Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Unconfirmed Minutes of Council Ordinary Meeting

17 September 2019

Held in the Council Chambers, Administration Building

45 Roderick Street, Ipswich

The meeting commenced at 9.01 am

Pursuant to section 13 of Council’s Local Law No 2 (Council Meetings) 2013, the Interim Administrator invited the Interim Management Committee being Jan Taylor, Simone Webbe, Rob Jones, Stan Gallo and Steve Greenwood to address Council on any matters before it.

The Interim Administrator advised that he is bound to declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests and that the members of the Interim Management Committee are not legally bound, however in accordance with the Interim Management Charter they will also declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests.

ATTENDANCE AT COMMENCEMENT	Greg Chemello (Interim Administrator) INTERIM MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Jan Taylor, Simone Webbe, Robert Jones, Stan Gallo and Steve Greenwood
WELCOME TO COUNTRY OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY	Greg Chemello (Interim Administrator) Ipswich City Council respectfully acknowledges the Traditional Owners as custodians of the land upon which we meet. We pay our respects to their elders, past, present and emerging, as the keepers of the traditions, cultures and stories of a proud people.
OPENING PRAYER	Greg Chemello (Interim Administrator) Let us in silence pray or reflect upon our responsibilities to the people of Ipswich. We meet today to serve our community, to use our resources wisely and well, to represent all members of our community fairly and to make decisions that promote the common good.
APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE	Nil

Confirmation of Minutes

Confirmation of Minutes of Ordinary Meeting

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 20 August 2019 be confirmed.

The motion was put and carried.

Reception and Consideration of Committee Reports

Economic Development Committee

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

That the Economic Development Committee Report
No. 2019(09) of 10 September 2019 be received and adopted.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ITEMS 3 AND 4

Stan Gallo from the Interim Management Committee informed the meeting that he has, or could reasonably be taken to have a perceived conflict of interest in Item 3 titled Procurement for the North Ipswich Reserve Stadium Business Case and Item 4 titled Procurement for Ipswich Central Public Transport Corridor Strategic Business Case.

The nature of the perceived interest is that he is a partner at KPMG who are being requested to provide a quote for the provision of a business case for North Ipswich Stadium Reserve and a quote for the provision of a strategic business case for Ipswich Central to Springfield Central Public Transport Corridor.

Stan Gallo confirmed that, as there is no personal or financial benefit to him and he would not be party to any KPMG discussions or role in their submission for this project, he would participate in the meeting in relation to the matters.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ITEMS 6 AND 7

The Interim Administrator informed the meeting that he has, or could reasonably be taken to have a perceived conflict of interest in Item 6 titled Ipswich Central Program Report No. 15 to 16 August 2019 and Item 7 titled Ipswich Central Civic Project – Contract Award.

The nature of the perceived interest is that he worked with Ranbury Management Group from 2008 to 2012 who are now one of the current program management partners.

The Interim Administrator confirmed that, as there is no personal or financial benefit to the Interim Administrator, he would participate in the meeting in relation to the matters.

DISCUSSION

Item 1 - Chambers of Commerce Cessation of Annual Partnership Agreement - the Interim Administrator commented on the relationship between Council and the Chambers of Commerce and that it was resolved that Council become ordinary members of the Chambers of Commerce and progress towards a new partnership arrangement. He further stated that Council had a very successful workshop with the Chambers of Commerce after the Committee meetings where discussion focused on establishing an open and transparent arrangement between the Chambers and Council and treating the Chambers as very important members of the economic development community of the city. The Interim Administrator advised that a documented Memorandum of Understanding or some similar kind of arrangement will be brought back to committee and council. He thanked staff who convened and coordinated this event.

Item 3 - Procurement for the North Ipswich Reserve Stadium Business Case - the Interim Administrator reiterated that a previous council resolution in regard to the business case for the stadium was on the basis of a number of pre-conditions that Council, in-principle, has committed $10 million towards Stage 1 of the redevelopment of the North Ipswich Reserve Stadium. He stated that those conditions include the State and Commonwealth Government matching the $10 million grant and the State Government taking over ownership and operation of the venue, and either an A League or an NRL licence being secured. He further stated that these are high benchmarks however it has commenced the conversation of funding with the State and Federal Governments and the business case will be necessary to provide evidence-based research to underpin the advocacy for the funding. The Interim Administrator thanked staff who worked on this process.

Item 4 - Procurement for Ipswich Central to Springfield Central Public Transport Corridor Strategic Business Case - the Interim Administrator commented on and thanked staff for an essential piece of work by Council, to commit to an evidence-based strategy for advocacy to the state and commonwealth governments for funding for the Springfield to Ipswich rail line.

Item 8 - Acknowledgement of Council receiving Advertising and Communication Effectiveness Awards - the Interim Administrator formally congratulated staff for a job well done.

The motion was put and carried.

Growth and Infrastructure Committee

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

That the Growth and Infrastructure Committee Report No. 2019(09) of 10 September 2019 be received and adopted.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST ITEM 5

The Interim Administrator informed the meeting that he has, or could reasonably be taken to have a perceived conflict of interest in Item 5 titled Strategic Roads Sub-Program – Strategic Roads Priority List of Projects.

The nature of the perceived interest is that he was formerly the General Manager of Economic Development Queensland, the state government agency responsible for planning the Ripley Priority Development Area.

The Interim Administrator confirmed that, as there is no personal or financial benefit to the Interim Administrator, he would participate in the meeting in relation to the matter.

DISCUSSION

Item 5 - Strategic Roads Sub-Program – Strategic Roads Priority List of Projects - the Interim Administrator noted that the discussion was really around taking Ripley out of the “black hole” of Council’s infrastructure planning. He stated that merely because the growth area is a Priority Development Area, does not mean that Council should not adequately plan for the infrastructure within and around that Priority Development Area. The Interim Administrator commented the matter of funding, which he understood may be a matter of dispute between the State Government and Council, is a separate matter. The Interim Administrator commented that funding is an important matter which needs to get resolved but he does not think it is the basis for Council not planning for the infrastructure.

Item 17 - New Ipswich Planning Scheme – Statement of Proposals (including draft strategic framework) Consultation Report - the Interim Administrator expressed his gratitude to all staff involved in the preparation of the draft planning scheme as it progresses.

The motion was put and carried.

Communities Committee

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

That the Communities Committee Report No. 2019(09) of
10 September 2019 be received and adopted.

DISCUSSION

Item 2 - Christmas and Festive Season Grants 2019-2020 - the Interim Administrator stated there were some 19 grants that were recommended for approval by the committee to various Christmas events. Subsequent discussions and a presentation to the quarterly CBD retailers meeting explained council’s role and support for those events and other Christmas and festive season events which he felt was an excellent achievement. The Interim Administrator stated that this was an improvement on Council’s performance last year, that he took responsibility for a less than ideal performance last year however Council is now on a sound path for a very solid Christmas and festive events support program, openly and transparently partly funded by the council. The Interim Administrator thanked all staff who worked on this process.

The motion was put and carried.

Environment Committee

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

That the Environment Committee Report No. 2019(09) of
10 September 2019 be received and adopted.

DISCUSSION

Item 3 - City of Ipswich Disaster Recovery Governance Arrangements - the Interim Administrator expressed his gratitude to Council staff, the State Emergency Service, Police and Emergency and Fire Services for their management of the bush fires that were particularly challenging last week.

The motion was put and carried.

Governance Committee	The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves: That the Governance Committee Report No. 2019(09) of 10 September 2019 be received and adopted.
DISCUSSION	The Interim Administrator stated that this was a very significant committee meeting in the history of this council, and made comment in relation to Item 4 - Finalisation of Local Law Making Process – Local Law Review, where former local laws were repealed and replaced with eight (8) new local laws, and then the progression of repealing a vast number of policies and replacing them with new policies. He stated that this is a great achievement. Item 11 - Councillor Integrity Package - the Interim Administrator stated this was a package of eight (8) new policies to assist councillors in the future to undertake their role properly and well, and to assist the Council governance processes. He outlined that it is a culmination of work that commenced a year ago and that further reform is being undertaken in a number of areas across Council. The Interim Administrator made comment that this was an excellent committee meeting to be a part of and thanked those staff involved for their hard work.
AMENDMENT TO ITEM 11	The Interim Administrator stated that he whilst some IMC members have concerns about some aspects of one of the policies, he was keen to approve the package as a whole, and if needed, to report back to a future meeting, with an amendment to that particular policy. In relation to Item 11 titled Councillor Integrity Package, relating to the Councillor Staff Interaction Policy, the Interim Administrator moved the following amendment: That Recommendation A be amended by the addition of the following words at the end of the recommendation: “with an amendment to Clause 7 of the Policy by the addition of the following paragraph: Where a Councillor is appointed to a specific role under an Act or Regulation, the requirements of that Act or Regulation will take precedence where they are undertaking the specific responsibilities as defined in the relevant Act or Regulation in accordance with that role”.
DISCUSSION	The Interim Administrator made comment in relation to the amendment of the Councillor Staff Interaction Policy and stated that his recollection on the basis of that addition is disaster recovery and the ability of a councillor acting in a disaster recovery mode to make expeditious decisions. The Chief Executive Officer made comment that the role is to be the chair of committee and have an executive role and that the legislation states that chair must be a councillor. The Interim Administrator agreed and further stated that it is giving the ambit for that councillor to act in that role under the legislation and regulation that applies to disaster recovery. The motion was put and carried.
	Attachments 1. Updated Attachment 1 to Item 11 on Governance Committee - Councillor Staff Interaction Policy

Officers’ Reports

In accordance with section 7 of Subordinate Local Law (2.1 Council Meetings) the Interim Administrator moved that two late officer’s reports be considered.

The confidential papers associated with this officer’s report are confidential as they include financial information which is commerical in confidence.

Quote Consideration Plan - People and Culture Performance Framework

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to prepare a Quote or Tender Consideration Plan for design, development and implementation of both a Grievance Management Framework and a Performance System Review in accordance with section 230(1)(a) of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to adopt the Quote or Tender Consideration Plan for design, development and implementation of both a Grievance Management Framework and a Performance System Review as outlined in the report by the Learning and Development Advisor dated 12 September 2019 in accordance with section 230(1)(b) of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

C. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to enter into a contract with Prominence Pty Ltd for the development of a Grievance Management Framework and for the development of a Performance Review Process on the terms described in the report by the Learning and Development Advisor dated 12 September 2019.

D. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and finalise the terms of the contract with Prominence Pty Ltd to be executed by Council and to do any other acts necessary to implement Council’s decision in accordance with section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 2009.

The motion was put and carried.

Ipswich Waste Services Annual Performance Plan 2019-2020

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

That the 2019-2020 Ipswich Waste Services Annual Performance Plan and its supporting Service Specification, as detailed in Attachments 1 and 2 to the report by the Ipswich Waste Services Manager titled ‘Ipswich Waste Services Annual Performance Plan 2019-2020’ dated 12 September 2019, be adopted.

