13. Cost estimates

What information do you need to collect?

For facilities a quantity surveyor will provide an estimate of the construction and project costs. A useful format for construction costs estimates in the pre-feasibility stage is as follows, shown here for a multi-element facility. Note that the elements can be interpreted as functional spaces such as halls, rooms or pools but must also include circulation space, storage areas and amenity areas:

This table (prepared in Excel) shows land acquisition in year 3 and a build program in the fourth year from the current date with costs escalated at 8 per cent per annum. Both Rawlinsons and Department of Housing and Works publish a building cost index which can be consulted to attain a current escalation rate. Provisional sum allowances are made for unknown items such as site and service establishment at this stage. For programs, quotes for various services and capital costs will need to be sought.

Where do you find this information?

Capital and project costs can be readily obtained from a quantity surveyor. The quantity surveyor should also be able to provide whole of life costs and maintenance estimates which can be fed into an operating cost schedule. Operating costs should also be prepared based on proposed programming, projected participation rates, fee structure and management structure.

Note that the Department of Sport and Recreation provide a useful life cycle costs guidelines publication to assist in cost schedule development available at the Department of Sport and Recreation

How do you interpret and use this information?

The capital and operating cost estimates (Total Project Cost) will provide the proponent with an indication of the overall cost to establish and operate the facility or program. This exercise then leads to element modification, exclusion or reconsideration of the design and the preparation of a funding strategy.

14. Funding sources

Funding strategies for the development of Western Australian sport and recreation facilities have been very strongly influenced by the State Government's CSRFF program. This program can be viewed in detail on the Department of Sport and Recreation's web site the Department of Sport and Recreation.

Generally, the CSRFF strategy allows for up to one third of the project cost to be met by the State Government, one third by the host local authority and one third by the project proponent or user groups. Note, however, that there are restrictions and limitations to the extent of funding offered by the State under this scheme and a full one third contribution to the total project cost is rarely achieved.

Other facilities funding sources include:

• corporate sponsorship
• selling of naming rights and other marketing strategies
• community fundraising
• professional capital fundraising bodies
• Donations from philanthropic trusts and foundations

An organisation called Our Community (our community) also provides information on grant programs. This is a commercial organisation and there is a small charge for access to detailed information on the site. You may regard the cost as worth paying.

• Australian Sports Foundation offers assistance via a tax deductible donations scheme and a discretionary grants package. Visit them at The Australian Sports Foundation website
• Local government reserves
• Local government loan funds
• Local government enabled self supporting loans to community groups
• Department of local government and Regional Development offers a grants directory

Many of the above organisations will also provide funding for programs and services. Healthway are a specialist program funding agency which can be accessed through this link:  Healthway Western Australia

A funding model such as the one below should be prepared for the project.

Funding strategies

This project example shows a multi-purpose sporting facility development proposal being driven by Hockey. Note that the Hockey club proposes the raising of a commercial loan for any funding shortfall associated with the project. The figure for commercial loan funds shown in blue indicates that the best case scenario calls for a loan of $309,097, however, the most likely outcome, or perhaps worst case scenario, calls for that loan to be $919,097. This analysis provides a statement of viability for the project, i.e. if the funding cannot be secured then the project is simply not viable.

Program funds come from a variety of sources including local government grant schemes. Check with your local government authority for assistance given to local clubs. The Department of Sport and Recreation offers a series of program funds including the Sport and Recreation Community Grants Scheme.

Healthway are a specialist program funding agency which can be accessed through this link:  Healthway Western Australia

Stage two - sustainability matrix assessment guidelines

1. Social wellbeing

1.1 To what extent will this facility/program proposal enhance the social wellbeing of the community?

Social wellbeing is a very broad term. Generally it is defined as the degree to which a population's health, education, income, leisure and economic needs and wants are being met. Data gathered during Stage One should guide this assessment.

Rating guidelines

1. Has a negative effect on social wellbeing
2. Has little to no positive influence on social wellbeing
3. Somewhat enhances social wellbeing
4. Has a significant contribution to social wellbeing

1.2 To what extent will this facility/program add to the sense of community?

Sense of community can be defined as the degree to which people feel part of a wider social network. Indicators may include participation and volunteer rates, facility usage, number of people within an individual's network, feelings of safety and security and levels of trust. Surveys and consultative activities can assist determine these factors.

