Services
Property Maintenance
6,530
Not available
Not available
Planned Activity Groups
8,493
1,271
15%
Community Transport
2,379
Not available
Not available
Delivered Meals
33,497
11,511
34%
7,458
1,787
24%
Intake and
Assessment
HACC Assessment
Source: HCC Direct Data Request 2014
17 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
4.3
Catchment
The majority of HACC services are delivered to clients in the home. Exceptions are Planned Activity
Groups which rely on community spaces, and community transport.
4.4
Operating Costs
HACC is currently funded by the Federal and State Government under a unit cost model, with funds
for some components of the service channelled exclusively through local government. The majority of
LGAs have found that additional resources are required to deliver the service in their local area,
contributions being typically in the order of 30-40% of total costs.5
Operating costs for Hume are shown in the Table below for Hume and Sunbury. As can be seen, HCC
makes a notable contribution (33.4%) to the cost of delivering HACC services. The cost pro-rata to
HCC of delivering the service in Sunbury is very similar to that for the service overall.
Table 4-2: HACC Global Budget, Hume and Sunbury
Hume
Sunbury
% Sunbury
Total Revenue
$6,943,074
$1,806,861
26%
Total Costs
$10,422,390
$2,731,094
26%
Total Net
($3,479,316)
($924,233)
27%
33.4%
33.8%
Hume Contribution
Source: HCC Direct Data Request 2014
Home Support Services in Sunbury are delivered by 35 full and part time staff (approximately) and
there are two coordinator roles (2EFT) assigned to Sunbury. These staff are supported by an
administrative team which oversees delivery throughout the City of Hume (5 EFT).
Intake and Assessment and Community Support Services are delivered by teams with a whole of
municipality role. The Intake and Assessment team comprises 7.4 EFT and the Community Support
Services comprises 12.8 EFT.
5
MAV pers. Com, DoH pers.com
18 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
4.5
Future Role Funding Arrangements
In May 2013, the Victorian Government agreed to transition responsibility for HACC services for older
clients to the Commonwealth. This transfer will take effect from 1 July 2015.
The details of how the Federal Government will manage the funding of HACC are still under review.
However, it is possible (likely) that funding will no longer be directed through local government as a
matter of course.
At this stage, it is expected that when the Federal government assumes responsibility for funding
HACC in 2015, Councils will be given the option to renew their existing funding agreements (based on
service levels at the time) for three years, potentially extending local government’s current role until
2018. During this period any growth funds (additional funding associated with population growth)
may be distributed on a competitive basis, meaning that other providers may enter the market.
After this time, it is likely that all HACC services for those aged 65+ will be purchased directly by the
Federal Government under a competitive tendering process. Local Governments would be able to bid
to deliver the service, but may not be competitive in an open market and/or may see fit to leave
service delivery to specialist agencies.
It is also the case that HACC funding for services provided to people with a disability will be funded
under the National Disability Insurance Scheme from 2019. At this time, Councils will also likely be
required to compete for HACC funding, or exit from their role as a direct service provider.
The above creates a difficult choice for the new municipality. If it chooses to develop the internal
capacity to delivery HACC services, it will inherit a notable operating deficit, and within a short period,
may not be well placed to compete for HACC funding. If on the other hand the Council wishes to leave
HACC service delivery to others, there will be an interim period (possible until 2018 for over 65+ and
2019 for disability) during which existing service provision arrangements may be relied upon, and
there would be no such arrangements in place for the new Council.
An interim arrangement which relieves the new Council of the requirement to develop internal
service delivery capacity may be considered the most practical approach, given the nature of the
current changes to HACC funding.
19 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
5
Libraries
5.1
Introduction
Victoria has 47 public library services. There are 35 services operated by individual councils, 11
regional library corporations which provide services for a number of councils, one shared library
service operated by the City of Ballarat for itself and six other municipalities.
5.2
Existing Provision
There are five permanent libraries in Hume municipality, the Sunbury Library; the Age Library
(Broadmeadows); the Craigieburn Library; the Gladstone Park Community Library; and the
Tullamarine Library. These libraries are owned and operated by HCC.
In recent years, the Broadmeadows library has been developed within a Global Learning Centre (GLC)
adjacent the Council’s offices in Broadmeadows at a cost of $12 million. The facility incorporates a
1,653 sq. m library. A similar development has recently been completed at Craigieburn at a cost of
$17 million, which incorporates a 2,182 sq.m library.
