Item No.	Item Title	Page No.
1	Outcome of the 2019-2020 Nature Conservation grants Program	8
2	Ipswich Rivers Flood Studies Update - IRFSU	13
3	City of Ipswich Disaster Recovery Governance Arrangements	23
4	Disaster Resilient School Children Poster Competition - Allocation of Incentive Funding	34
5	**Urban Heat Island Project Proposal	37

Environment Committee NO. 9

10 September 2019

AGENDA

1. Outcome of the 2019-2020 Nature Conservation grants Program

This is a report concerning the outcome of the Nature Conservation Grants Program (NCG) for the 2019-2020 Financial Year. Seventeen applications were deemed successful as part of the assessment process and have been recommended for funding.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolves that:

That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) approve the distribution of grant funding to a total of $73,779.83 under the Nature Conservation Grants Program to the seventeen successful applicants as outlined in Table 1 of the report by the Program Officer (Natural Environment), dated 16 August 2019.

2. Ipswich Rivers Flood Studies Update - IRFSU

This is a report concerning the recently completed flood study entitled the Ipswich Rivers Flood Studies Update (IRFSU) which is a local government area and river catchment scale study. This study replaces Council’s incumbent which was completed between 2000 and 2002. This report provides a summary of the IRFSU recommendations, background and outcomes for Council adoption.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That the hydrologic / hydraulic models and their outputs prepared for the Ipswich Rivers Flood Studies Update (IRFSU) and updated local creek flood studies be adopted by Council and used to inform decision making on the following elements:

a. The new Planning Scheme update;

b. Land use, development and building controls;

c. Flood intelligence and emergency management; and

d. Floodplain and stormwater master plans and associated design of drainage / road infrastructure.

B. That the study be used to inform the city’s Local Floodplain Management Plan as part of the broader Ipswich Integrated Catchment Plan (IICP).

C. That the reports and relevant mapped outputs of the study be made digitally available on Council’s website on a flood information portal when the portal becomes available.

D. That Council note that the Bureau of Meteorology’s (BoM) design rainfall data (Intensity-Frequency-Duration IFD rainfall) is under review internally to investigate and estimate new values relevant for the Ipswich LGA to be used for future studies. (Refer to the report’s Background section (Design IFD issue) for details).

E. That relevant external organisations such as the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR), the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (DNRME), Queensland Rail (QR), Seqwater, Brisbane City Council (BCC), Scenic Rim Regional Council (SRRC), Lockyer Valley Regional Council, Logan City Council (LCC) and the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) be informed of the study’s completion and availability.

3. City of Ipswich Disaster Recovery Governance Arrangements

This is a report concerning the disaster recovery governance arrangements for the City of Ipswich. The report seeks to establish a Local Recovery Group (LRG) and sub committees to support the disaster recovery functions.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve that:

A. The City of Ipswich Local Recovery Group be established as a sub group to the City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Group in accordance with the Terms of Reference outlined at Attachment 1.

B. The General Manager, Infrastructure and Environment be appointed as the Local Recovery Coordinator.

C. Any sub-committee established in accordance with the City of Ipswich Local Recovery Group Terms of Reference be chaired by a Council Officer, appointed by the Local Recovery Coordinator in consultation with the Local Disaster Coordinator and Chief Executive Officer.

4. Disaster Resilient School Children Poster Competition - Allocation of Incentive Funding

This is a report concerning the allocation of funding for incentives as part of the annual City of Ipswich Disaster Resilient School Children Poster Competition.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the incentives identified to support the City of Ipswich Disaster Resilient School Children Poster Competition outlined in the report by the Principal Officer (Emergency Management) be approved.

5. **Urban Heat Island Project Proposal

This is a report concerning an invitation to Ipswich City Council from Griffith University and James Cook University to participate in an Australian Research Council linkage project submission investigating Urban Heat Islands (UHI) effects within the City of Ipswich.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolves:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) endorse the participation of Council in the Urban Heat Island project outlined in Attachment 1, including funding up to the value of $20,000 per annum over 3 years.

B. That the General Manager, Infrastructure and Environment be authorised to negotiate and finalise the terms of participation or to do any other acts necessary to implement Council’s decisions in accordance with section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 2009.

** Item includes confidential papers

and any other items as considered necessary.