Rating guidelines

1. Has a negative effect (i.e. divides the community) on sense of community
2. Has little to no positive influence on sense of community
3. Somewhat enhances sense of community
4. Has a significant contribution to sense of community

1.3 To what extent will this facility/program bring different parts of the community together?

Facilities can act as important meeting points for different parts of the community. Indicators may include the likelihood that the facility will be used by a cross section of the catchment population.

Rating guidelines

1. Is only likely to be used by a very small section of the community
2. Use is limited to a select number of groups and individuals
3. Will be utilised by a reasonably wide section of the community
4. Will be a vibrant community meeting place catering to all sections of the community

1.4 To what extent will this facility/program cater for all age groups?

Facilities that cater to a wide range of age groups are more sustainable as they: 1) enhance the catchment potential and 2) promote social interaction. In assessing this criterion, consideration should be given to the catchment age profile and the nature of the facility (e.g. seniors centre, skate parks are designed for specific age groups)

Rating guidelines

1. Is only likely to be used by one age cohort (young children, teenagers, young adults, families, seniors)
2. Use is limited to two age groups
3. Will be utilised by at least 3 different age groups
4. Will be patronised by all age cohorts

1.5 To what extent will this facility/program cater for both genders?

Facilities that cater to both genders are more socially and financially sustainable. While acknowledged that some facilities/programs will have an inherent gender bias, efforts should be made to promote use by both men and women.

Rating guidelines

1. Will be used 100% by one gender
2. Will be somewhat inclusive of both genders
3. Will be predominately used by both genders
4. Will be patronised equally by both genders

1.6 To what extent will this facility/program address known social issues in the catchment population

As part of the Stage One - Intelligence Gathering exercise, certain social issues may be identified (e.g. unemployment, declining numbers of youth, perceptions of safety and security, health problems in local population). Facilities/ programs that, in part, address these issues should be considered more socially desirable.

Rating guidelines

1. Could exacerbate known social issues in the local community
2. Will have a neutral effect on known social issues in the local community
3. Will partially contribute to alleviating known social issues in the local community
4. Evidence of a significant reduction in known social issues can be established

1.7 To what extent will this facility/program increase participation rates?

Measuring the extent to which a facility or programs will increase participation rates is a difficult task. The best method is to determine whether demand on existing facilities and programs is limiting the ability of groups and individuals to participate in activities of choice. At times (but certainly not always) the physical presence of a facility (e.g. footpaths) will improve participation rates.

Rating guidelines

1. Will have a negative impact on overall participation rates
2. Will have a neutral effect on overall participation rates
3. Will partially contribute to an increase in participation rates
4. Evidence of a significant increase in participation rates can be established

1.8 To what extent will this facility/program cater for the disadvantaged in the catchment population

Definitions for the less advantaged in the community would include people with mental and physical disabilities; low income families; unemployed or people with significant health issues. Data attained during Stage One should assist in this process.

Rating guidelines

1. Will exclude the less advantage
2. Has no known benefits to the less advantaged
3. Will partially cater to the needs of the less advantaged
4. Has above compliance facilities and programs to cater to the less advantaged

2. Catchment dynamics

2.1. How well do existing and projected participation rates match the proposed facility's/program's function

Comparing projected participation rates carried out as part of the Stage One - Intelligence Gathering with the facility’s/program’s projected target user groups should enable an assessment of this criteria.

Rating guidelines

1. Target groups are mismatched to existing and projected participation rates
2. End users are somewhat matched to existing and projected participation rates
3. End users reasonably well matched to existing and projected participation rates
4. End users are almost perfectly matched with existing and projected participation rates

2.2. How distinct is the catchment population for this facility/program from other facilities or programs?

Ensuring that the proposed facility's/program's catchment does not overlap with existing facilities/program's is critical to their long term sustainability. Refer to Stage One - Determining Catchment/Study Area Guidelines:

Rating guidelines

1. Facility/program is in the immediate catchment of other facilities/programs of a similar nature
2. Facility /program catchment is somewhat discrete
3. Facility/program catchment is generally discrete
4. Facility/program catchment is entirely discrete

2.3. How well does the target population of the proposed facility/program match the age profile of the existing catchment population?