Floor Space
KPMG (2012) compared overall provision of library floor space per head of population in Sunbury with
the rest of Hume. It was concluded that total floor space per head in Sunbury (1.5 sq. per 100
residents) was low when compared that available in the reminder of the municipal area (3.2 sq. per
100 residents). In the context of library floor supply across the metropolitan region, supply of library
floor space in Sunbury is very low, whereas supply in the remainder of Hume is quite generous (see
Figure 5.1). There are also clear discrepancies in the quality of built form of the Sunbury Library and
the more recently developed Global Learning Centres in Broadmeadows and Craigieburn.
Figure 5-1: Library Floor Space per 100 residents – Metropolitan Melbourne (adapted from KPMG
2012; DPCD 2011).
20 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
Utilisation
Table 5.1 shows the Sunbury library is well utilised when compared with the Balance of Hume.
However, in the context of broader metropolitan trends relating to library visitation and borrowing,
levels observed for Sunbury and the balance of Hume are low, particularly with respect to visitation
(See Table 5.1 and Figure 5.2).
Table 5-1: Hume Libraries Membership Statistics
Sunbury
Other Hume Libraries
State Average
Annual Visits Per Capita
3.5
3.2
5.2
Annual Book Loans Per Capita
6.4
5.7
6.8
8.8
Annual Loans (All Materials) Per Capita
9.7
Source: Hume City Council Response to Direct Data Request, DPCD 2011
Figure 5-2: Library Visitation – Visits per Capita per Annum
The Sunbury Library performs a different role in the community to that performed by the libraries in
the Balance of Hume. A clear illustration is the extent of ‘Bi-lingual ‘Storytime’ sessions delivered
through the Sunbury library compared with other libraries in Hume. As the Table indicates, the over
650 Bi-lingual Storytime sessions were delivered in the non-Sunbury libraries and via outreach. No Bilingual Storytime sessions were delivered in Sunbury. HCC explain the discrepancy in terms of a
complete lack of demand for such programs in Sunbury, reflecting the area’s relative lack of cultural
diversity.
Table 5-2: Bi-lingual Storytime sessions, City of Hume
Sunbury
Sessions per year
0*
Libraries - Craigieburn,
Broadmeadows and outreach
sites
654
Source: Hume City Council Response to Direct Data Request
21 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
5.3
Future Provision
HCC has committed to develop a new/expanded library facility in Sunbury of comparable size and
quality to the recently developed GLC in Craigieburn by 2024. A budget of $17 million has been
identified to support the project. Council staff report that the project has been supported as it is
required to rectify the imbalance in library floor space supply and built form quality between Sunbury
and the Balance of Hume.
As the Table below shows, if a facility of comparable size to the Craigieburn Library were developed
immediately, Sunbury residents would enjoy a very high level of supply of library floor space per head
of population (5.7 sq. m per 100 residents). To achieve a rate of supply that is equivalent with the
State average, 830 sq. m of library floor space would be required.
The existing state average reflects historical provision models and standards, which do not necessarily
embody modern expectations. Indeed, as the People and Places guide for library planning suggests,
libraries are increasingly fulfilling a broader range of functions, the implication of which is that greater
floor space is required:
The emergence of the public library as a ‘third place’ and the notion of libraries as
community living rooms has signified a change in function and atmosphere and has
placed a greater emphasis on the need for informal and formal seating and space in
public libraries…Libraries conceived as community living rooms are a manifestation of
the trend for informal social spaces, where people undertake numerous and varied
activities in the same space – reading, chatting, using their laptops or listening to
music (People and Places).
Table 5-3: Comparison of Rate of Supply of Library Floor Space in Sunbury – Three Scenarios
Year
2011
2031
Population
35,017
61,863
Floor Space Provision
per Capita
Library Floor Space
Existing
1.5
525
State Average
2.37
830
If GLC developed
5.7
2,000
People and Places
4.2
1,581
Existing
0.85
525
State Average
2.37
1,466
If GLC developed
3.2
2,000
Source: KPMG 2012; DPCD 2011; Public Place 2014
Table 5.3 shows are very large range in terms of overall provision depending on the standard
adopted. The cost implications of one path or another are significant. As a result, a new municipality
will need to reflect on its goals and aspirations in relation to lifelong learning and the nature of
22 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
community needs, before a determining way forward. HCC has clearly placed a strong emphasis on
education and lifelong learning when making its investment decisions around libraries, an emphasis
that reflects HCC’s interest in improving English literacy and addressing disadvantage in the
municipality. It is also clear that the buildings developed by Hume perform a ‘place making function’,
that is, they are intended to signal a sense of optimism and confidence within a disadvantaged
community.
