The Small Infrastructure Fund application process is currently under development and further information will be provided about when you can make an application to the fund in due course.
Along with its Community Development Fund Council also offers a Small Infrastructure Fund which is aimed at improving linkages and liveability of our 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
Groups, clubs or organisations wishing to apply to the fund should complete a submission that addresses the criteria/strategic objectives listed below.
More detail may be sought by Council officers 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, the number of applications and the overall available monies.
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 be deemed ineligible and removed from the process
- If projects are available for funding under another funding stream or are already identified and listed on a capital or renewal works program they will be excluded from this process.
- Projects should not exceed a contribution from Council of $200,000.
- Roadworks including roundabouts and carparks are excluded from the Fund.
- Officers shall collate all submissions and prepare cost estimates and SIF submissions forms for evaluation.
- A new application will need to be made at each new funding round where the project is unsuccessful in securing funding. Projects will be evaluated in accordance with the SIF Evaluation Criteria, ranked and presented to Council for decision.
- Sporting clubs, community groups and any other applicants will be ineligible to apply for further funding through the small infrastructure fund for a period of 3 years after receiving approval for an application made to the SIF.
The Small Infrastructure Fund application process is currently under development and further information will be provided about when you can make an application to the fund in due course.
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.
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
Assessment
| Impact on each criterion | |
|---|---|
| 4 | Major |
| 3 | Moderate |
| 2 | Minor |
| 1 | Insignificant |
| -1 | Diminishes |
Part B: Community and Neighbourhood Connection
- The works will improve the connectivity and social interaction within a community e.g. walkways or central meeting point catalyst for community activity.
- The works are likely to improve the environmental outcomes of a neighbourhood.
- The works will encourage active and healthy lifestyles within our neighbourhood.
- 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 |