Comparing catchment/ study area population profiles carried out as part of the Stage One - Intelligence Gathering with the facility's/ program's projected target user groups should enable an assessment of this criteria.

Rating guidelines

1. Facility/program target groups is mismatched to catchment population profiles
2. Facility/program end users are somewhat present in the catchment
3. A significant proportion of the facility/program end users are within the catchment
4. Proposed facility/program end users are almost perfectly matched to local population profiles

2.4 How well does the income profile of the catchment population reflect the income versus participation profile of the proposed facility/program?

Comparing catchment/study area income profiles and participation profile carried out as part of the Stage One - Intelligence Gathering should enable an assessment of this criteria.

Rating guidelines

1. User costs exceed the disposable income capabilities of the local community
2. User costs somewhat exceed the disposable income capabilities of the local community
3. User costs are somewhat matched to the disposable income capabilities of the local community
4. User costs are entirely appropriate for the local community's disposable income capabilities

2.5 How well does the cultural flavour of the proposed facility/program mirror the catchment population?

Comparing catchment/study area ethnicity profiles (carried out as part of Stage One - Intelligence Gathering) with the facility's/program's projected target user groups should enable an assessment of this criterion. The key is to ensure that the cultural leisure preferences are matched to the intended function of the facility/program.

Rating guidelines

1. Facility/program function is mismatched to dominant cultural mix of the catchment population
2. Facility/program function is somewhat mismatched to dominant cultural mix of the catchment population
3. Facility/program function is somewhat matched to dominant cultural mix of the catchment population
4. Facility/program function is predominately matched to dominant cultural mix of the catchment population

3. Stakeholder and community engagement

3.1 To what degree does the local community (nearby residents) support the proposed facility/program?

Gauging local community support is a complex task. Support can me measured in degrees based on the results of a survey (e.g. strongly support, support, opposed, strongly opposed) or consultation activities.

Rating guidelines

1. 75% or more of the local community strongly opposed or opposed
2. 50-75% of the local community strongly opposed or opposed
3. 50-75% of the local community strongly support or support
4. 75% or more of the local community strongly support or support

3.2 To what degree does the catchment population support the proposed facility/program?

Gauging regional or catchment support can be measured through a survey sample, public comments or as part of the broader engagement process (e.g. workshop outcomes).

Rating guidelines

1. 75% or more of the catchment strongly opposed or opposed
2. 50-75% of the catchment strongly opposed or opposed
3. 50-75% of the catchment strongly support or support
4. 75% or more of the catchment strongly support or support

3.3 How likely is the local council(s) to support development of the proposed facility/program?

While difficult to ascertain, Council resolutions and conversations with officers can provide an indication of likely local government support.

Rating guidelines

1. Highly unlikely to support
2. Unlikely to support
3. Likely to support
4. Highly likely to support

3.4 How likely is the state government (DSR) to support development of the proposed facility/program?

While difficult to ascertain, funding guidelines and conversations with officers can provide an indication of likely DSR support.

Rating guidelines

1. Highly unlikely to support
2. Unlikely to support
3. Likely to support
4. Highly likely to support

3.5 How likely is the state sporting association(s) to support development of the proposed facility/program?

While difficult to ascertain, state sporting association strategic plans and conversations with officers can provide an indication of likely SSA support.

Rating guidelines

1. Highly unlikely to support
2. Unlikely to support
3. Likely to support
4. Highly likely to support

3.6 How well have the needs of special interest groups been interpreted and included in the planning process?

The needs of special interest groups can be determined as part of the broader and community engagement process.

Rating guidelines

1. Dismissed without justification
2. Dismissed with some minor justification
3. Somewhat incorporated with justification for omissions
4. Entirely incorporated

3.7 How secure is community group/potential tenant's commitment to using the proposed facility/program

Commitments from community groups and potential tenants/user groups can be attained as part of the consultative process. An exchange of letters is recommended.