DISCUSSION

The Chief Executive Officer made comment that there are only minor changes to a fundamental performance plan, which needs to be adopted prior to the release of the operational plan for the current year. He stated that the previous process used to be that if you had an infirm person in the household Council would come and pick up the bin; however Council now needs to ensure there is no one in the household that is capable of putting the bin out. There is also a change to the naming of garbage bins. He stated that they are minor changes but that it is essentially the same performance plan that has been in operation for several years.

The motion was put and carried.

MEETING CLOSED

The meeting closed at 9.16 am.

“These minutes are subject to confirmation at the next scheduled Council Ordinary Meeting”

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Economic Development Committee NO. 2019(10)

22 October 2019

Report of the Economic Development Committee

for the Council

MEMBER’S ATTENDANCE: Greg Chemello (Interim Administrator)

INTERIM MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE: Jan Taylor, Simone Webbe, Robert Jones, Stan Gallo and Steve Greenwood

Pursuant to section 8.4.5 of Council’s Meeting Procedures Policy, the Interim Administrator invited the Interim Management Committee being Jan Taylor, Simone Webbe, Robert Jones, Stan Gallo and Steve Greenwood to address the Economic Development Committee on any matters before it.

The Interim Administrator advised that he is bound to declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests and that the members of the Interim Management Committee are not legally bound, however in accordance with the Interim Management Committee Charter they will also declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests

1. Pilot Facade Improvement Incentive Program

This is a report concerning the pilot of a Façade Improvement Incentive Program to activate new investment and revitalisation of key economic, community and activity precincts in Ipswich.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That the pilot Façade Improvement Incentive Program within a defined area of the Ipswich Central precinct, be endorsed.

B. That an allocation of $100,000 for the pilot Façade Improvement Incentive Program to 30 June 2020, be endorsed.

C. That a dollar-for-dollar matched incentive rebate mechanism for private business and property owners up to a total $15,000 total council allocation per applicant, be endorsed.

D. That the Chief Executive Officer finalise the consultation, specifications, governance and acquittal processes of the pilot Façade Improvement Incentive Program.

E. That a review and report on the pilot be provided to a future meeting of the Economic Development Committee, prior to 30 June 2020, for possible expansion of the Façade Improvement Incentive Program.

The Interim Administrator stated that consultation had occurred with business owners in the CBD precinct about council redeveloping its own buildings and questions were raised about the condition and presentation of privately owned buildings in the precinct. The Interim Administrator noted that the recommendation involved applied public funds towards private properties, and that similar schemes had successfully been applied in various other local government areas including Brisbane City Council’s suburban centre improvement program.

Simone Webbe stated that public interest considerations should be taken into account for the private properties concerned and that such a scheme is part of the need to “dress the city”.

2. City of Ipswich Business Visit to Japan and Taiwan

This is a report concerning the Ipswich City Council business visit to Japan and Taiwan by council representatives from 28 November to 6 December 2019 (inclusive of travel days).

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the report be deferred to the next Economic Development Committee to enable the appropriate identification and mitigation of risks and definition of complete costs.

Steve Greenwood from the Interim Management Committee raised concerns regarding the lack of identification of relevant key risks for this business visit, particularly given past criticism of Ipswich councillors and staff travelling overseas. He also queried the true costs involved for the travel and requested that a breakdown of total costs should be included in all such reports.

The Interim Administrator suggested that the report be amended to take into consideration the concerns raised and that the report when submitted would be a useful template to guide future reports of this nature.

3. Proposed Amendment to the 2019-2020 Register of Fees and Charges

This is a report concerning the proposed amendments to the 2019-2020 Register of Fees and Charges, specifically fees and charges related to Fire Station 101 activities.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the 2019-2020 Register of Fees and Charges be amended, as detailed in Attachment 1, and adopted with effect from 1 November 2019.

4. Outcome of Statutory Expression of Interest for Partners of Fire Station 101

This is a report concerning the outcome of Fire Station 101 market testing by expressions of interest for delivery, operation and management of an expanded portfolio of programs.

At the Economic Development Committee held on 14 May 2019 the following was resolved:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve that it is satisfied that the calling of Expressions of Interest under section 228(5) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, as detailed in the report by the Project Manager (Fire Station 101) dated 1 May 2019, is in the public interest for the following reason:

It will allow Council to identify potential contractors who are serious contenders for the provision of products and services that will improve or enhance knowledge and skills to build innovation capability without putting all contenders to the expense of preparing a full tender response in the initial stages.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to invite Expressions of Interest under section 228(5) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, as detailed in the report by the Project Manager (Fire Station 101) dated 1 May 2019, for products and services that will improve or enhance knowledge and skills to build innovation capability.

Consequently a Request for Expressions of Interest (EOI) was released on 31 August 2019 for Fire Station 101 partners seeking proposals from organisations to deliver products and services to improve and enhance community knowledge and skills to build innovation capability. The report advised that no suitable partnership arrangement had emerged from this EOI process at this stage.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

5. Nicholas Street Redevelopment Trader Marketing Support

This is a report concerning proposed marketing support to be provided to traders / retailers located in the primary ‘impact zone*’ of the Nicholas Street redevelopment precinct through council’s Economic Development Incentives Policy.

Retailers in the ‘impact zone’ are struggling with foot traffic due to the road closures and fencing surrounding Nicholas Street and its footpaths, with significant paving and landscaping work to commence in late October 2019 which won’t be completed until the end of December 2019. This is causing considerable stress to retailers.

(* Note the ‘impact zone’ is defined as Nicolas Street from Brisbane Street to Bremer Parade, and Union Place from Nicholas Street to Bell Street. Fourteen retailers are located in this ‘impact zone’.)

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That a one-off payment of $1,000 per retailer located in the ‘impact zone’, to be put towards marketing initiatives, as agreed to between each retailer and council as part of a strategic marketing plan (maximum budget $7000), be approved.

The Interim Administrator stated that he was supportive of the program but queried whether a $500 payment (as was recommended in the report) to each retailer was sufficient.

The Manager – Coordination and Performance advised that council will be looking at spending additional money on advertising the precinct and that retailers would also benefit through this advertising.

Simone Webbe from the Interim Management Committee stated that she was supportive of Council working one-on-one with retailers and suggested that council start with $500 and if needed that it be escalated later.

The Interim Administrator advised that he would resolve a $1,000 payment to each retailer now to assist with marketing initiatives.

The confidential papers associated with Item 6 are confidential as they include detailed financial information in relation to contractural and payment arrangements with a number of sub-contractors which is commercial in-confidence.

6. Ipswich Central Program Report No. 16 to 16 September 2019

This is a report concerning a monthly update for the Ipswich Central Program of Works.

The nature of the perceived interest is that Ranbury Management Group is the primary consultant for the CBD Redevelopment and from 2008 to 2012 he was an employee and was a director and part owner of Ranbury but has no current working relationship with the company.

The Interim Administrator confirmed that, as there is no personal or financial benefit to the Interim Administrator, he would participate in the meeting in relation to the matter.

Recommendation

That the report on the Ipswich Central Program Report No. 16 effective to
16 September 2019 be received and the contents noted.

The confidential papers associated with Item 7 are confidential as they include detailed financial information in relation to contractural and payment arrangements with a number of sub-contractors which is commercial in-confidence.

7. Appointment of Retail Leasing Agent, Supplemental Information - Nicholas St Ipswich Central Project

This is a report concerning the provision of supplemental information to support a prior decision of Council by resolution for the appointment of Ranbury Property Services Pty Ltd (“Ranbury”) as the retail leasing agent for the Nicholas St – Ipswich Central Project (“Project”).

The Interim Administrator informed the meeting that he has, or could reasonably be taken to have a perceived conflict of interest in Item 7 titled Appointment of Retail Leasing Agent, Supplemental Information – Nicholas Street Ipswich Central Project.

The Interim Administrator confirmed that, as there is no personal or financial benefit to the Interim Administrator, he would participate in the meeting in relation to the matter.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the report concerning the Appointment of Retail Leasing Agent, Supplemental Information – Nicholas St Ipswich Central Project be received and the contents noted.

PROCEDURAL MOTIONS AND FORMAL MATTERS

The meeting commenced at 8.30 am.

The meeting closed at 9.06 am.

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Growth and Infrastructure Committee NO. 2019(10)

22 October 2019

Report of the Growth and Infrastructure Committee

for the Council

MEMBER’S ATTENDANCE: Greg Chemello (Interim Administrator)

INTERIM MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE: Jan Taylor, Simone Webbe, Robert Jones, Stan Gallo and Steve Greenwood

Pursuant to section 8.4.5 of Council’s Meeting Procedures Policy, the Interim Administrator invited the Interim Management Committee being Jan Taylor, Simone Webbe, Robert Jones, Stan Gallo and Steve Greenwood to address the Growth and Infrastructure Committee on any matters before it.

The Interim Administrator advised that he is bound to declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests and that the members of the Interim Management Committee are not legally bound, however in accordance with the Interim Management Committee Charter they will also declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests.

1. Update to Standard Street Name Sign

This is a report concerning a revision to council’s standard street name sign drawing following the adoption and resolution to implement the update to council logo application at the July Ordinary Council Meeting.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That the revisions to the standard street name sign drawing, as specified in Attachment 2 (Drawing H), be adopted and implemented on all new and replacement street name signs.

B. That the revisions to standard street name sign be integrated into relevant council guidelines and manuals.

2. FIVE year review of the Water Netserv Plan

This is a report concerning the statutory 5 year review of the Water Netserv Plan and request for endorsement of the planning assumptions for the Ipswich local government area as proposed by Queensland Urban Utilities (QUU) in the proposed Water Netserv Plan (Part A) 2019.

QUU formally requested Council’s endorsement by letter dated 27 August 2019. Discussions were held between Council and QUU officers to facilitate the review of the proposed planning assumptions. This review resulted in a revised Water Netserv Plan (Part A) 2019 being provided which includes planning assumptions that are consistent with Council’s Local Government Infrastructure Plan, and endorsement is therefore being recommended.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) endorse the planning assumptions for the Ipswich local government area only proposed by Queensland Urban Utilities as detailed in Attachment 1 pursuant to s99BR of the South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009, as being consistent with the planning assumptions included in the Ipswich Local Government Infrastructure Plan.

B. That the Manager, City Design be requested to advise Queensland Urban Utilities of Council endorsement by letter.

C. That the Manager, City Design be authorised to continue to liaise with Queensland Urban Utilities to ensure consistency between their Water Netserv Plan and Council’s Local Government Infrastructure Plan for development both inside and outside of the Priority Infrastructure Area.

3. 91 and 93 Raceview Street, Raceview - Material Change of Use – Shopping Centre- 2269/2019/MCU

This is a report concerning an application seeking approval for a Material Change of Use – Shopping Centre at 91 and 93 Raceview Street, Raceview QLD 4305.