A similar emphasis may not be warranted in a new municipality, given the likely municipal population
profile. In the new municipality there will be few people for whom English is their second language
and there would less socio-economic disadvantage (see Figure A1).
Moreover, HCC staff consulted as part of this project state that some educational activities such as
homework clubs are currently being delivered from Neighbourhood Houses in Sunbury. Accordingly,
development of a large GLC may not be necessary in order facilitate provision of these activities.
VUT Funding
Plans to develop a Global Learning Centre in Sunbury have been in part made in the context of an
MOU between VUT and HCC which indicates that VUT would support the project with funding in the
order of $2.7 million. Since the MOU was drafted VUT has ceased operating from within Sunbury,
casting doubt over the security of the funding.
5.3.1
Spatial Provision in the new municipality
The HIGAP Report suggests that additional library facilities may need to be developed in Sunbury as
the municipal population grows. Specifically, the report suggests that a Neighbourhood Activity
Centre will be developed in the north of Sunbury adjacent to one of the future train stations and that
this which would be the preferred location for new large scale community infrastructure such as
potential additional library facilities.
This work is supported by the precinct structure planning work currently being undertaken by the
MPA. Analysis undertaken as part of this process by K2 Planning highlights the need for an enhanced
central library in the Sunbury Town Centre and one or potentially two smaller complementary library
spaces. Specifically, K2 Planning is recommending that the central library incorporate 1,000 to 1,500
sq. m of floor space. The remainder of required floor space would then be either concentrated either
wholly in the Lancefield Road North NAC (approx. 600-900 sq. m) or split across two sites, and most
likely incorporated in civic buildings.
5.3.2
Library Cluster Management
Representatives of Goldfields Library Corporation were contacted to discuss the benefits, of using a
library corporation spanning a number of local government areas. Benefits were characterised
primarily in terms of improved service quality, in particular access to a larger range of book and other
media.
23 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
The costs to member Councils associated with Goldfields Library Corporation were reported to be
comparable to running a standalone service. However, for the same investment the community gets
access to a larger collection and staff are employed in a larger organisation, with benefits in terms of
training, professional development and career progression.
24 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
6
Leisure Centres
6.1
Introduction
Aquatic and leisure centres include pools, gym facilities, etc. and provide the local community with
access to a range of sporting and recreational opportunities.
6.2
Existing Provision
There are three aquatic and leisure centres located in City of Hume, one in Sunbury, Craigieburn and
Broadmeadows respectively.
The Sunbury facility includes a 25m indoor pool, spa and sauna, 50m outdoor pool, gymnasium,
studios/activity rooms, meeting rooms, café/kiosk and child care. The facility provides 3,330 square
metres of indoor and outdoor recreational space and is therefore a mid-range6 leisure facility with
some elements (such as the 50 metre pool) typically being provided to a large, even municipal level
catchment (see below).
6.2.1
Benchmarking on Leisure Centre Industry Standards
The Hume City Development principles (Recreation and Community Facilities - Quick Reference Chart)
indicates that HCC seeks to provide one leisure centre (incorporating a pool, gym, etc.) in each
principal population centre in the municipality. Given that Sunbury is a discrete population centre, the
implication of the above is that such a centre be provided in Sunbury.
However, the size of the new municipality population (being in the order of 35,000 people) is below
that which would typically be required to support such a centre. To illustrate, the document Planning
for Community Infrastructure in Growth Areas (ASR 2008), indicates the following planning standard:
1 Council Aquatic Leisure Centre per 40,000-50,000 people. Some elements of the
centre (if provided), such as a warm water pool, 50m program pool, water slide, etc.
may have a Level municipal catchment (ASR 2008).
Table 6.1 compares catchment size and visitation data for Sunbury Leisure Centre with the median
leisure centre in its class.7 The data show that Sunbury Leisure Centre has a relatively small catchment
population located within 5km. However, visitation to the centre is high. This suggests that catchment
for the centre extends beyond the Sunbury Township to include non-urban areas separating Sunbury
from the urbanised east of Hume and communities to the north and west of the township (see also
Section 6.3).