Rating guidelines

1. No tenants or user groups secured
2. A few verbal commitments
3. Some verbal and written commitments
4. Sufficient written commitments to ensure a high user rate

3.8 To what extent have indigenous and non-indigenous heritage impacts been addressed?

Indigenous and non-indigenous impacts can be assessed through the consultative process, a review of local planning schemes or by engaging an anthropologist or heritage consultants.

Rating guidelines

1. Not addressed
2. Somewhat addressed
3. Almost fully addressed
4. Entirely addressed

4. Policy

4.1 How well does the proposed facility comply with the recommendations of liveable neighbourhood?

Liveable Neighbourhoods, the Western Australian Planning Commission's planning and design guidelines, promotes integrated urban form, high levels of passive surveillance, pedestrian friendly streetscapes and a hierarchy of POS and facility distribution. In regional areas, this may be less relevant. In this instance, rate the facility a 4. The same should apply to program based solutions.

Rating guidelines

1. Entirely at odds with Liveable Neighbourhoods design and distribution principles
2. Somewhat at odds with Liveable Neighbourhoods design and distribution principles
3. Somewhat complies with Liveable Neighbourhoods design and distribution principles
4. Entirely complies with Liveable Neighbourhoods design and distribution principles/NA

4.2 To what extent does the facility promote the objectives of network city?

Network City promotes high-medium density nodal developments connected through a network of accessible roads and public transport options. In regional areas, this may not be relevant. In this instance rate the facility a 4. The same should apply to program based solutions.

Rating guidelines

1. Entirely at odds with Network City principles
2. Somewhat at odds with Network City principles
3. Somewhat complies with Network City principles
4. Entirely complies with Network City principles/NA

4.3 How well does the facility/program meet DSR's sd4 policy guidelines?

The policy review should identify the core intent of the Department of Sport and Recreation's Strategic Directions policy statement and evaluate the alignment of the proposed facility or program development with that policy.

Rating guidelines

1. Entirely at odds with the SD4 Policy
2. Somewhat at odds with the SD4 Policy
3. Somewhat complies with SD4 Policy
4. Entirely complies with the SD4 Policy

4.4 How well does the facility/program meet relevant local government policies?

The policy review should identify relevant local government policies, procedure and community facility and service strategic plans.

Rating guidelines

1. Entirely at odds with the local government policies and plans
2. Somewhat at odds with the local government policies and plans
3. Somewhat complies with the local government policies and plans
4. Entirely complies with the local government policies and plans

4.5 How well does facility/program development of this kind support the local authority's corporate plan?

Corporate strategic plans provide an overarching direction to local government. They usually consist of a vision statement, set of guiding principles, key initiatives and performance indicators.

Rating guidelines

1. Entirely at odds with the local government strategic plan
2. Somewhat at odds with the local government strategic plan
3. Somewhat complies with the local government strategic plan
4. Entirely complies with the local government strategic plan

4.6 To what extent does the proposed facility/program comply with regional community facility and service development strategies?

Many local governments participate in regional recreational advisory groups. Many have developed facility and program based strategic plans. These should be identified as part of the policy review process. Where these have not been prepared rate the facility/program a 4.

Rating guidelines

1. Entirely at odds with the regional strategic plan
2. Somewhat at odds with the regional strategic plan
3. Somewhat complies with the regional strategic plan
4. Entirely complies with the regional strategic plan/NA

4.7 To what extent does the proposed facility/program reflect the WA state sustainability strategy?

The WA State Sustainability Strategy (SSS) guides a number of key government policies and initiatives. An overview should be prepared as part of the policy review.

Rating guidelines

1. Entirely at odds with the WA SSS
2. Somewhat at odds with the WA SSS
3. Somewhat complies with the WA SSS
4. Entirely complies with the WA SSS

4.8 How well does this facility/program proposal reflect other state government initiatives?

The policy review should identify any other state government initiatives that are relevant to the proposed facility or program. If no other policies are deemed to be relevant rate the facility a 4.