The subject application requires review by committee and determination by full Council in accordance with the Framework for Development Applications and Related Activities Policy as more than 20 properly made submissions objecting to the proposed development were received.

The proposed development has been assessed with regard to the applicable assessment benchmarks. The proposed Shopping Centre cannot be supported in accordance with section 5 and section 60 of the Planning Act 2016, as the proposal does not advance the purpose of the Act and the development conflicts with the applicable codes of the Planning Scheme with no sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict.

The Interim Administrator informed the meeting that, through previous roles, he has professional relationships with the following individuals involved in the application for 91 and 93 Raceview Street, Raceview – Material Change of Use – Shopping Centre – 2269/2019/MCU:

· Stephen John Leigh Harrison – Fabcot Pty Ltd (Developer)

· Michael Brian Nash – Urban Planning Services Pty Ltd (Planning Consultant)

· Steve Dunn – Dunn Moran Landscape Architects Pty Ltd (Landscape Design)

The Interim Administrator advised that none of these applicants have spoken to him about this matter.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to refuse development application no. 2269/2019/MCU as outlined in the report by the Acting General Manager – Planning and Regulatory Services dated 26 September 2019 in accordance with section 5 and 60 of the Planning Act 2016.

B. That the General Manager – Planning and Regulatory Services be authorised to give a decision notice for the application in accordance with section 63 of the Planning Act 2016.

The Interim Administrator noted the report to the committee cited a number of aspects where the development application does not comply with the planning scheme including proposed retail development in a long-standing medium density zone and that the planning scheme specifically referred to retail development not being considered appropriate for the site.

4. 4502/2018/MCU Cleanaway Landfill Refusal

This is a report concerning a development application that seeks a development permit for a Material Change of Use over 100 Chum Street and 20 Rhondda Road, New Chum for the following:

· Waste Activity Use involving Landfill in the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area (formally referred to as Waste Activity Use other than involving Rehabilitating a Mining Void in the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area);

· Waste Activity Use involving Landfill in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area;

· Waste Activity Use involving Waste recycling, reprocessing and disposal (Special Industry) in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area and the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area including operating a facility for disposing of only general waste or limited regulated waste if the facility receives waste at the rate of 50 tonnes or more a year;

· Waste Activity Use involving Waste recycling, reprocessing and disposal (Special Industry) in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area and the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area including waste transfer station: operating a waste transfer station which receives waste at the rate of 20,000 tonnes or more per year;

· Waste Activity Use involving Crushing, milling or grinding (Special Industry) in the Swanbank/New Chum Waste Activity Area and the Swanbank/New Chum Buffer Area including screening, washing, crushing, grinding, milling, sizing or separating in works producing 5,000 tonnes or more per year.

· ERA 33 (Crushing, milling, grinding or screening: Crushing, grinding, milling or screening more than 5,000t of material in a year);

· ERA 60 (Waste Disposal: 2: Operating a facility for disposing of, in a year, the following quantity of waste mentioned in subsection 1(b) – (h) more than 200,000t);

· ERA 62 (Waste Transfer Station operation: operating on a commercial basis or in the course of carrying on a commercial enterprise, a waste transfer station that receives a total quantity of at least 30t or 30 cubic metres of waste on any day.

The proposed development has been assessed with regard to the applicable assessment benchmarks. The proposed use cannot be supported in accordance with section 5 and section 60 of the Planning Act 2016, as it does not advance the purpose of the Planning Act 2016 and is in conflict with the applicable codes of the Planning Scheme and TLPI No. 1 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation) with no sufficient grounds to justify the decision despite the conflict.

The Interim Administrator informed the meeting that, through previous roles, he has a professional relationship with Natalie June Rayment (Director) – Wolter Consulting Group (Planning Consultant) who is involved in the application 4502/2018/MCU Cleanaway Landfill Refusal. The Interim Administrator advised that Ms Rayment had not spoken to him about this matter.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to refuse development application no. 4502/2018/MCU as outlined in the report by the Acting General Manager – Planning and Regulatory Services dated 8 October 2019 in accordance with section 5 and 60 of the Planning Act 2016.

B. That the General Manager – Planning and Regulatory Services be authorised to give a decision notice for the application in accordance with section 63 of the Planning Act 2016.

The Interim Administrator noted that the report to the committee cited that the development application does not comply with a number of requirements; notably the Temporary Local Planning Instrument (TLPI) specifically enacted in order to manage waste-related development in this area. He cited that the proposed landfill height of 85 metres above sea level for the landfill was significantly in excess of the currently permitted 71 metres and that part of the proposed landfill was within the buffer zone defined in the TLPI.

5. Proposed Amendment to Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions

This is a report concerning the adoption of the proposed Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions and Implementation Guidelines to replace the current Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions and Shipping Container Implementation Guideline as adopted by Council on 29 July 2014 and 17 September 2014 respectively.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) rescind the current Amenity and Aesthetics Provisions (Attachment 1) dated 29 July 2014 and adopt the proposed Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions 2019 (Attachment 2) effective of 1 December 2019.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) rescind the current Implementation Guideline - Shipping Containers (Attachment 3) dated 17 September 2014 and adopt the proposed Implementation Guidelines as listed below effective of 1 December 2019:

· No. 1, Transportable Buildings – Attachment 4

· No. 2, Oversized Class 10 Buildings – Attachment 5

· No. 3, Demolition, Removal or Relocation of a Building – Attachment 6.

C. That the General Manager - Planning and Regulatory Services be authorised to approve administrative amendments, additions and retractions to the Implementation Guidelines where required.

D. That the Manager - Building and Plumbing be requested to attend to all relevant matters associated with giving effect to the Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions, including uploading the provisions and associated Implementation Guidelines on the Council website.

E. That the Building Manager distribute the adopted Amenity and Aesthetics Referral Provisions and Implementation Guidelines to the relevant industry organisations.

6. 197 and 213 Taylors Road, Walloon - Material Change of Use for Preliminary Approval including a variation request to vary the effect of the Ipswich Planning Scheme, and Reconfiguring a Lot - One (1) Lot into Twelve (12) Lots and New Road

This report relates to a development application that seeks a combined approval for a Material Change of Use for Preliminary Approval including a variation request to vary the effect of the Ipswich Planning Scheme, and Reconfiguring a Lot - One (1) Lot into Twelve (12) Lots and New Road, over land located at 197 Taylors Road and 213 Taylors Road (in part), Walloon.

The proposed development has been assessed with regard to the applicant assessment benchmarks. The proposed development generally complies with the assessment benchmarks or can be conditioned to comply as outlined in the Statement of Reasons attached to the report.

The Interim Administrator informed the meeting that, through previous roles, he has a professional relationship with Shane Smith (Town Planner) – LandPartners Pty Ltd (Planning Consultant) who is involved in the application for 197 and 213 Taylors Road, Walloon – Material Change of Use. The Interim Administrator advised that Mr Smith had not spoken to him about this matter.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to approve development application no. 4739/2019/CA subject to conditions in accordance with section 60 of the Planning Act 2016.

B. That the Manager - Development Planning be authorised to prepare conditions in accordance with section 65 of the Planning Act 2016.

C. That the Manager - Development Planning be authorised to give a decision notice for the application in accordance with section 63 of the Planning Act 2016.

D. That the Manager - Development Planning be authorised to give an infrastructure charges notice for the application in accordance with section 119 of the Planning Act 2016.

7. Court Action Status Report

This is a report concerning a status update with respect to current court actions associated with development planning related matters including one other significant matter of dispute that the Planning and Regulatory Services Department is currently involved with.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

8. Exercise Of Delegation

This is a report concerning applications that have been determined by delegated authority for the period 30 August 2019 to 11 October 2019.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

PROCEDURAL MOTIONS AND FORMAL MATTERS

The meeting commenced at 9.13 am.

The meeting closed at 9.36 am.

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Communities Committee NO. 2019(10)

22 October 2019

Report of the Communities Committee

for the Council

MEMBER’S ATTENDANCE: Greg Chemello (Interim Administrator)

INTERIM MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE: Jan Taylor, Simone Webbe, Robert Jones, Stan Gallo and Steve Greenwood

The Interim Administrator advised that he is bound to declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests and that the members of the Interim Management Committee are not legally bound, however in accordance with the Interim Management Committee Charter they will also declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests

1. Community Donations Report

This is a report providing detail about the year to date allocation of community donations, as at 31 August 2019 and providing a summary of these community donations by recipient type.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

Simone Webbe from the Interim Management Committee queried the overall coordination of the various community grants processes currently in place, particularly the Christmas Grants process, stating that if applicants have three opportunities to apply for grants, council should have any over-arching governance over these.

The Community Development Manager advised that this process was not just unique to Christmas Grants and that applicants can in fact receive a grant, donation and in-kind assistance.

The Interim Administrator suggested that the coordination and governance of the various community grants process should form part of the funding review which Price Waterhouse Coopers is currently undertaking.

The General Manager – Community Cultural and Economic Development advised that this had been recognised as part of the review.

2. Triennial Grants Program

This is a report concerning the allocation of funds through the Triennial Grants Program for 2019-2020.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) approve triennial funding of:

$8,461.02 (excl GST) Year 1 2019-2020

$4,465.79 (excl GST) Year 2 2020-2021

$2,307.27 (excl GST) Year 3 2021-2022

to Multicultural Australia Limited to support the Balance Project.

3. Young Performing Artists Bursary

This is a report concerning the allocation of funds through the Young Performing Artists Bursary Program for 2019-2020.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) approve funding of $700.00 (ex-GST) to Allstar Dance, towards the cost of attending workshops and participating in three (3) performances in Disney Florida, as outlined in the report by the Community Grants Coordinator dated 23 September 2019.

4. Community Meeting Rooms and Printing Requests

This is a report concerning the provision of meeting rooms and printing which were previously provided through divisional offices.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council continue to provide free meeting spaces in Ipswich Libraries and consideration be given that Ipswich Libraries’ meeting rooms be available beyond business hours.

B. That with the exception of ANZAC Day program printing requests, Council encourage organisations to move to electronic distribution of information. For those organisations that require printing, self-serve printing facilities will continue to be available at Ipswich Libraries.

The Interim Administrator stated that the concern with the previous process was the inequity involved particularly around which organisations were granted the free meeting spaces and free printing.

Simone Webbe from the Interim Management Committee suggested that perhaps the printing requests for ANZAC Day could form part of the community donations program for one-off projects or grants.

5. Interim Rosewood Council Connect

This is a report concerning the introduction of an interim Rosewood Council Connect library and customer service facility by repurposing the Mobile Library asset and achieving an increased return and community benefit.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That the interim Rosewood Council Connect service in the Anzac Park carpark,
Mill Street, Rosewood, be established.