6
CERN classifies centres into <3,000sq.m (small), 3,000 to 6,000 sq.m (medium) and >6,000 sq.m (large)
7
Data collected by Centre for Environmental and Recreation Management (CERM) for 137 leisure centres across the nation,
the most widespread collection of data on leisure centre performance indicators in Australia.
25 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
Table 6-1: CERM Median Performance for Aquatic Faculties (Group 6 Indoor and Outdoor Pools)
compared with Sunbury
Performance Indicators
CERM median
Sunbury comments
Pop.n within 5 km radius
46,888
33,435
Catchment Multiple
5.7
11.4
Visits per square metre
72
115
312,160
381,867
1,577
1,294
Annual Visits
Members
Source: CERM 2012, HCC Direct Data Request
6.3
Catchment
Visitation to the centre Sunbury Leisure Centre is very high given the size of the Sunbury population.
Enrolment data for Learn to Swim program at Sunbury Aquatic and Leisure Centre confirm he above.
Enrolments from within Sunbury account for 88% of the total. However, a notable number of
enrolments are received from Diggers Rest (3.1%), Romsey (2%) and Riddles Creek (1.2%).
6.4
Operating Costs
The operating costs of the Sunbury Aquatic Centre are approximately $415,000 per annum, or
approximately 33% of Hume’s budget for operation and maintenance of leisure facilities.
Table 6.2 compares financial performance data for the Sunbury Leisure Centre with the median
leisure centre in its class. As the Table shows, expense recovery for Sunbury Leisure centre (81%) is
slightly lower than the CERM median (85%).
The figures indicate some potential to increase revenues by increasing fees. Moreover labour costs
currently comprise a large proportion of total expenses, even though wages per EFT were below the
CERM median. If the Centre did operate at 85% cost recovery this would save Hume Council
approximately $90K per annum.
Notwithstanding the above, the high level of visitation to the centre means that the subsidy per visit is
only $1.09, which is consistent with the CERM median.
26 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
Table 6-2: CERM Median Performance for Aquatic Faculties (Group 6 Indoor and Outdoor Pools)
compared with Sunbury
Performance Indicators
CERM median
Sunbury comments
Expense recovery
85%
81%
Fees per visit
$4.77
$4.16
Secondary Spend Per Visit
$0.59
$0.46
Total Spend per Visit
$5.36
$4.62
Subsidy per visit
$1.05
$1.09
$1,641,443 (63%)
$1,685,844 (77%)
$57,315
$55,545
$305
$506
Labour cost
Average labour cost per FTE staff
Labour Cost per Metre
Source: CERM 2012, HCC Direct Data Request
The decision to provide indoor aquatic facilities at one provision level or another must reflect the
perceived benefits of provision and likely costs. Industry trends8 indicate that the majority of aquatic
based leisure centre fail to raise revenue to meet annual operating costs. This is due in part to the
high fixed costs in providing a cleansed, heated and supervised body of water before any income is
delivered. Losses for aquatic based leisure centres are most commonly between $100,000-250,000
per annum. However, regionally located centres or centres with a smaller catchment appear to record
more substantial losses, commonly reaching more than $300,000 per annum. In this context is noted
that the Sunbury Leisure Centre currently costs Hume Council $415,000 per annum to operate, which
is at the higher end of the spectrum.
6.5
Rationale for Council Involvement
A variety of aquatic/fitness centres are being developed by both the public and private sector. These
range from large multifaceted facilities, to small health and fitness centres and swim schools.
Large pools are a key component of council facilities that are not generally provided by other sectors
of the fitness / aquatic industry. Moreover, Council facilities are often staffed at higher rates and
commonly offer subsidised entry prices for pensioners and those on benefit (can be up to 40%).
These features of Council facilities/management increase the range of recreational opportunities
available in the community and make some services more accessible (for example, by staffing gym
areas non-gym savvy users will have support on hand).
8
As documented by the Centre for Environmental and Recreation Management (CERM) – performance data taken from 137
leisure centres across the nation, the most widespread collection of data on leisure centre performance indicators in
Australia.
27 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
6.6
Future Provision
The HIGAPSs report concluded that the existing Sunbury Aquatic and Leisure Centre provides
adequate provision for the current population. HIGAPS also concluded that existing facilities are
ageing and will need major redevelopment including expansion to respond to population growth.