Rating guidelines

1. Entirely at odds with other state government initiatives
2. Somewhat at odds with other state government initiatives
3. Somewhat complies with other state government initiatives
4. Entirely complies with other state government initiatives

5. Location

5.1 To what extent does the location and design of the facility integrate with the surrounding urban fabric?

Integration with the surrounding urban fabric can be measured in terms of the facility's connections (e.g. footpaths, roads) to nearby land uses, sightlines and views, architectural consistency and the extent to which land use conflicts are possible. For some program solutions this criteria may not be considered relevant. In this instance it should be rated 4.

Rating guidelines

1. No integration and land use conflicts likely
2. No integration, but no negative effects
3. Somewhat integrated
4. Fully integrated/ NA

   5.2 How accessible is the facility/program via public transport?

Accessibility via public transport can be measured in terms of proximity and frequency of buses and trains to the facility or program. Consideration should also be given to the extent to which public transport frequency matches peak usage times.

Rating guidelines

1. Very inaccessible
2. Somewhat inaccessible
3. Somewhat accessible
4. Very accessible

5.3 How accessible is the facility/program for pedestrians and cyclists?

Accessibility for pedestrians can be measured in terms of proximity and network of cycle ways and footpaths. Ped-shed analysis may also assist in rating this criterion.

Rating guidelines

1. Very inaccessible
2. Somewhat inaccessible
3. Somewhat accessible
4. Very accessible

5.4 To what degree does the standards gap analysis indicate a need?

Locational decisions relating to facilities and programs should, in part, be tied to a standards based gap analysis. Guidelines are provided as part of Stage One.

Rating guidelines

1. Entirely inconsistent with provision standards
2. Somewhat inconsistent with provision standards
3. Somewhat consistent with provision standards
4. Entirely consistent with provision standards

5.5 How readily are local schools and education institutions able to access the proposed facility or program?

Use of facilities and programs by schools and education institutions is an important contributor to the long term viability of facilities and should be promoted where possible.

Rating guidelines

1. Not accessible
2. Occasionally accessible
3. Regularly accessible
4. Fully accessible

5.6 What degree of visibility and exposure will this facility/program have within the local community?

Visibility and exposure has marketing, accessibility and safety benefits.

Rating guidelines

1. Visibility and exposure has marketing, accessibility and safety benefits.
2. Some visibility and exposure
3. Good level of visibility and exposure
4. Excellent level of visibility and exposure

5.7 To what extent will the facility/program generate activity that will enhance community safely?

It is now accepted that the safest community spaces are the busiest, particularly at night. The extent to which a program or facility generates day, night, weekday and weekend activity can be used as an indicator.

Rating guidelines

1. Limited activity
2. Activity, but limited to a few hours a day
3. Good level of activity
4. Excellent level activity

6. Design

6.1 How strong are the synergies between the potential user groups at present?

This requires an indication of the compatibility and connectedness between potential user groups. Complementary seasonal users will generally rate high. Groups that are already working together and groups are collaborating to lobby for the proposal will rate high.

Rating guidelines

1. There is an identified antagonism between potential user groups
2. There is potential for conflict in demand for the facility between the user groups
3. User groups are highly compatible and operate counter cyclical
4. Groups have already collaborated and are making a joint approach for the facility or program

6.2 To what degree does the design of the facility/program, allow for flexibility and changing function?

Whilst facilities and programs must be fit for a purpose, the more multi-purpose they are, the greater appeal and applicability they have to a cross-section of the community. Very specific or single purpose facilities and programs rate poorly.

Rating guidelines

1. Design is specific and for a single purpose and will not accommodate alternative use or applications
2. Design places limitations on the range of activities that can be undertaken
3. Design is flexible and allows multiple use/application with some alteration
4. Design is highly flexible and allows a variety of uses/applications without alteration

6.3 To what extent does the proposed facility or program promote shared use?

Shared use facilities generally rate high from a feasibility point of view as they encourage synergies, expand the catchment potential or increase its financial robustness. Programs that promote or enhance the level of shared use of a facility should be rated high.