B. That the current Mobile Library service be decommissioned and repurposed as the Rosewood Council Connect facility.

C. That the user catchments of the current Mobile Library service be appropriately supported by alternative Library services.

The Interim Administrator confirmed that the three busiest mobile library stops being Springfield Central, Rosewood and Karalee now have other services in these areas and that due to these services the mobile library will be decommissioned. It was stated that the other nine stops have a combined number of 85 residents generating some 50 transactions per week which Council would need to consider.

The Manager, Libraries and Customer Service advised that these 85 current Mobile Library users would be offered access to the Home Library Service.

The Interim Administrator queried the progress of the Library Strategy.

The Manager, Libraries and Customer Service advised that due to the restructure of council and the incorporation of customer services into libraries, the strategy would need to be re-scoped and that this strategy would likely be available from mid to late 2020.

The draft consultation and documentation associated with the previous libraries strategy will be provided for public view via the Shape Your Ipswich platform.

PROCEDURAL MOTIONS AND FORMAL MATTERS

The meeting commenced at 9.48 am.

The meeting closed at 10.12 am.

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Environment Committee NO. 2019(10)

22 October 2019

Report of the Environment Committee

for the Council

MEMBER’S ATTENDANCE: Greg Chemello (Interim Administrator)

INTERIM MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE: Jan Taylor, Simone Webbe, Robert Jones, Stan Gallo and Steve Greenwood

The Interim Administrator advised that he is bound to declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests and that the members of the Interim Management Committee are not legally bound, however in accordance with the Interim Management Committee Charter they will also declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests

1. Environment and Sustainability Community Grants Round 1 2019-2020

This is a report concerning applications received under the Environment and Sustainability Community Grant Program, Round 1 of the 2019-2020 financial year.

The Interim Administrator informed the meeting that, through previous roles, he has a professional relationship with James McKnoulty (Director) - Queensland Trust for Nature (Applicant) who applied for an Environment and Sustainability Community Grant from
Round 1 2019-2020. The Interim Administrator advised that Mr McKnoulty had not spoken to him about this matter.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) provide funding of $4,025 (incl GST) plus in-kind support of up to $650 through the Environment and Sustainability Community Grant Program to the applicants outlined in the report by the Partnerships Officer for Round 1 of the 2019-2020 financial year.

2. Digicon Naeus Explore App Update 2019

This is a report concerning the Naeus Explore App which was created from the Digicon Hackathon project in 2017 and continued app subscription for community use of the app.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) approve the renewal of the Naeus Explore app subscription for 2019-2020 with Naeus Pty Ltd enabling residents and community to continue having access to the app which encourages and assists in visitation to conservation estates within Ipswich.

3. Habitat Connections Sponsorship - Stroud Homes

This is a report concerning a proposed sponsorship arrangement for Stroud Homes to contribute to Council’s Habitat Connections program which supports riparian tree planting.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) enter into a sponsorship agreement to accept Stroud Homes contribution to Council’s Habitat Connections program which will support riparian tree planting.

4. Nature Conservation Grant - Remaining Applicant

This is a report concerning the outcome of the one (1) remaining application for the Nature Conservation Grants Program (NCG) 2019/20. Seventeen (17) applications were successful in the assessment process and were granted funding at Council meeting dated 17 September 2019.

The remaining application was submitted by a Council employee. A recommendation from the Internal Audit Recommendation Register highlighted the requirement for further investigation around the approval of funds to Council employees. As such further investigation regarding the process and approval of funds to Council employees was required to ensure any risk of conflict of interest were managed appropriately.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That funding for the successful applicant: NCG19/20-013 in the 2019-2020 Nature Conservation Grants round be approved.

The confidential papers associated with Item 5 are confidential as the tender assessment report contains commercial in-confidence information including financial information.

5. Tender 12759 – Waste Management Software Solution

This is a report concerning the replacement of the existing waste management system (RMSwin) which has been placed in an “End-of-Life” support phase by the software provider. An open market tender (12759 Waste Management Software Solution) was released to procure a viable alternative solution whereby tenderers could either submit a tender for a complete solution or tender for one or more of four (4) separable portions. The tender evaluation process concluded that a viable replacement solution could be achieved by utilising two (2) separate tendered solutions to meet three (3) of the separable portions and addressing any remaining gaps with existing corporate systems.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That in accordance with s233 of the Local Government Regulation 2012, Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) approve a Preferred Supplier Arrangement for the supply of Transfer Station / Weighbridge software and hardware.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve under s233(7) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, it is satisfied that it will obtain better value for money by entering into a Preferred Supplier Arrangement for a term of more than two (2) years.

C. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) enter into a contract for the provision of a Waste Management Software Solution for Transfer Station Operations with the recommended tenderer as detailed in the Evaluation Report for a period of three (3) years with the option to extend the contract by two (2) x further, one (1) year periods.

D. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and finalise the term of the contract to be executed by Council and to do any other acts necessary to implement Council’s decision in accordance with section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 2009.

E. That in accordance with s233 of the Local Government Regulation 2012, Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) approve a Preferred Supplier Arrangement for the supply of Waste Collection Operations and Vehicle Routing and Logistics software and hardware.

F. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve under s233(7) of the Local Government Regulation 2012, it is satisfied that it will obtain better value for money by entering into a Preferred Supplier Arrangement for a term of more than two (2) years.

G. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) enter into a contract for the provision of a Waste Management Software Solution for Waste Collection Operations and Vehicle Routing and Logistics with the recommended tenderer as detailed in the Evaluation Report for a period of three (3) years with the option to extend the contract by two (2) x further, one (1) year periods.

H. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and finalise the term of the contract to be executed by Council and to do any other acts necessary to implement Council’s decision in accordance with section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 2009.

The Interim Administrator queried why council would enter into a one year contract with two (2) x further one year periods instead of a three year contract. The ICT Project Manager advised that with technologies changing so frequently it was felt that the shorter contract term was the better option.

The Interim Administrator requested that the ICT Project Manager review the tender process to see if it is possible to enter into a three year term with options without having to go out to tender again and if it is possible that an amendment be put forward at the Council meeting for a three year option.

PROCEDURAL MOTIONS AND FORMAL MATTERS

The meeting commenced at 10.20 am.

The meeting closed at 10.33 am.

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Governance Committee NO. 2019(10)

22 October 2019

Report of the Governance Committee

for the Council

MEMBER’S ATTENDANCE: Greg Chemello (Interim Administrator)

INTERIM MANAGEMENT

COMMITTEE ATTENDANCE: Jan Taylor, Simone Webbe, Robert Jones, Stan Gallo and Steve Greenwood

The Interim Administrator advised that he is bound to declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests and that the members of the Interim Management Committee are not legally bound, however in accordance with the Interim Management Committee Charter they will also declare Conflict of Interests and potential Conflict of Interests

1. Report - Audit and Risk Management Committee No. 2019(04) of
9 October 2019

This is the report of the Audit and Risk Management Committee of 9 October 2019.

Recommendation

That the report of the Audit and Risk Management Committee of 9 October 2019 be received, the contents noted and the recommendations contained therein be adopted.

Simone Webbe from the Interim Management Committee made comment that the covering report and supporting attachments were not included in the agenda.

The Interim Administrator requested that the documents be included for the full council meeting.

Attachments

1. Report - Audit and Risk Management Committee No. 2019(03) of 28 August 2019

2. Information Security Controls Remediation Works

3. Attachment to report on Information Security Controls Remediation Action Plan

4. Queensland Audit Office Closing Report

5. 2018-2019 Annual Financial Statements and 2018-2019 Management Representation Letter

6. 2018-2019 Annual Financial Statement for Controlled Entities

7. Updated changes to 2018-2019 Financial Statements

2. Finalisation of Local Law Making Process

This is a report concerning the Local Law Review which is a sub-project of Council’s Transformational Project 9 (Review Policies, Procedures, Local Laws and the Committee Process and associated reporting). Further public consultation was conducted for Local Law (Amending) Local Law No.3 (Commercial Licensing) and Subordinate Local Law (Amending) Subordinate Local Law No.3.1 (Commercial Licensing) with no submissions received. We now seek to finalise the Local Law making process, in accordance with the Local Government Act 2009 and Council’s Local Law making process Policy including the adoption of consolidated versions of all Council’s Local Laws and Subordinate Local Laws.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That it be noted that no submissions were received during the second public consultation period for the proposed Local Law amendments.

B. That Council propose to make Local Law (Amending) Local Law No.3 (Commercial Licensing) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

C. That Council propose to make Subordinate Local Law (Amending) Subordinate Local Law 3.1 (Commercial Licensing) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

D. That Council propose to make Local Law (Amending) Local Law No.1 (Administration) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

E. That Council propose to make Local Law (Amending) Local Law No.4 (Permits) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

F. That Council propose to make Local Law (Amending) Local Law No.5 (Parking) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

G. That Council propose to make Subordinate Local Law (Amending) Subordinate Local Law No.5.1 (Parking) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

H. That Council propose to make Local Law (Amending) Local Law No.6 (Animal Management) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

I. That Council propose to make Subordinate Local Law (Amending) Subordinate Local Law No.6.1 (Animal Management) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

J. That Council propose to make Local Law (Amending) Local Law No.7 (Local Government Controlled Areas and Roads) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

K. That Council propose to make Subordinate Local Law (Amending) Subordinate Local Law 7.1 (Local Government Controlled Areas and Roads) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

L. That Council propose to make Local Law (Amending) Local Law No.8 (Nuisances and Community Health and Safety) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

M. That Council propose to make Subordinate Local Law (Amending) Subordinate Local Law No.8.1 (Nuisances and Community Health and Safety) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

N. That Council propose to make Local Law (Amending) Local Law No.49 (Vegetation Management) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

O. That Council propose to make Subordinate Local Law No.49.1 (Protection of Important Vegetation) 2019, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

P. That Council adopt the consolidated versions of the amended Local Laws and Subordinate Local Laws, as attached to the report of the Policy Officer dated 20 September 2019.

The Interim Administrator queried the council’s intended enforcement process during the transition from the old to new local laws and suggested that this matter be raised for discussion at the Executive Leadership Team meeting.

3. Media Policy

This is a report concerning a Media Policy which outlines the expectations of elected representatives and staff of the organisation when dealing with the media and when managing owned channels.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the report be deferred to the next meeting of the Governance Committee.

Simone Webbe from the Interim Management Committee raised concerns regarding the appropriate identification of risks given Ipswich Council’s history and that for this particular policy it would have been a good idea to clearly articulate the purpose of the policy in the Executive Summary. She suggested that the policy should start with a clear and specific statement about council’s role. Simone also suggested that it would be good to have clarity in the policy to guide decision making about topics important to council such as when public expenditure occurs. It was also suggested that it would be a good idea to include the local government principles.

In relation to the procedure, concerns were raised regarding some of the content and it was suggested that it would be a good idea to scenario test each of the processes to ensure everything is covered.