Doc ID No: A5726464

ITEM: 1

SUBJECT: Outcome of the 2019-2020 Nature Conservation grants Program

AUTHOR: Program Officer (Natural Environment)

DATE: 16 August 2019

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolves that:

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related parties to this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

The Nature Conservation Grants Program (NCG) is a core program delivered under the Voluntary Conservation Program, funded through the Ipswich Enviroplan Levy. Eligible landholders can apply for an annual grant up to $6,000.

The Grants provide financial support for on-ground conservation management actions and projects to landholders that have one of the following Voluntary Conservation Agreements:

· Nature Conservation

· Bushland Conservation

· Koala Conservation

· Waterway Conservation

· Rural Conservation

· Vegetation Retention, or

· Partnering Agreements.

2019-2020 NATURE CONSERVATION GRANTS:

Eighteen (18) applications were received in the 2019-2020 Nature Conservation Grants round.

The applications were of a high-standard, and 17 were successfully assessed against the criteria as per the grant application guidelines. These seventeen (17) are recommended for funding, as outlined in Table 1 below. One application is currently being reassessed against the eligibility criteria, and if successful will be submitted to a subsequent committee for approval.

All projects recommended for funding contribute to improved conservation and natural environment values within Ipswich. The type of on-ground actions include:

· Weed management

· Revegetation

· Erosion control programs

· Improved waterway and riparian health

Table 1. Eligible Applications Recommended for Funding – Panel and Desktop Assessment outcomes

App. No.	Project Name	Project Suburb	In-kind contribution	Financial contribution	Total Project Cost	Requested funding amount	Recommended funding amount	project size (m2)
App. No.	Project Name	Project Suburb	In-kind contribution	Financial contribution	Total Project Cost	Requested funding amount	Recommended funding amount	project size (m2)
001	Continue Restoring Upper & Mid Banks to Gully.	Karalee	$9,753.85	$4,064.50	$13,818.35	$4,064.50	$4,064.50	600
004	Preserving the Natural Environment at The Bluff	The Bluff	$6,567.00	$4,953.00	$11,520.00	$3,283.00	$3,283.00	245,680
007	Erosion control - sandy creek	Peak Crossing	$3,565.20	$3,025.50	$6,590.70	$3,025.50	$3,025.50	200
008	Rainforest restoration	Pine Mountain	$12,518.10	$5,936.70	$18,454.80	$5,936.70	$5,936.70	4,047
009	Remnant Vegetation Rehabilitation	Pine Mountain	$6,000.00	$6,000.00	$12,000.00	$6,000.00	$6,000.00	10,000
010	Woods End Sandpaper Fig Project	Woodend	$25,985.40	$1,599.48	27,584.88	$1,599.48	$1,599.48	4,100
012	Bandicoot	Bundamba	$19,454.00	$3,850.00	23,304.00	$3,850.00	$3,850.00	100
015	Remnant Vegetation Rehabilitation Lot 72	Pine Mountain	$6,600.00	$6,600.00	13,200.00	$6,600.00	$6,000.00	100,000
016	Vine thicket restoration	Pine Mountain	$16,100.00	$6,996.77	23,096.77	$6,000.00	$6,000.00	13,915
018	Ripley Road Revegetation	South Ripley	$6,260.00	$2,062.00	$8,322.00	$2,062.00	$2,062.00	2,600
019	Riparian restoration of the Bundamba Creek Bank	Bundamba	$3,228.00	$ 2,008.00	$5,236.00	$2,008.00	$ 2,008.00	1,600
020	Selective Lantana Clearing	Grandchester	$4,842.00	$ 4,842.00	$9,684.00	$4,842.00	$4,842.00	10,000
021	leucaena Control	Calvert	$8,554.00	$4,853.00	$13,407.00	$6,000.00	$4,853.00	6500
022	Weed management along Franklin Vale Creek.	Mount Mort	$5,000.00	$5,000.00	10,000.00	$5,000.00	$5,000.00	18,000
023	Baradine Close Bank Stabilisation	Karalee	$3,792.90	$3,255.65	$7,048.55	$3,255.65	$3,255.65	450
024	Operation invasive weed and erosion control at 25 Tantivy Street	Tivoli	$6,410.00	$6,900.00	13,310.00	$6,000.00	$6,000.00	1,000
025	sediment erosion control	Bundamba	$6,000.00	$6,000.00	$12,000.00	$6,000.00	$6,000.00	1,200
17	Totals		$150,630.45	$77,946.60	$228,577.05	$75,526.83	$73,779.83	419,992

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The Nature Conservation Grants are funded through the Enviroplan Levy, with an approved budget of $110,000 in 2019-2020. The total grant funds recommended is $73,779.83.