Rating guidelines

1. A single user group will control and dominate use
2. A limited and fixed number of users will share access
3. Regular users will make most of the use but other groups will be encouraged to access the facility or program
4. The facility or program will accommodate a wide variety of users at different times and for different purposes.

6.4 To what degree does the design incorporate ESD (Ecologically Sustainable Design) principles?

ESD includes solar passive orientation, environmentally friendly building materials, renewable energy sources, grey water reuse, waste recycling and energy efficient plant and equipment. In the case of program solutions this criteria is not relevant and should be rated 4. NB: Considerations should be given to the facilities design to minimise the Ecological Footprint (EF).

Rating guidelines

1. Does not address ESD principles
2. Somewhat addresses ESD principles
3. Generally addresses ESD principles
4. Completely addresses ESD principles/NA

6.5 To what degree will this facility allow for passive surveillance to enhance community safety and meet CPTED principles?

Facilities that are visible to nearby neighbours, businesses and passers-by are afforded protection by onlookers. Exposure to the street, open car parks and sensitive landscaping to prevent secluded zones are highly desirable. In the case of program solutions this criteria is not relevant and should be rated 4.

Rating guidelines

1. Facility is heavily screened and secluded from the community with areas that allow secreted gatherings
2. Facility is generally visible but has numerous screened or secluded areas near public circulation routes
3. Facility is generally visible from surrounding land uses or passing traffic with very few screened or secluded areas near public circulation routes
4. Facility is high visibility from surrounding land uses and passing traffic with no screened or secluded areas near public circulation routes/NA

7. Environment

7.1 To what degree will the proposed facility/program provide opportunities for alternative transport modes?

Ready access to the facility is important to enable and encourage utilisation. The shorter the connections within the community and the greater the variety of access options the better. In the case of program solutions this criteria may not be relevant and should be rated 4.

Rating guidelines

1. Facility is located in a distant or remote location with limited non-car access
2. Facility is located in a distant location with reasonable pedestrian / cycle links and some public transport connections
3. Facility is in reasonable proximity to its major catchment population with reasonable pedestrian and cycle connections with some public transport connections
4. Facility is in close proximity to its major catchment population with strong pedestrian and cycle connections and is well serviced by public transport routes/NA

7.2 To what degree will the proposed facility enhance the physical environment?

Development of a facility on a degraded site to enhance the amenity value of an area is generally welcomed. Clearing of natural bushland, however, is generally less well accepted. In the case of program based solutions this criteria may not be relevant and should be rated 4.

Rating guidelines

1. Facility development will reduce areas of natural bushland and cause waste discharges into the surrounding environment
2. Facility development will prevent area rehabilitation or improvement and present waste discharge issues
3. Facility development will limit further degradation of the area and effectively manage waste discharges
4. Facility development will rehabilitate and add form and function to a degraded area and effectively manage waste discharges/NA

7.3 To what degree will the facility or program accommodate community based environmental programs

Community based environmental programs can be defined as initiatives or activities that raise community environmental awareness or promote sustainable household behaviours, e.g. tree planting, recycling programs, water wise campaign, etc.

Rating guidelines

1. No capacity for community based environmental programs
2. Limited capacity for community based environmental programs
3. Reasonable capacity for community based environmental programs
4. Extensive capacity for community based environmental programs

7.4 To what degree will the facility assist in minimising waste to the environment and align with the state government's waste 20/20 outcomes?

Management and design issues will determine how responsive the facility will be to waste minimisation initiatives. In the case of program solutions this criteria may not be relevant and should be rated 4.

Rating guidelines

1. Facility has no recycling program
2. Facility has limited recycling program
3. Facility has some recycling activities and moderates energy use
4. Facility uses clean fuel, captures rainwater, contains stormwater, permits grey water reuse and engages in recycling and minimises energy use/NA

8. Operations

8.1 To what extent will the facility/program be able to recover operating costs from user fees?

Expense recovery is a key performance indicator for community facilities and services. A financially viable facility or service will be able to generate sufficient income from its activities to meet its operating costs.