Steve Greenwood from the Interim Management Committee stated that the policy as it stands does not give clear guidance to staff.

Rob Jones from the Interim Management Committee stated that the policy doesn’t clearly articulate the view that the role is to provide factual information.

The Chief Executive Officer clarified that council’s role in dealing with negative issues via Ipswich First should be to share what council and the community can do to work towards addressing the relevant issue. Council should also be trying to provide information that links back to council such as its assets and services.

The Interim Administrator noted that there was clearly further work to be done on this proposed policy and suggested that the report be amended to take into consideration the concerns raised and submitted to a future meeting.

4. Event Sponsorship Policy - Supporting Documentation Amendment

This is a report concerning amendments to the Ticket/Invitation Allocation Standards document associated with the Event Sponsorship Policy adopted by Council at its meeting of 17 September 2019.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the amendments to the Ticket/Invitation Allocation Standards document and Ticket Allocation Justification Form as detailed in Attachment 2 be adopted.

5. Review of Policies - Corporate Services Department

This is a report concerning the review of policies relating to the functions of the Corporate Services Department undertaken in accordance with Council’s Policy and Procedure Management Framework adopted by Council on 16 July 2019.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That the policies detailed in Table 1, be repealed with the exception of the Free Public Wi-Fi and Open Data Policy which are to remain as Council policies.

B. That the policies detailed in Table 2, be adopted.

TABLE 1

Name of Policy	Adopted at Council	Attachment Number
Voting Entitlements for Delegates and Representatives Policy	20 September 2006	1
Attestation Clause and Common Seal Policy	12 April 2006	2
*Free Public Wi-Fi Policy (to remain in force)*	*6 December 2016*	3
*Open Data Policy (to remain in force)*	*27 June 2017*	4
Attendance at Australian Defence Force Reserve Training and Activities Policy	14 September 2005	5
Bereavement Leave Policy	23 January 2017	6
Blood Donor Leave Policy	9 November 2010	7
Emergency Service Policy	23 August 1995	8
Employment of Ex-Apprentices Policy	23 August 1995	9
Flexible Working Hours Policy	23 August 1995	10
Higher Grade Pay Policy	23 August 1995	11
Interview/Selection Panel Policy	23 May 1995	12
Jury Service Policy	23 August 1995	13
Leave Without Pay Policy	23 August 1995	14
Medical Examinations Policy	5 September 2017	15
Paid Leave to Attend volunteer Citizen Forces Training Policy	23 August 1995	16
Prescription Safety Glasses Policy	23 March 2005	17
Sponsorship and Funding of Employee Sporting and Recreation Activities Policy	29 May 2018	18
Term Contract Policy	2 July 2003	19
Variations to Term Contract Policy	18 August 2004	20
Provision of Legal Assistance for Employees and Councillors Policy	29 January 2019	21
Company Directors Membership Costs Policy	1 November 2000	22
Floral Tributes Policy	27 March 2018	23

TABLE 2

Name of Policy	Attachment Number
Right to Information Policy	24
Information Privacy Policy	25
Dividing Fences Policy	26
Residential Tenancy of Council Properties Policy	27
Tenure for Telecommunications Infrastructure Policy	28
Property Acquisition and Disposal Policy	29
Early Property Acquisition Policy	30
Tenure over Council Property Policy	31
Tenure of Land for Agistment Purposes Policy	32
Provision of Information to Law enforcement Agencies Policy	33

Simone Webbe from the Interim Management Committee raised concerns regarding the inconsistency between some of the policies to be repealed and a procedure or administrative directive that would replace the policy, noting that it was not clear if the administrative directive would be in place at the time the policy is repealed. Simone further commented that normally there would be a tracked change version for each of the amended policies so that it was clear what changes were being made.

Simone suggested that with the Open Data and Free Public Wi-Fi policies that these should remain as policies and that a procedure or administrative directive could be developed with them that goes into more detail about the processes.

6. Christmas Closedowns and Service Provisions Over the Christmas Period

This is a report concerning Council Christmas Closedowns and Service Provisions over the Christmas Period including nomination of the granted day off in accordance with the certified agreements.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve to endorse:

A. That Council offices close from 1.00 pm Tuesday, 24 December 2019, re-opening Thursday, 2 January 2020, except for staff providing emergency or essential customer services.

B. The respective closedown dates for each of the facilities and services listed in the table outlined in the report.

7. Corporate Services Operational Report

This is a report concerning the operational performance and key activities undertaken by the Corporate Services Department for the period of 1 August 2019 to 30 September 2019.

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

8. Monthly Performance Report - August 2019

This is a report concerning Council performance for the period ending 31 August 2019, submitted in accordance with section 204 of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the report be received and the contents noted.

9. Overdue Rates and Charges for the period July - September 2019

This is a report by the Recoveries Manager dated 2 October 2019 concerning rate arrears and rate collection statistics for the period July-September 2019.

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

The confidential papers associated with Item 10 are confidential as they include personal financial information of the relevant company.

10. Concession for General Rates - 1 Scott Street GOODNA QLD 4300

This is a report concerning a request for a concession for general rates from Goodna Youth Services Inc., for their property at 1 Scott Street, GOODNA QLD 4300.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That a 100% concession for general rates, for the property at 1 Scott Street, GOODNA QLD 4300, owned by Goodna Youth Services Inc., be granted and backdated to 1 January 2019.

PROCEDURAL MOTIONS AND FORMAL MATTERS

The meeting commenced at 10.42 am.

The meeting closed at 11.36 am.

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Doc ID No: A5856331

ITEM: N.1

SUBJECT: 2018-2019 Financial Statements - Controlled Entities

AUTHOR: Treasury Accounting Manager

DATE: 22 October 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the 2018-2019 Financial Statements for the following controlled entities of Ipswich City Council (Council):

· Ipswich City Properties Pty Ltd (ICP) – Attachment 1;

· Ipswich City Enterprises Pty Ltd (ICE) – Attachment 2;

· Ipswich City Enterprises Investments Pty Ltd (ICEI) – Attachment 3; and

· Ipswich City Developments Pty Ltd (ICD) – Attachment 4.

The Financial Statements and accompanying Director’s Report for ICP, ICE and ICEI have been certified following the completion of the 2018-2019 audit conducted by the Queensland Audit Office (QAO).

As ICD has been deregistered, the unaudited Financial Statements for ICD will not be certified. However these unaudited statements were reviewed by QAO in conjunction with their audit of Council and the other controlled entities.

Recommendation

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the report of the Treasury Accounting Manager dated 22 October 2019 be received and the contents noted

RELATED PARTIES

The Interim Administrator and Senior Managers should consider the following controlled entities for the purposes of related party disclosures:

· Ipswich City Properties Pty Ltd;

· Ipswich City Enterprises Pty Ltd;

· Ipswich City Enterprises Investments Pty Ltd; and

· Ipswich City Developments Pty Ltd.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Listening, leading and financial management

Purpose of Report/Background

The Financial Statements and Director’s Reports for each of the controlled entities have been prepared and developed with the support and supervision of Council’s Finance Branch.

The following briefly outlines the activities undertaken by each of the entities during the 2018‑2019 financial year and the current status of the entity.

Ipswich City Developments Pty Ltd

ICD sold its remaining property asset, located at 101 Limestone Street, Ipswich, to Council which settled on 14 August 2018. It provided a final dividend of $2.5 million to Council and its principal activities ceased during August 2018. Following a resolution of its Board on 20 August 2018 and a resolution by the Members on 30 August 2018, ICD commenced a Members Voluntary Liquidation for the purpose of wind up and deregistration. The Liquidators were appointed effective 30 August 2018 and finalised the remaining assets and liabilities of ICD and provided a final distribution of $449,000 to Council.

ICD was deregistered on 20 June 2019.

Ipswich City Enterprises Pty Ltd

On 23 April 2018 Council resolved to endorse the winding up of ICE and it sold the business of Fire Station 101 to Council in August 2018.

The principal activities of ICE have now ceased. Subject to the finalisation of arrangements related to a licence agreement held by ICEI, it is likely that ICE will be placed into Members Voluntary Liquidation prior to December 2019 and that the resultant deregistration will occur prior to 30 June 2019.

The costs associated with the intended Members Voluntary Liquidation and subsequent deregistration are expected to be less than $20,000. Apart from these costs, the winding-up of ICE does not impose any additional costs or liabilities on Council.

Ipswich City Enterprises Investments Pty Ltd

On 23 April 2018 Council resolved to endorse the winding up of ICEI’s parent entity, ICE.

The principal activities of ICEI have now ceased. Subject to the finalisation of arrangements related to a licence agreement, it is likely that ICEI will be placed into Members Voluntary Liquidation prior to December 2019 and that the resultant deregistration will occur prior to 30 June 2019.

The costs associated with the intended Members Voluntary Liquidation and subsequent deregistration are expected to be less than $20,000. Apart from these costs, the winding-up of ICEI does not impose any additional costs or liabilities on Council.

Ipswich City Properties Pty Ltd

On 16 October 2018, Council resolved to endorse the winding up and ultimately deregistration of ICP. This strategic decision to close ICP as soon as practical was intended to bring the Nicholas Street – Ipswich Central Project into the higher transparent governance regime of Council.

During 2018-2019 ICP, in conjunction with Council, continued to advance the components of the Nicholas Street – Ipswich Central Project, including the civic and community precincts as well as the Council administration building. Simultaneously ICP began the process of transferring its assets and operations to Council, which was completed on 27 June 2019.

The principal activities of ICP have now ceased and it is likely that it will be placed into Members Voluntary Liquidation prior to December 2019 and that the resultant deregistration will occur prior to 30 June 2019.

The costs associated with the transfer of ICP’s assets and operations to Council as well as the intended Members Voluntary Liquidation and subsequent deregistration, are estimated to be $160,000, across Council and ICP. Council has incurred statutory fees of approximately $90,000 relating to the transfer of ICP’s assets. Apart from these costs, the winding-up of ICP does not impose any additional costs or liabilities on Council.

Council is now managing the Nicholas Street – Ipswich Central Project under a Steering Committee, with monthly progress reports being publicly made available through Council’s Economic Development Committee and full Council meetings each month.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009

Local Government Regulation 2012

Australian Accounting Standards

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The Financial Statements of these controlled entities are consolidated into Council’s Financial Statements. Their preparation and certification was a key component in Council complying with key reporting deadlines as agreed with QAO and s212 of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

The transfer of their assets and operations, wind up and ultimate deregistration of these entities, are significant steps in managing the reputational risks of Council.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial or resource implications related to this report as the preparation and audit of these controlled entities are included as part of the business as usual activities of Council’s Finance Branch.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Community consultation has not been undertaken in relation to this report. Whilst its content will be of interest to the community, it is a matter of statutory financial reporting for each of the respective controlled entities.

