Small Infrastructure Fund

Along with its Community Development Fund Council also offers a Small Infrastructure Fund which is aimed at improving linkages and liveability of neighbourhoods.

Over the years sporting clubs and organisations have successfully applied to the fund for projects including:

  • Resurfacing of the BMX track
  • Construction of a netball spectator shelter
  • Wellington Street pedestrian bridge
  • A petanque site
  • Dragon boat club storage shed
  • The dog park

Applications to the fund are sponsored by Councillors and submissions to the Fund can be made at any time.

Groups, clubs or organisations wishing to apply to the fund should contact a Councillor with a submission that addresses the criteria/strategic objectives listed below .

More detail may be sought as projects are evaluated. An application alone does not guarantee funding. Funding is allocated based on an assessment of the project against the strategic objectives described below.


Making a submission

To ensure the fund is used appropriately Council has established guiding principles and processes which include:

  • Projects should address the Small Infrastructure Fund criteria.
  • Projects that are non-compliant will removed from the process and communicated back to Councillors
  • If projects are available for funding under another funding stream (ie. asset renewal or a capital works project bid) they will be excluded from this process.
  • Projects should not exceed a contribution from Council of $200,000 and roadworks including roundabouts and carparks are generally excluded from the Fund.
  • Officers shall then collate all submissions and prepare cost estimates and SIF submissions forms for evaluation.
  • All previously submitted projects that have not been successful will remain on the SIF Project list for future evaluation.
  • Projects will be evaluated by the Recreation and Assets Working Group (RAWG) in accordance with the SIF Evaluation Criteria, ranked and presented to Council for decision.
  • Funds can be allocated during the year following a resolution from Council.
  • The Small Infrastructure Fund should not be exhausted each year.

The Small Infrastructure Fund criteria

Evaluation Criteria have been developed specifically to consider applications through Council’s Small Infrastructure Fund. The criteria are based upon Council’s existing Capital Works Evaluation Framework and take into account specific feedback from Councillors to prioritise projects which are essentially more community-based.

Part A: strategic objectives 

Key evaluation area Health and wellbeing An accessible city Natural environment Environmental impact and a changing climate Stronger neighbourhoods A connected community Strategic alignment
Measure of impact              


Impact on each criterion  
4 Major
3 Moderate
2 Minor
1 Insignificant
-1 Diminishes

Part B: Community and Neighbourhood Connection

  1. The works will improve the connectivity and social interaction within a community e.g. walkways or central meeting point catalyst for community activity.
  2. The works are likely to improve the environmental outcomes of a neighbourhood.
  3. The works will encourage active and healthy lifestyles within our neighbourhood.
  4. The works will be undertaken within a neighbourhood that has a relatively low SEIFA result compared to the Warrnambool average.

For each of the above statements the following scores shall be awarded for a maximum possible score of 16.

4 Yes
2 Possibly
0 No

Part C: Risk Management

The control group will apply Council’s Strategic Risk Assessment criteria to each of the assessed projects.
What is the risk of not completing the Project?

Level Risk Assessment
1 No Risk
2 Low Risk
3 Moderate Risk
4 High RIsk
5 Extreme Risk

Part D: Community Benefit

Improved service delivery

Level Improved Service Delivery
5 The project provides major improvements for the community.
4 The project provides substantial improvements for the community.
3 The project provides moderate improvements for the community.
2 The project provides minor improvements for the community.
1 The project provides nil improvements.

External customer impact

Level External customer impact (individuals per annum)
5 Very large > 10,000
4 Large, 3,000-10,000
3 Medium, 1,000-3,000
2 Small, 100-1,000
1 Minimal <100

Part E: Funding Ratio

Level Percentage of external funding (total project)
5 >90%
4 61% to 89%
3 41% to 60%
2 11% to 40%
1 <10%

Part F: Community Engagement and Readiness

Level External Stakeholder Consultation / Community Expectation
5 Formal plan completed i.e. a strategy/plan has been adopted by Council
4 Broader public engagement commenced &/or formal plan/strategy has commenced
3 Community group appointed, consulted or formally raised the project.
2 Engagement plan prepared
1 Informal discussions have been held


Level Extent of resolution of funding application, planning, design and other issues readiness of project to begin
5 All necessary permits, detail design completed all issues resolved
4 Detail design completed and majority of issues resolved and planning permit application submitted
3 Preliminary design estimate prepared, planning permit required with some issues to be resolved
2 Concept Plan completed but issues need to be resolved
1 No concept plan and many issues need to be resolved

Stakeholders can be a variety of groups in different contexts. Sometimes it may be the wider community, a specific user group depending on the nature of the project
In considering the readiness of an application have all required approvals been sought i.e. EPA, Working on Waterways, Cultural & Heritage, Heritage etc.

Example of an overall score

Criteria Council Plan Community & Neighbourhood Connection Risk management Community Benefit Financial Analysis Community Engagement & Readiness Total Rating
Weighting 25 25 10 15 10 15 100%
Max. Score 24 16 5 10 5 10 70
Example Raw Score 20 9 3 8 3 6 49
Conversion Factor 1.0417 1.5625 2 1.5 2 1.5  
Example Weighted Score 20.83 14.06 6 12 6 9 67.89