Below are two extracts from the Auditor General’s Report that are critical of Whittlesea and Hepburn. It’s curious that: 

  • Whittleseas’ acquatic centre comes in for special mention, yet there is not one single word about GESAC in the entire report. Readers will remember the original cost estimates for GESAC and what we’re now saddled with. Further, there is no mention of the additional $450,000 for a car park nor any investigation as to why this wasn’t included in the original ‘business plan’ or design.
  • One would reasonably expect that when a municipality binds itself to a $40 million plus infrastructure project that it would at least deserve one sentence in any report. The fact that there is total silence, makes us scratch our heads and wonder what on earth is going on?
  •  Hepburn also comes in for criticism about its site selection and the additional funding that was required. We should keep in mind the Caulfield Park relocation of ovals as a result of the pavilion construction. Again, not a word from the Auditor General on this little ‘alteration’ after the fact.

Figure 3A

Redevelopment of Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre – Whittlesea

Whittlesea’s redevelopment of the Thomastown Recreation and Aquatic Centre was adversely affected because a robust business case reflecting the project’s final design was not sufficiently developed.

A feasibility study was completed in January 2007 that identified the project’s need, various delivery options and an initial budget estimate of $17 million. However, the design of the preferred option was not sufficiently developed at the time construction started in mid-November 2008. The decision to start the project in the absence of a robust business case was not consistent with good business practice.

The design was changed substantially prior to, and during, the construction phase following consultation with various stakeholders. The ongoing design changes meant that the initial feasibility study was no longer relevant as it did not examine the impact of these changes.

The design changes led to the project’s budget being revised to $24.6 million, and to a dispute and negotiated financial settlement with the contractor who was paid a further $570 300 in additional costs incurred as a result of the incomplete design at the start of construction.

The project is presently around $12.9 million (75 per cent) over the initial budget and $5.3 million (21 per cent) over the revised budget.

Figure 3B

Construction of elderly persons units – Hepburn

Hepburn’s decision to invest in the construction of three elderly persons units without a business case resulted in it committing $591 000 in its 2010–11 capital budget to a project that it later discovered was not feasible on the selected site.

The risks and costs associated with the project were not sufficiently considered in identifying the preferred option, resulting in the need for an additional $150 000 for unforeseen remedial works on the chosen site rendering the project impractical.

The initial proposal was not soundly based, and to date Hepburn has spent $15 000, including staff time, on the original plans.

Hepburn has since decided to carry forward the project’s budget into 2011–12 and to explore alternative sites. A comprehensive business case developed at the outset could have averted this situation.