Conclusion

The Financial Statements and accompanying Director’s Reports for ICP, ICE and ICE as well as the unaudited Financial Statements for ICD, be noted.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1	2019 Ipswich City Properties Pty Ltd Annual Financial Statements - QAO Certified ⇩
2	2019 Ipswich City Enterprises Pty Ltd Annual Financial Statements - QAO Certified ⇩
3	2019 Ipswich City Enterprises Investments Pty Ltd Annual Financial Statements - QAO Certified ⇩
4	2019 Ipswich City Developments Pty Ltd UNAUDITED Annual Financial Statements ⇩

Paul Mollenhauer

Treasury Accounting Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Jeffrey Keech

Finance Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Andrew Knight

General Manager - Corporate Services

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

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Item N.2 / Attachment 1.

PDF Creator

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Doc ID No: A5858529

ITEM: N.3

SUBJECT: 60 Springfield Greenbank Arterial, Springfield Central, Master Area Development Plan - Development Area 22A and 22B

AUTHOR: Senior Planner (Development)

DATE: 22 October 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning an application seeking approval for a Master Area Development Plan for Development Area 22A and 22B of the Springfield Town Centre, which is proposing to develop a Premier Sport facility (AFL) and Local Sports and Courts facility. The development has been assessed with regard to the applicable assessment benchmarks, the Town Centre Concept Plan and the Springfield Town Centre Infrastructure Agreement. The proposed development generally complies with the assessment benchmarks or can be conditioned to comply.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) resolve to approve development application no. 1421/2019 subject to conditions in accordance with section 2.2.4.10 of the Springfield Structure Plan.

B. That the General Manager – Planning and Regulatory Services be authorised to prepare conditions in accordance with section 2.2.4.10 of the Springfield Structure Plan.

RELATED PARTIES

The related parties to this application are:

· Ipswich City Council (Landowner) – Council is landowner and has engaged the Brisbane Lions Football Club to undertake fit for purpose works.

· Brisbane Lions Football Club (Developer) – Details extracted from the ASIC database indicate that the current directors are Michael Christopher Power, Leigh Raymond Matthews, Sarah Jane Kelly, Andrew John Wellington, Cyril Jinks, Catherine Gay Reid, Timothy Denham Forrester, and current secretary is Kevin Albert Samson

· Springfield City Group (Master Developer) – Details extracted from the ASIC database indicate that the Business Name Holder is THE TRUSTEE FOR SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT TRUST, the organisational representative is Raynuha Sinnathamby.

Advance Ipswich Theme Linkage

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

SITE ADDRESS:	60 Springfield Greenbank Arterial, SPRINGFIELD CENTRAL, 4300
APPLICATION TYPE:	Master Area Development Plan
PROPOSAL:	Master Area Development Plan for Development Areas 22A and 22B
DESIGNATION:	Recreation
OVERLAYS:	OV1 – Transitional Bushfire Risk Area
APPLICANT:	Springfield City Group
OWNER:	Ipswich City Council
EXISTING OR PROPOSED TRADING NAMES:	Springfield City Group
APPLICATION NO:	1421/2019/ADP
AREA:	17.8389ha
REFERRAL AGENCIES:	Department of Transport and Main Roads (Advice)
EXISTING USE:	Vacant land.
PREVIOUS RELATED APPROVALS:	Not Applicable
DATE RECEIVED:	27 February 2019 (properly made 14 May 2019)
DECISION PERIOD START DATE:	21 June 2019
EXPECTED DETERMINATION DATE:	29 October 2019

SITE LOCATION

FIGURE 1: Subject Site and Locality Plan

PROPOSAL OVERVIEW

The applicant seeks approval for a Master Area Development Plan for Development Area 22A and 22B of the Springfield Town Centre. The Development Area is proposed to include:

(a) Development of a Premier Sports Facility within DA 22A, which is to include provision for complimentary commercial activities; and

(b) Development of a Local Sports Facility within DA 22B.

Master ADPs are the mechanism whereby the master planning of the Springfield Structure Plan is put into effect for the Development Areas within the Town Centre. They are intended to describe the indicative pattern and form of development that will occur over time within each Development Area (i.e. produce an integrated master plan) and outline the indicative dominant land uses.

The master plan for DA22A/22B is provided in Figure 2. DA 22A and 22B covers approximately 17.84 hectares of land located within the Town Centre Frame of the Springfield Town Centre. DA 22A/22B is broadly defined by the alignment of Springfield Greenbank Arterial to the east, Centenary Highway and the Springfield Central Train Station to the south, and Mountain Creek and undeveloped land to the west (DA5 and DA20).

FIGURE 2: Springfield Central Stadium Precinct

In conjunction with this application, the applicant is seeking to amend the Town Centre Concept Plan to include the Town Business Precinct within Development Area 22A. Section 4.3.3.20 of the Springfield Town Centre Concept Plan is proposed to be amended to identify that DA 22A/22B is to comprise Citywide sporting facilities with complementary commercial uses, Local sporting facilities, Citywide linear parkland and District recreation parkland incorporating the preferred dominant land uses of Recreation Precinct and Town Business Precinct.

The proposed MADP is consistent with the proposed amended Springfield Town Centre Concept Plan that is currently being considered under application 4741/2019. The proposed MADP is detailed in Attachment A.

The minimum standard of facility intended to be developed within DA22A is to be the equivalent of one (1) citywide level sporting facility that is consistent with the desired standards of service for Citywide level sportsgrounds and courts as detailed in Ipswich City Council’s Local Government Infrastructure Plan. It is noted that the Developer has provided the required courts in the Southern Sportsfields (Development Area 16 and 17). Consequently, no courts are proposed in Development Area 22A and the respective embellishment value is to be adjusted.

The minimum standard of facility intended to be developed within DA22B is to be the equivalent of One (1) local sports and courts facility that is consistent with the desired standards of service for Local level sportsgrounds and courts as detailed in Ipswich City Council’s Local Government Infrastructure Plan.

Development Areas 22A-22B will provide a high degree of permeability within the site and connectivity to pedestrian and bikeway networks leading into and out of the Town Centre to form an integral part of the open space network. DA22A-22B will provide pedestrian pathways to link the open space and activity areas with the built environment of the Town Centre, train and bus stations, and community Open Space parks (neighbourhood and local parks). Connections will be physical, via pedestrian pathways and cycleways, and also visual, via views to and through the open space sportsfields environment.

DA22A is intended to be developed as a premier sports facility that is to accommodate elite teams/clubs involved in the Australian Football League (AFL). The facility will include a Clubhouse, administration and storage facilities, indoor and outdoor training areas, rehabilitation and recovery facilities, Indoor Recreation (Gymnasium and aquatic centre), Medical Centre (sports medicine), Child Care Centre, Café/Restaurant, and catering and concessionary areas capable of providing services to spectators, media and broadcasting facilities. The sports fields will be supported by a range of seating options, including potential for covered grandstands, open terraces and grassed areas. Outdoor broadcast quality lighting will also be provided. Subject to acoustic and lighting assessment (which is to be provided as part of a future ADP application), lighting and the design of safe routes through the precinct will enable evening and night time use of areas of the park and the undertaking of events. Concerts and other outdoor entertaining activities may be accommodated in this precinct from time to time.

The minimum level / standard of facilities to be delivered within DA22B is to be the equivalent of one (1) local sports and courts facility as detailed in Ipswich City Council’s LGIP to provide active and passive recreational opportunities. The facilities will be supported by a range of recreation facilities including clubhouses, pedestrian and cycle facilities and linkages.

An event management plan is required to be prepared as part of the relevant ADP application and must include input from relevant stakeholders including inter alia Council, Queensland Rail, Translink, Orion Springfield Central and the Springfield Anglican College.

Springfield Town Centre Concept Plan

The Springfield Town Centre Concept Plan (TCCP) was originally approved by Council on 16 July 2002. The TCCP guides development within the Town Centre in a progressive manner with appropriate interface between precincts and development areas. The TCCP delineates the development areas within the Town Centre in respect of which the initial Area Development Plans (MADPs) must be prepared. The TCCP identifies DA 22A and 22B as Recreation, however in order to facilitate the development of complementary land uses that will be associated with the Premier Sports Facility, the applicant is proposing to amend the TCCP to include the Town Business Precinct within Development Area 22A.

Flooding and Drainage

The Springfield Drainage Master Plan (DMP) (2000) has been approved by Council and outlines the proposed drainage infrastructure and design criteria for stormwater infrastructure within the Springfield Structure Plan area. However, the entire Woogaroo Creek catchment has undergone significant changes since the DMP was approved in 2000, which has not been updated to reflect the changes in development over time. Consequently, the MADP requires the Master Developer (Springfield City Group) to lodge with Council and obtain approval of an updated DMP. The updated DMP must ensure that the initial outcomes set in the approved DMP (2000) are still achieved and that the flooding and waterway impacts are clearly understood. An updated DMP is required to provide a clear baseline from where impacts for the creek realignment works can be satisfactorily quantified, assessed and where necessary mitigated/managed.

To facilitate the development of a premier sports facility, Mountain Creek is proposed for realignment. The MADP will require that the creek realignment achieve 1% Annual Exceedance Probability plus climate change (AEP+CC) flood immunity with appropriate freeboard. A flood impact assessment is required to be provided as part of the submission of the first ADP over the site. The flood impact assessment, should demonstrate that the realignment of the creek post development can achieve a no worsening impact (on the pre-development condition) for all flood and stormwater events that exist prior to development and up to a 1% AEP+CC. The MADP also requires that a stormwater management plan be submitted as part of the first ADP application for the site, which must provide hydraulic calculations for all storm events up to and including the 1% AEP+CC event, in accordance with QUDM, Council's Implementation Guideline 24 - Stormwater Management and Council’s Planning Scheme Policy 3 - General Works.

Roads and Transport

On site at-grade car parking areas will be provided within both DA22A and DA22B. The car parking areas will be accessed off Eden Station Drive and located in close proximity to the clubhouses and training and administration facilities, to suit operational requirements of each site. This will require the construction of a four way signalised intersection on Eden Station Drive. As part of the first Area Development Plan application, the applicant will be required to provide a traffic impact assessment, and parking layout plans, prepared by a traffic engineering professional (RPEQ) that provides commentary on how the proposed access driveways, aisles and parking configuration meets Australian Standards, and recommends any required mitigation measures.

Springfield Greenbank Arterial will be duplicated by Council as required under the Springfield Town Centre Infrastructure Agreement and Springfield Infrastructure Agreement. The intersection of Springfield Greenbank Arterial and Eden Station Drive is currently signalised but will be upgraded in conjunction with the duplication of Eden Station Drive. A Transport Impact Assessment (TIA) will be required with an Area Development Plan application for 22A, which will need to identify the trigger and extent of road and intersection upgrades required to support the proposed development outcomes.

A Public Transport Impact Assessment is to be provided as part of the first ADP application for DA22A, which demonstrates the traffic generation impacts to the Springfield Central Station and how they will be mitigated.