The total project expenditure (including landholder monetary and in-kind contributions) for the proposed projects is $228,577.05, demonstrating a 3:1 return on investment for grant funds.

The Nature Conservation grants also have indirect financial implications in regards to assimilating positive returns to the environment. The work undertaken by Nature Conservation Grant recipients builds Ipswich’s resilience to climate change, protects and restores habitat for Ipswich’s iconic and ecologically significant species, and improves the City’s amenity.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are minimal risks for approving the 2019-2020 Nature Conservation Grants as it is an annual program and the total grants are within the approved budget. There is a risk if Council did not approve the Grants. This risk would be in the form of a loss of landholder trust and relationships which would risk the overall voluntary conservation program.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Local Government Act 2009

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

To ensure that the grant assessment process was transparent, unbiased and undertaken with good governance, three independent subject-matter experts were chosen to be on the assessment panel for the Nature Conservation Grants (2019-2020) from outside the partnership program. The subject matter experts included the Planning Officer (Biodiversity), Senior Planning Officer (Strategic Conservation Planning) and Technical Officer. The Program Officers (Natural Environment) and the acting Principal Officer (Natural Resources) provided technical advice to the applicants to strengthen the project applications in order to achieve positive on-ground outcomes. The Program Officers (Natural Environment) and the Acting Principal Officer (Natural Resources) were omitted from the grant assessment process for the purpose of maintaining transparency and removing bias from the assessment process.

Further internal or external consultation was not required for the grant assessment process.

Conclusion

Council received 18 applications in the 2019-2020 round of the Nature Conservation Grants. Seventeen applications were deemed successful against the assessment criteria, and are recommended for funding. One application is currently being reassessed against the eligibility criteria.

Danielle Andlemac

Program Officer (Natural Environment)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Phil Smith

Acting Principal Officer (Natural Resources)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Kaye Cavanagh

Sport Recreation and Natural Resources Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Environment Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5735630

ITEM: 2

SUBJECT: Ipswich Rivers Flood Studies Update - IRFSU

AUTHOR: Engineer (Floodplain Management)

DATE: 21 August 2019

Executive Summary

Recommendations

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

a. The new Planning Scheme update;

b. Land use, development and building controls;

c. Flood intelligence and emergency management; and

d. Floodplain and stormwater master plans and associated design of drainage / road infrastructure.

B. That the study be used to inform the city’s Local Floodplain Management Plan as part of the broader Ipswich Integrated Catchment Plan (IICP).

C. That the reports and relevant mapped outputs of the study be made digitally available on Council’s website on a flood information portal when the portal becomes available.

RELATED PARTIES

Bureau of Meteorology

BMT Eastern (consultants)

WMA Water (consultants)

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

Flooding represents the primary natural hazard to the community in Ipswich. This is mainly driven by the Ipswich local government area (Ipswich LGA) location of being on both the floodplains of the Bremer and Brisbane Rivers and the prevalence of various waterways and creeks across the LGA. It is therefore important that understanding of flood behaviour across the LGA is regularly kept current as the city continues to grow.

Chronology of regional flood studies

The Ipswich Rivers Flood Studies Update (IRFSU) represents a major milestone for the city as the study replaces the previous LGA-wide flood study completed between 2000 and 2002.

Table 1 – Chronology of Ipswich LGA-wide flood studies

Flood investigations / studies	Completion date	Summary
Ipswich Rivers Flood Studies: Phases 1,2 and 3	2000 - 2002	The underlying LGA-wide flood study on which the current Planning Scheme is based on. This will be superseded by the IRFSU.
Ipswich Rivers Flood Studies Update (IRFSU)	2019	The current study and subject of this report.

As part of the IRFSU, Council’s various local creek flood studies were concurrently updated to ensure the boundary conditions (where the local creeks meet either the Bremer or Brisbane Rivers) remain consistent with the IRFSU and Brisbane River Catchment Flood Study (BRCFS). Model simulation reruns of each local creek were completed to provide consistent local creek outputs.

Objectives

The IRFSU provides Council and the community with a significantly improved and accurate understanding of current riverine flood behaviour across the Ipswich LGA using latest floodplain management approaches and modelling techniques. In certain locations, the study also provides information on local and urban overland floods.