Planning work undertaken by K2 Planning on behalf of the MPA has also found that the existing
leisure facility is adequate to meet the needs of the current population. Moreover, it has been
recommended that any increased demand for aquatic facilities should be accommodated at the
existing aquatic centre. K2 Planning were advised by Council that there is capacity to expand the
existing facility on the current site.
Hume Council representatives have indicated that the upgrade and expansion of the existing Leisure
Centre identified in HIGAPS would only be required if the population of the new municipality grows
substantially (to 60,000 or more).
6.7
Management Models
The preceding discussion indicates that the Sunbury Leisure centre is well used, although expensive to
operate and maintain. The new Council’s future management model for the facility will need to
provide a “best fit” for the new municipality. However, in the context of the relatively small size of the
new municipality area population (immediately post formation), costs will need to be kept to a
minimum. In addition, an appropriate level of control for Council would need to be maintained over
aspects of facility operations such as admission fees and customer service levels.
Broadly categorised, there are four commonly used management models for Council owned aquatic
centres. These include the following;

Council Management - Direct Council management provides hands on control of all operations
with Council directly employing all staff and developing all programs and policies for
management and operation of the centre. This approach provides Council with all details of
operations and the capacity to respond rapidly to ratepayer requests or Councillor actions.

Contract Management - Contractual arrangement with an appropriately qualified organisation.
Allows Council to specify particulars of management and operation. This approach provides
Council with a partnership and facilitative role whilst divesting responsibility for employment of
staff, payroll many aspects of public liability and day to day operational matters. It provides a
flexible approach and is generally put in place for a period of 3-5 years with options for
extension or cancellation of the contract at the end of a given period or in certain
predetermined cases of breach of contract.

Management by a Company Owned by Council - Recently, some Councils have formed
companies for the specific purpose of operating leisure centres. This approach has many of the
28 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
benefits of Contract Management, but allows for Council to have greater control over the
contracted agency.

Lease arrangement to an external party - A lease usually provides less control but often divests
Council of onerous and costly responsibilities for management and day to day operations. A
lease usually limits Council’s liability for loss and can provide opportunity for Council to build a
partnership with the leasing group (often similar organisations to those that would be
contracted) whilst focussing on a more strategic level of forward planning.
29 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
APPENDIX 1 – Supplementary Information relating to Communities
of Interest
30 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
Community of Interest
Population
As at 2011, the Sunbury SLA was home to approximately 35,018 people or 20% of the Hume
population. The population of the Sunbury SLA is projected to grow substantially over the next 20
years, reaching 73,461 people by 2036.
Demography
The Hume population is concentrated in the urbanised east and south east of the Hume Local
Government Area (LGA) (an extension of the broader metropolitan area) and in Sunbury (in the west).
These two urban areas are separated by an expansive non-urban area, the majority of which lies
outside the urban growth boundary.
As noted by KPMG (2012) the population of Sunbury is notably different to that of the rest of Hume,
in terms of ethnic and cultural background and socio-economic status. To illustrate, KPMG reports
that 88.7% of residents of the Sunbury SLA speak only English at home, compared with 50.1% of
residents of the Craigieburn SLA and only 39.4% of residents of the Broadmeadows SLA. When the
data are viewed at SA1 level, it is clear there is finer grain to this spatial trend. Specifically, areas to
the south east of the LGA which are within the urban growth boundary are home to a very high
proportion of people who speak other languages (in some parts of Broadmeadows, Meadow Heights,
and Roxbury Park, more than 70% of residents speak another language). In the non-urban areas which
separate Sunbury from the broader metropolitan area, there is less language diversity and in the
Sunbury township a small proportion of the population speaks a language other than English
(approximately 7%) (See Figure A1).
A similar spatial pattern is evident with respect to the SEIFA index. As KPMG noted, the SEIFA index
shows that within Hume municipality socioeconomic outcomes vary greatly, with Broadmeadows an
area of relative disadvantage (SEIFA index of 800) compared with Sunbury (SEIFA index of 1043).
31 | P a g e
SUNBURY OUT OF HUME CITY COUNCIL | Local Government Panel Report
‘Community of Interest’ and Restructuring Report | APPENDIX E – Attachment 1
Figure A1: Language Diversity and SEIFA – City of Hume
32 | P a g e