Rating guidelines

1. Costs will be met almost entirely by sources other than user fees
2. Costs will be met largely by sources other than user fees
3. Costs will be met substantially from user fees and other operating income
4. Costs will be met entirely from user fees and other operating income

8.2 To what extent are other parties able to contribute to operating costs?

Where facilities and services are likely to incur a trading loss or operating deficit, it is useful to spread financial costs across more than one party. Given that community facilities and programs are usually built on local government owned or controlled land, it is often the host LGA that is left to meet any operating shortfall. It is an advantage if this deficit can be offset by contributions from others, such as the Department of Education and Training, commercial operations or surrounding LGA's in the case of regional facilities and programs.

Rating guidelines

1. Operating costs will be met almost entirely by the host LGA with little to no contribution from operating income
2. Operating costs will be met by operating income and contributions from the LGA
3. Operating costs will be met by operating income, contributions from the LGA and other parties
4. Operating costs will be met entirely from user fees and operating income

8.3 To what extent will this facility or program facilitate full time use (all hours, all seasons)?

Due to the expense of establishing community infrastructure and services the aim is to maximise utilisation of facilities. Those that are only seasonal or only used for limited periods, rank lower that those used all hours and all year round.

Rating guidelines

1. Facility/program is seasonal and primarily out of hours
2. Facility/program is seasonal and tending to all hours
3. Facility/program is all year round and primarily out of hours
4. Facility/program is all year round and tending to all hours

8.4 To what extent will this facility/program provide local employment opportunities?

Due to the expense of establishing community infrastructure and services the aim is to maximise utilisation of facilities. Those that are only seasonal or only used for limited periods, rank lower that those used all hours and all year round.

Rating guidelines

1. There will be very minimal staff input required for this facility/program
2. There will be moderate staff required to run this facility/program
3. There will be some reasonable staff employment opportunities for local staff as a result of this facility/program being established
4. This facility/program will cause considerable local employment and offer career development and training opportunities within the local community

9. Funding

9.1 What is the likelihood of the capital cost of the project being fully funded?

As part of the pre-feasibility process, funding investigations should be carried out.

Rating guidelines

1. Nil
2. Small chance
3. Moderate chance
4. Every likelihood

9.2 To what degree does the council have adequate reserves set aside for this purpose?

Local government reserve funding is a potential revenue source and an indicator of Council support for the project.

Rating guidelines

1. No reserve allocation at all
2. A reserve allocation that will meet less than 10% of the total project cost
3. A reserve allocation that will meet between 10% and 25% of the total project cost
4. A reserve allocation that will meet more than 25% of the total project cost

9.3 What is the likelihood of financial (capital and management) contributions from more than one local government?

Funding from other local governments is a good indicator that the project has a regional focus. It is particularly relevant when the facility's/program's catchment extends across more than one municipal boundary.

Rating guidelines

1. Has no impact outside the host local authority area and no capacity to attract funding from other LGA's
2. Has limited impact outside the host local authority area with little to no chance of attracting financial support from other LGA's
3. Has moderate impact outside the host local authority area with a reasonable chance of attracting financial support from other LGA's
4. Has considerable impact outside the host local authority area with a strong chance of attracting financial support from other LGA's

9.4 What is the likelihood of financial contributions from other entities (E.G. state, not for profit sector, developer contributions)?

The potential for multiple funding sources/project partners should be encouraged wherever possible.

Rating guidelines

1. Is unlikely to attract funding support from any external party or government agency
2. Has limited appeal to funding agencies but has support from potential user groups
3. Has relevance to some grant programs and good support from the potential user groups
4. Has broad based appeal and will readily attract funding from State and Federal agencies as well as the community and commercial sector

9.5 What level of priority does the host local authority ascribe to this facility?

Community infrastructure and services are expensive and often there are many competing demands for funding within a community. The higher the priority a local authority places on this proposed facility the more likely it will be to succeed.

Rating guidelines

1. Not considered to be necessary by the local authority
2. Deemed to be useful but not necessarily a priority of the local authority
3. Deemed to be an important development supported by the local authority
4. Deemed to be an essential and immediate priority development driven by the local authority

Stage two - program/facility sustainability matrix

More information