The study is the first Council study to be completed using the new ensemble rainfall modelling approaches from Australian Rainfall and Runoff (AR&R) 2016 and BoM design Intensity-Frequency-Duration (IFD) rainfall.

The IRFSU outputs have been integrated successfully with the BRCFS which was released by the Queensland Government in 2017 to ensure both studies are regionally consistent with each other.

The IRFSU also meets the core objective within Council’s Floodplain Management Strategy (FMS) of ‘Continue to build flood knowledge and understanding’ and is in alignment with the recommendations from the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry (QFCI).

Council was supported by a nationally recognised independent technical expert (ITE) who provided an additional level of rigour throughout the project. At the conclusion of the study, the ITE provided a Registered Professional Engineer Queensland (RPEQ) certification in the final report.

Catchment characteristics

The core of the study is formed around the Bremer River catchment (total catchment area of approximately 2,030 km²). A near complete Bremer River catchment was investigated, from its headwaters in the Scenic Rim Region (downstream of Moogerah Dam) to the Brisbane River confluence.

Other local creeks which discharge into the Brisbane River catchment (Woogaroo, Goodna, Six Mile Creeks) have also been included in the study to provide coverage over the LGA.

Figure 1 – Catchments and waterways in the Ipswich LGA (red dot – Ipswich CBD)

Modelling

Hydrological modelling was completed in URBS software which was based on the BRCFS study methods. This provides further integration between both studies. Hydraulic modelling was completed using TUFLOW HPC software to a 10m grid resolution. The underlying Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is based on 2014 aerial LiDAR.

Design IFD issue

As the IRFSU progressed, it was confirmed that the new design IFD values from the Bureau of Meteorology when applied directly, resulted in underestimated outputs which could not be reconciled adequately. This however does not mean the BoM IFD rainfall is in error as it is acknowledged that the new IFD data was completed primarily for use across the national level and the issue may be with the scale.

This issue necessitated additional investigation as part of the IRFSU study to modify the BoM’s IFD rainfall to levels which provide more reasonable outputs. Pro-active discussions with other neighbouring councils also indicate that a similar issue is present in their respective LGAs. It is likely that local effects within some regions (such as Ipswich and south-east Queensland) could not be considered in full as part of the Bureau’s investigation at the national level. The underestimation is also noted in other states, in particular within the Wollongong area in New South Wales (NSW). The issue in NSW is well-documented across levels of government.

Some of the risks of using the current design rainfall data as-is are the outputs from new and future updates of flood studies could be underestimated and new stormwater infrastructure could be under-designed which will result in a less than optimal outcome.

Council has quantified the differences between the current IFD rainfall data against the superseded IFD data and the outputs were presented to and discussed by an internal Council technical working group. The working group has unanimously agreed to review the BoM’s IFD rainfall and to estimate new values with the inclusion of local Ipswich data.

A consultant firm who is experienced in the NSW matter has been engaged by Council in collaboration with Brisbane City Council and other neighbouring councils encourages the creation of regionally consistent design rainfall outputs. The internal technical working group will reconvene to determine a future course of action once the investigation is complete and will present the findings to Council.

It is recommended that Council note the above issue as it has LGA-wide implications.

Outcomes

The IRFSU was jointly calibrated and validated against the historical floods of 1974, 1996, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013 and 2017. The successful calibration confirmed that the hydrological and hydraulic models are reflecting catchment response appropriately and are fit for use.

Attachments 1 and 2 contain example hydrological and hydraulic outputs respectively for reference.

A total of 11 design flood events (Annual Exceedance Probabilities, AEP) have been modelled in the IRFSU. These are the 1EY (Equivalent Year), 1 in 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 100 + climate change, 500, 2000 AEP events and an estimate of the Probable Maximum Flood event. An ultimate development scenario was included as well. The critical storm durations range from 12 hours to 48 hours across the catchment, depending on the location of interest. Attachment 3 contains an example hydraulic output for reference.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Not Applicable

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Risks are expected to be minor as the IRFSU flood study has been completed with rigour and has made use of the best available approaches and standards. However, it should be noted that the release of new flood data (either through the future portal or via the Planning Scheme update) will not be viewed favourably by certain sections of the community irrespective of the above.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no further budget implications as the project is complete. The investigation into the design rainfall issue is funded under the current FY 19/20 flood study program.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Engagement with relevant internal Council stakeholders has occurred throughout the IRFSU study’s progress. The draft final outputs were presented to and accepted by Council stakeholders from Planning and Regulatory Services, and Infrastructure and Environment departments in a meeting held 26 June 2019. The final outputs received recently have not changed from what was presented.

Conclusion

The completion of the Ipswich Rivers Flood Studies Update (IRFSU) study represents a major milestone for Council and the community with respect to understanding riverine flood behaviour in the Ipswich LGA. The outputs from this study will provide a strong basis for Council’s new Planning Scheme and other Council activities. The IFD rainfall issue will be revisited once the investigation and new estimates have been completed.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Example hydraulic calibration output - January 2011 ⇩
2.	Example hydraulic calibration output - January 2011 ⇩
3.	Example hydraulic design output - 1 in 100 AEP ⇩

Hoy Sung Yau

Engineer (Floodplain Management)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Phil Smith

Acting Principal Officer (Natural Resources)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Kaye Cavanagh

Sport Recreation and Natural Resources Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Environment Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5518983

ITEM: 3

SUBJECT: City of Ipswich Disaster Recovery Governance Arrangements

AUTHOR: Principal Officer (Emergency Management)

DATE: 5 August 2019

Executive Summary

Recommendations

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve that:

A. The City of Ipswich Local Recovery Group be established as a sub group to the City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Group in accordance with the Terms of Reference outlined at Attachment 1.

B. The General Manager, Infrastructure and Environment be appointed as the Local Recovery Coordinator.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related party matters associated with the report.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

The Disaster Management Act 2003 (Qld), hereby referred to as ‘the Act’, provides that local governments should primarily be responsible for managing disaster events in their local government area. The four pillars of disaster management are: prevention, preparedness, response and recovery.

Council has an established Local Disaster Management Group (LDMG) and issued a Local Disaster Management Plan (LDMP) to promote positive community outcomes and comply with the requirements of the Act.

In recent years there has been an increased focus on the management and coordination of recovery efforts post impact. In June 2019 the Office of Inspector-General of Emergency Management issued a report titled ‘Review – Efficacy of recovery governance.’ The report identified the clarity of roles and responsibilities around recovery as critical.

Further, the Queensland Prevention, Preparedness, Response and Recovery Disaster Management Guideline which is issued pursuant to section 63 of the Act and the Queensland Recovery Plan recommends that a Local Recovery Coordinator (LRC) be appointed and a Local Recovery Group (LRG) be maintained. While the LDMG has primary responsibility for disaster recovery, the LRG, as a sub-group of the LDMG, has delegated responsibility to coordinate and manage recovery operations and planning on behalf of the LDMG.

It is proposed, that the LRG be chaired by the Interim Administrator, until the return to elected representation, at which point a Councillor would assume this role. Additionally it is proposed that the General Manager, Infrastructure and Environment with secretariat support provided by the Emergency Management Unit be appointed as the Local Recovery Coordinator.

The City of Ipswich Local Recovery Group Terms of Reference (Attachment 1) articulate the functions, membership, meeting procedures and reporting requirements of the LRG. These terms of reference also allow for the establishment of recovery sub-committees as identified and required by the LRG itself. It is proposed in the attached terms of reference that any sub-committee established be chaired by a Council Officer, appointed by the Local Recovery Coordinator in consultation with the Local Disaster Coordinator and Chief Executive Officer.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no resourcing or budget implications.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

In the event that the City of Ipswich LRG Terms of Reference are not approved, there are potential risks concerning the failure to complete a legislated requirement under the Disaster Management Act 2003. Additionally, there are possible reputational risks should a disaster occur and our arrangements are not aligned with the Queensland Recovery Plan and Council is unable to provide an agreed platform to coordinate and deliver disaster recovery efforts within the Ipswich local government area.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Disaster Management Act 2003.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The contents of this report did not require any community or external stakeholder consultation. Consultation has occurred with the General Manager Infrastructure and Environment to seek is concurrence on the recommendation to appoint him as the Local Recovery Coordinator.

Conclusion

The establishment of a Local Recovery Group (LRG) and appointment of a Local Recovery Coordinator ensures that Council’s approach to disaster recovery aligns with the Queensland Recovery Plan. The City of Ipswich LRG Terms of Reference support Council’s disaster recovery arrangements and also aligns with those at the State level, as detailed in the Queensland Recovery Plan.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	City of Ipswich Local Recovery Group Terms of Reference ⇩

Matthew Pinder

Principal Officer (Emergency Management)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Kaye Cavanagh

Sport Recreation and Natural Resources Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Environment Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5739149

ITEM: 4

SUBJECT: Disaster Resilient School Children Poster Competition - Allocation of Incentive Funding

AUTHOR: Principal Officer (Emergency Management)

DATE: 23 August 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the allocation of funding for incentives as part of the annual City of Ipswich Disaster Resilient School Children Poster Competition.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the incentives identified to support the City of Ipswich Disaster Resilient School Children Poster Competition outlined in the report by the Principal Officer (Emergency Management) be approved.

RELATED PARTIES

Primary education providers within the City of Ipswich – government and private.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

The Disaster Resilient Schools Poster Competition is an annual feature of Council’s community education program that commenced in 2016, in partnership with the Ipswich City State Emergency Service Unit. The annual program establishes 9 categories based on year level and theme. The themes for 2019 include the creation of posters that promote or explain:

· How do the SES help?

· Get into the habit of noticing

· What goes into an emergency kit?

The competition is open to all primary schools (government or otherwise) located within the Ipswich local government area. To encourage schools to participate an incentive is offered for each category. The incentive includes a $300 gift voucher for use by the school, to be used at businesses located within the LGA that is selected by the winning school. Additionally, a single electronic tablet for each category is provided as a participation incentive for the entrants.

The competition aligns to the principles of the Queensland Disaster Resilience Strategy and the annual state-wide Get Ready campaign.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Local Government Act 2009

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The risk of not approving this recommendation is that the competition will proceed with little incentive for participation, and would minimise Council’s ability to promote disaster resilience within the community.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The expected cost of the incentive pool is $4,500.00 which has been identified and included in the 2019-2020 budget process.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION No formal consultation has been undertaken in relation to this report.

Conclusion

The formal allocation of incentives to drive the City of Ipswich Disaster Resilient School Children Poster Competition is critical to promoting the competition, and in turn disaster resilience.

Matthew Pinder

Principal Officer (Emergency Management)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Kaye Cavanagh

Sport Recreation and Natural Resources Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

Environment Committee

Meeting Agenda

10 September

2019

Doc ID No: A5701186

ITEM: 5

SUBJECT: Urban Heat Island Project Proposal

AUTHOR: Principal Officer (Emergency Management)

DATE: 5 August 2019

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolves:

RELATED PARTIES

Griffith University, Nathan

James Cook University, Townsville

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

Queensland is characterised by extreme weather events, increasing heat waves, downpours and urban floods that impact on the quality of life and that of the built environment. More specifically, heatwaves are Australia’s deadliest natural hazard (Coates et al., 2014).

The Bureau of Meteorology, Department of Environment and Science and Queensland Fire and Emergency Services has identified the City of Ipswich, along with Logan, Toowoomba, Townsville and Cairns as the most at risk to the effects of heatwaves.

Griffith University and James Cook University have approached each local government identified to participate and provide financing to support their application to the highly competitive Australian Research Council grant (Attachment 1).

Council has a number of strategic and operational priorities that are intrinsically linked with this project. This includes disaster mitigation; urban greening; nature conservation; and planning considerations. Having strong research based on local data would provide a solid foundation to decision making within these areas. This information would be made available to all stakeholders in Council, such as Work Health and Safety who could potentially use the data to quantify risks to outdoor workers in an urban setting.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The project is proposed to be run over a three year period and would require additional allocation of $20,000 per annum for the life of the project. In the first year (2019-2020), funding would be found within the urban greening project budget. In-kind support would be provided from existing staff base.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

In not approving this recommendation Council primarily risks making policy decisions on incomplete information. Secondary risks associated with not addressing heatwave are economic impacts (tourism); individual health impacts; and environmental impacts.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following legislative provisions:

Local Government Act 2009

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

There has been no community consultation undertaken regarding this project. Feasibility consultation has been undertaken with relevant Council officers and representatives from Griffith and James Cook Universities.

Conclusion

This project provides a unique opportunity within a local context to measure, visualise and change the effects of urban heat islands within the City of Ipswich. This would allow evidence based policy setting. Funding will only be required for this project if Griffith and James Cook Universities are successful in their Australian Research Council linkage project application.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

	CONFIDENTIAL
1.	Project Overview

Matthew Pinder

Principal Officer (Emergency Management)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Kaye Cavanagh

Sport Recreation and Natural Resources Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

“Together, we proudly enhance the quality of life for our community”

MEMBERS OF THE Environment Committee
Interim Administrator Greg Chemello(Chairperson)