An Active Transport Impact Assessment and associated proposal plans must be submitted with the first ADP application for DA22A that demonstrate how direct, safe and convenient access to public passenger transport and also pedestrian/ cycle access to the Precinct will be achieved in day to day operation and event modes.

RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Under the Springfield Infrastructure Agreement and the Springfield Town Centre Infrastructure Agreement, the Developer (Springfield City Group) are required to complete embellishment works for the equivalent of a Citywide sports facility in accordance with the Springfield Town Centre Infrastructure Agreement. The Developer is proposing to provide an equivalent financial contribution to Council for the facility. The value of the embellishment work (for one [1] Citywide [Level 1] sportsground) is as at the 2019/20 financial year is $10,087,507.28. Where an equivalent financial contribution is made, the Developer (Springfield City Group) is relieved of their embellishment obligations and that obligation is transferred to Council. The proposal by the Developer will require Council enter into a separate agreement with the Developer to provide a financial contribution.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The Master (initial) ADP, including any supporting information, does not in any way allocate construction or financial responsibility to Council or the Developer outside of that already outlined in the Springfield Infrastructure Agreement or Springfield Town Centre Infrastructure Agreement.

As provided for in Section 2.2.4 of the Springfield Structure Plan (SSP), Area Development Plans are the mechanism whereby the master planning of the Structure Plan area is put into effect. With respect to the Town Centre, Section 2.2.2 of the SSP identifies that the first ADP over land in a Development Area must include the whole of the land in the Development Area as a Master Area Development Plan (MADP). Upon approval of the MADP for Development Area 22A and 22B, Council will be in a position to consider future Area Development Plan applications for the proposed development that will permit development to occur.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Planning Act 2016

Ipswich Planning Scheme 2006

Springfield Structure Plan

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Under the Springfield Infrastructure Agreement and the Springfield Town Centre Infrastructure Agreement, the Developer (Springfield City Group) is required to complete embellishment works for the equivalent of a Citywide sports facility in accordance with the Springfield Town Centre Infrastructure Agreement. The Developer is proposing to provide an equivalent financial contribution to Council for the facility. The value of the embellishment work (for one [1] Citywide [Level 1] sportsground) is in the order of $10,087,507.28. Where an equivalent financial contribution is made, the Developer (Springfield City Group) is relieved of their embellishment obligations and that obligation is transferred to Council. The proposal by the Developer will necessitate a separate agreement between the Developer and Ipswich City Council to finalise these arrangements.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Referral Agency (Third Party Advice)

The application was referred to the Department of Transport and Main Roads for third party advice, owing to the proximity of the site to the Springfield Central train station and the potential impact that the proposed use will likely have on the state controlled road network. The Department provided advice that requested the applicant provide the following assessments:

· Public Transport Impact Assessment to provide an assessment of the overall impact of the proposed development on all forms of public passenger transport.

· Active Transport Impact Assessment that demonstrate how direct, safe and convenient access to public passenger transport and also pedestrian/cycle access to the Precinct will be achieved in day to day operation and event modes.

· Stormwater management plan and flood assessment.

The Master Area Development Plan has been amended to require the submission of the reports as part of the first Area Development Plan application lodged over the site.

Consultation with Applicant

The applicant was provided with a draft MADP document for review prior to the exercise delegation. The applicant has requested amendment to the draft MADP document, which has been summarised in the following table:

MADP Section	Applicant Representation	Planning Remarks
2.1.6 – Springfield Infrastructure Agreement/Springfield Town Centre Infrastructure Agreement	The existing STCIA, needs to be amended or a separate agreement entered into requiring the Developer (SCG) to make a cash contribution to the equivalent to a Level 1 sportsgrounds. The value of the cash contribution is identified in Annexure 5 and is valued at 8,931,262.84 in the 2019/20 financial year. The associated credits are to be Level 1 Open Space credits that can be applied under the SIA and the STCIA (i.e. interchangeable). The timing of the cash contribution is to be made of three financial years as follows: (a) June 2020 - $3 Million (Noting that the Council to refund $500,000 to SCG in accordance with the Categorization of Land for Rates Dispute Settlement Agreement upon this payment being received); (b) June 2021 - $3 Million; (c) June 2022 – Balance contribution. (d) The Council to embellishment a Local Courts and sports facility in Development Area 22B or make an equivalent cash contribution towards the agreed embellishment outcome for area 22B; (e) The Developer to dedicate the additional land required to accommodate the Premier Sports Facility in Development Area 22A.	The MADP identifies that agreements may be entered into whereby the Developer may make a cash contribution to the equivalent to a level 1 sportsground and courts facility towards the Development Area 22A area”. Moreover, it should be noted that an MADP is not intended to allocate construction or financial responsibility to Council or the Developer (This is described in the Purpose Statement of the MADP). To this end, under Section 157 of the Planning Act an Infrastructure Agreement will take precedence over any development approval. Details of the timing and value of the contribution is a matter that should be finalised and detailed in a separate Infrastructure Agreement (or variation to an existing infrastructure Agreement). The Town Centre Concept Plan identifies a requirement for Council to provide an additional Citywide and 4 Local Sports and Courts, external to the Town Centre, which is proposed to be funded through Infrastructure Contributions. It is proposed to locate one (1) of the Local Sportsgrounds within Development Area 22B. The applicant’s proposal to include a requirement to embellish 22B is unnecessary because Council is fulfilling a future requirement that is not linked to any triggers in an Infrastructure Agreement.
Section 1.4 - Aims of the MDP 22A-22B ff	References to 15,000 capacity should be changed back to 30,000 plus as agreed with Council previously.	Seating capacity of 15,000 was referenced in the MADP document as this was based on previous advice provided from the Lions Football Club. The Applicant and the Lions Football Club are now indicating that 15,000 is insufficient and 30,000 is more appropriate. Seating references in the MADP are indicative only and in no way commit Council to constructing a 30,000 seat stadium. Consequently the request to amend these references are agreeable and therefore the MADP has been amended to indicate a potential seating capacity of 30,000 seats.
Section 3.1. - Vision	To facilitate access between the commuter car park and the rail station, the Council in conjunction with the Queensland Government is to construct an all movement signalised intersection on the Springfield Greenbank Arterial and construct a ‘green’ bridge connection between the Springfield Greenbank Arterial and the rail station. The ‘green’ bridge is to accommodate pedestrian, cycle and bus movements only. The green bridge is not required at the initial development phase but will be required to be provided once the stadium capacity exceeds 15,000 people or the stadium hosts more the 25 events annually that attract crowds in excess of 10,000 people. This requirement needs to be incorporated within the MADP.	The MADP document includes aspirational commentary discussing the future potential construction of a ‘green bridge’ which is to provide cycle and public transport connection between Springfield Greenbank Arterial and Sir Llew Edwards Drive (Springfield Central train station). The ‘Green’ Bridge link is not identified as trunk infrastructure, nor has Council or the State Government provided a commitment to funding the project. Consequently, the applicant’s request to include wording in the MADP that suggests that both Council and the State Government are committed to funding the project and detail triggers for its construction is inaccurate. The principle of the ‘Green’ bridge is recommended to remain as it may be considered in the future. To this end, it is recommended that the MADP be amended to clearly identify the ‘Green’ bridge as an aspirational project that may be considered in the future.
Section 3.4 – Design Response	Access (controlled) off SGA is critical to the operation of the stadium.	The MADP proposes to include access to a car parking area located adjacent to Springfield Greenbank Arterial. Preliminary review by Council officers indicated that the proposed access would be problematic for the future duplication and signalised intersection works required to Springfield Greenbank Arterial. The applicant, in concert with the Lions Football Club, have indicated that the access is to be limited to staff/players, service vehicles and is also required for emergency services. Consequently it is recommended that the MADP be amended to permit limited access from Springfield Greenbank Arterial (details of this access will need to be assessed as part of the Area Development Plan application).
Section 6 - Infrastructure	Council needs to clearly identify triggers for roads upgrade surrounding the site.	The MADP identifies the current expected timeframe for upgrading of Council infrastructure, and is based on the current construction program. It is noted that the timing for duplication of the Springfield Greenbank Arterial is not in line with the triggers in the SIA, however again it should be noted that the MADP is not intended to allocate construction or financial responsibility to Council or the Developer (This is described in the Purpose Statement of the MADP). The MADP provides an outline of the expected timing for the delivery of duplication and upgrade works surrounding Development Area 22A and 22B, and further detail is not required.
Section 6.3.5 – Roadworks	Road 11 is a headwords road accordingly Council should be responsible for its construction, not the ‘Developer’ as highlighted in the draft MADP.	Road 11 is not identified under the Local Government Infrastructure Plan as a creditable road. It is however identified in the STCIA, which states that the “Developer accrues credit for the construction of the road” (cf. 3.4[c] STCIA). It is recommended that the section remain unchanged. The MADP includes a requirement for the Developer to construct Road 11 if required as part of a Public Transport Impact Assessment.
Section 3.3 – Master Plan – Key Elements	Road 12 is not linked or associated with the stadium development. Accordingly, we seek Council feedback as to why it has been referenced in the draft MADP?	Road 12 is an adjacent future road to be located along the western boundary of the precinct. References to Road 12 in the MADP are required as it provides context with adjacent development. Road 12 is associated with the Development Area because it is an adjacent future road, and is shown on the proposal plans provided by the applicant. The MADP includes a requirement for the Developer to construct Road 12 if required as part of a Public Transport Impact Assessment.
Section 1.4 – Aims of the MADP 22A-22B ff	There are many references to “subject to appropriate acoustic and lighting assessment” throughout the document. These considerations are not appropriate in the MADP and should be an ADP matter. Also, the document should make it clear that the facility is intended to be used for events, including at night so any assessments are undertaken in that context. Further, we can’t design for something that may or may not be there in 5-10 years’ time.	The references to acoustic and lighting assessment have been included as it will be required that this assessment be undertaken. With any ADP application the applicant will need to ensure that the proposed development will function in accordance with the relevant legislation (EPA). As such, it is recommended that the MADP be amended to identify that the assessments are required as part of the relevant ADP application.
Section 4, Table 4.1 - Indicative Dominant Land Use	In section 4, particular table 4.1, SCG and the Brisbane Lions do not support gaming on-site. Accordingly, this use should be limited and prevented. This is a community asset and the land was dedicated to Council for the purpose of community open space. Permitted gaming activities son-site is inconsistent with the community open space purpose for which the land was dedicated.	References to prohibiting gambling and gaming were originally proposed to be removed from the MADP as it is limiting commercial activity. The Brisbane Lions Football club have indicated that they do not intend to provide gambling/gaming services. In addition, given that this is Council owned land that is utilised for a community purpose, the inclusion of a prohibiting gambling is appropriate and as such the MADP document has been amended to reinstate the prohibition.
Section 1.4 – Aims of the MADP 22A and 22B	In section 1.4 there is reference to “Educating key stakeholders on what is “best practice” and “needs versus wants” and “containing costs within reasonable levels of funding attainment”. These are not relevant in a planning document in our view.	The commentary in Section 1.4 was included in the original submission provided by the applicant and was not included by Council as suggested by the applicant. The removal of these statements however are not critical and have therefore been removed from the proposed MADP.
Section 1.4 – Aims of the MADP 22A and 22B	Also, in section 1.4 there is a reference to “private sporting club” which should be changed to “elite sporting club”	The comment in section 1.4 requires that private sporting club use is balanced with reasonable public access to the facility, and relates to any private club that may use the site. Replacing the word “private” to “elite” may be construed to mean that only elite sporting clubs are required to balance private and public access. As the current wording relates to all private clubs, it is recommended that the wording remain unchanged.
Sections 2.1.9 – Springfield Drainage Master Plan, 2.3.5 - Drainage and Flooding, and 3.3.9 - Drainage	Section 2.1.9 updated DMP and 2.3.5 flood impact assessment and 3.3.9 detailed stormwater management plan; o including the DMP be a predecessor for the ADP will add another 3-4 months to the process. o Delete this sentence in 2.1.9 and make it an obligation on all future ADPs, not retrospectively which this clause (and MADP timing) does now. o Also, we understand that Cardno were engaged by ICC to review firstly the veracity of the Flooding Guidelines and then to review modelling to see whether the FFP creek design complies with these guidelines. We understand this has now been successfully completed on both fronts.	The original Drainage Master Plan was completed in 2000, since that time the Master Developer has not updated the document, despite the Master Developer not complying with the outcomes of the original Drainage Master Plan. This site is adjacent Mountain Creek and is proposing creek diversion works. Updated drainage details is required to provide an accurate baseline for preparation of a flood report in relation to the creek diversion works. Therefore it is recommended that the requirement to provide an updated Drainage Master Plan should remain but the trigger for this work to be undertaken prior to the first ADP be deleted.
Section 3.1. - Vision	Section 3.1- the DA22A facility will not be suitable for “cricket and/or athletics” so this should be deleted.	This section has not been amended by Council and is the applicant’s own words. The section refers to the precinct as a whole. To that end, DA 22B will be providing opportunity for other sports such as cricket and athletics.
Section 6.3 Embellishment – DA22A Section 6.4 Embellishments – DA22B	Minimum level/standard of facilities for DA22B is stated as “local sports and courts facility”. A clause needs to be included indicating that ICC can make an equivalent cash contribution towards the agreed embellishment outcome given its unlikely that this precinct will be embellished in accordance with Council policy.	Embellishment of DA22B is a Council responsibility and is dependent on Council obtaining sufficient funding. If in the event that the site is to be over embellished, this will be subject to an agreement. It is therefore recommended that no clause be included as it is not required for Council to enter into any future agreement with a third party and is solely a Council matter.
Section 3.3.1 – Key Issues	Third bullet point – “The creek design and associated corridor widths is subject to an MADP, which once developed…” This MADP deals with the creek and the design and corridor has already been established and is being constructed.	It is recommended that reference to MADP be amended to “future application” as the works will require approval from the Department of Natural Resources and Mines and operational works approval.
Figure 4.1 - Indicative Master Plan	It is proposed that a multi-use oval with rectangular fields within will be delivered on site DA22B. Suggest figure 4.1 is updated to reflect this.	Figure 4.1 is an indicative illustration that was originally submitted by the applicant. To this end, Council is electing to embellish 22B as a Local Sports and Courts Facility and this is detailed in the MADP document, the illustration is indicative only and identifies DA22B as a Local Sports and Courts Facility. Further amendment to the illustration is not warranted given that details of DA22B is provided in Volume 2.
Section 4.1.2 - Land Use Types	Section 4.1.2 “Complimentary uses may comprise areas or structures that perform a commercial function and are suitably licensed by Council to operate within the area under the jurisdiction of Council.” The Club will have a lease over the premises which will deal with permitted uses. Is this reference meant to cover other licensing such as food licences etc rather than rights of use under the occupancy arrangement.	Section 4.1.2 relates to all necessary approvals/licencing required to be obtained for each relevant use.
Section 4.1.2 - Land Use Types	Does reference to “Local Utility” or “Public Utility” cover a District Cooling System.	Local Utility and Public Utility do not relate to a District Cooling System.
Section 6.0 - Infrastructure	The MADP should allow at Council discretion, the Developer converting the obligation to contribute land in Development Area 5 for a Community Facility site into an equivalent cash contribution toward the Reserve project. The value of the cash contribution would be consistent with the valuation method used to determine the value of sites current dedicated to Council.	The Springfield Town Centre Infrastructure Agreement requires the dedication of land for community facilities. Council has not agreed to the converting this obligation to a financial contribution, and the obligation to provide land for community facilities within DA5 is not related to this MADP. As such the request to include this comment in the MADP is not supported. These arrangements may be subject to separate approvals, conditions and agreements at some time in the future.
Sections 5.1.6 - Car Parking and 5.1.7 - Public Safety	Section 5.1.6 which are requirements inserted at the request of DTMR. This should be dealt with by Council and not the ADP as it is Council which is designating the site as a stadium site we have reviewed 5.1.6 and 5.1.7 and our comments are: o To say no development should adversely affect a state controlled road is problematic. Firstly, this is not relevant in an MADP, it is more an ADP issue. Secondly, what does adversely impact mean? We are building five buildings and housing about 250 cars. We are going to be adding to traffic congestion on ESD and SGA. ICC need to duplicate their roads to cater for the growth in the area; o Wording such as “The first ADP should ….” Is, in our view, not appropriate for an MADP. The MADP should establish parameters, set the vision/desired outcomes, etc. Whatever happens with ADP’s, and however many ADPs there will be is not relevant; o 5.1.6 items (i) to (vi) reads more like ADP Conditions than an MADP;	These items were provided from the Department of Main Roads and have been included in the MADP as a future ADP requirement as no traffic impact assessment has been provided as part of the MADP. As such it is recommended that the sections remain unchanged.
Section 5.6.1 - Carparking	Section 5.6.1 be amended to include the following: · Avoid conflicts with pedestrians; · Take into account the requirements for AFL stadium · “As part of the first Area Development plan application, the applicant will provide a traffic impact assessment, and revised parking layout plans…” Revised from what? · Point (v) should be removed.	Upon review of the applicant’s representations it is recommended that the MADP be amended as requested.
Section 6.1 – Fit for Purpose – DA22A Section 6.2 – Fit for Purpose – DA22B	Section 6.1 “These works are to be completed by within 6 months of the completion of the revised flood study reference in Section 2.3.5”. This is a Council obligation. Same for 6.2.	These sections identify that fit for purpose works are a Council obligation. No further amendment is required.
Section 6.3.4 - Water	Section 6.3.4, 6.4.3 Council are providing water and recycled water connections as part of its Fit For Purpose works.	The Master Developer is required to embellish the Citywide Sports Facility in accordance with the STCIA and SIA. The Master Developer has suggested that they may elect to provide a financial contribution in lieu of construction. In accordance with these agreements it is the Master Developer that is provide a water connection. Therefore, if the Master Developer does not provide a financial contribution the requirement to provide a connection is the Developer’s responsibility.
Section 6.3.5 - Roadworks	Section 6.3.5 Delete “unless required earlier and delivered by the Developer as part of an ADP for Development Area 22A or 22B”. 22A and 22B are Council assets and this should not be an ADP condition.	The intersection works are a Council requirement. It is recommended that the wording be amended to indicate same.

Internal Stakeholders

Internal stakeholders were consulted in the preparation of the MADP document, including:

· Infrastructure and Environment Department with respect to floodplain management, public open space and transport planning, provided comment on the draft MADP document. Their comments were considered as part of the preparation of the MADP document. Transport planning did recommend that no access be permitted from Springfield Greenbank Arterial, however it was decided that limited access from Springfield Greenbank Arterial may be considered as part of an ADP application.

· Coordination and Performance Department, acting on behalf of Council as landowner, provided comments which were including in the preparation of the MADP document.

Conclusion

An assessment of the proposed Master Area Development Plan for Development Area 22A and 22B has been undertaken. It has been determined that the proposed master plan generally complies with the intent of the amended Town Centre Concept Plan and the Springfield Town Centre Infrastructure Agreement. It is therefore recommended that this Master Area Development Plan be decided in accordance with the recommendations and attachments of this report.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Master Area Development Plan Vol. 1 ⇩
2.	Master Area Development Plan Final Draft Vol. 2 ⇩

Sean Dickson

Senior Planner (Development)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Anthony Bowles

Acting Development Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett Davey

Acting General Manager - Planning and Regulatory Services

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

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Doc ID No: A5861372

ITEM: N.4

SUBJECT: Tender Consideration Plan - Development of Retail Assets Ipswich Central

AUTHOR: General Manager - Coordination and Performance

DATE: 24 October 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning procurement alternatives for the construction work associated with the retail areas on Nicholas Street in the Ipswich CBD. The report recommends that a Tender Consideration Plan (TCP) be prepared to confirm the most suitable construction procurement option, with Hutchinson Builders potentially performing the works as a variation to their existing contract with Council.

The Local Government Regulation 2012 Section 230 allows a local government to enter into medium and large contractual agreements, without first inviting written quotes or tenders, through the preparation and adoption of a TCP. The TCP provides the information required to comply with the regulation and to justify the use of the plan as an effective and appropriate alternative to seeking quotes or to calling for open tenders.

The scope of work for which the proposed TCP relates are summarized below as demolition and landlord works for:

· Eats Building

· Venue Building

· Metro B

· Metro A (price to be broken out as an optional additional scope item)

The work will exclude tenant fit out.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That a Tender Consideration Plan be prepared in accordance with section 230 (1) (a) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) to confirm the best option for procurement of demolition and construction work for landlord works to the Eats, Venue, Metro A and Metro B buildings.

RELATED PARTIES

Ranbury Property Management

The Interim Administrator has previously stated that he has, or could reasonably be taken to have a perceived conflict of interest in relation to Ranbury Management Group. The nature of the perceived conflict of interest is that Ranbury Management Group is the primary consultant for the CBD Redevelopment and from 2008 to 2012 the interim administrator was an employee and was a director and part owner of Ranbury but has had no association with the company since then other than through his current role.

Hutchinson Builders

There are no other known conflicts of interest.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Strengthening our local economy and building prosperity

Purpose of Report/Background

The Retail Project is part of a broader program of works taking place to revitalise the Ipswich CBD around Nicholas Street, the largest part of which is the Civic Project. A competitive tender process was undertaken to appoint the D&C Contractor for the Civic Project and Hutchinson Builders were awarded the contract.

Prior to award of the contract for the Civic Project to Hutchinson Builders, during commercial negotiations, clauses were included in the Civic Project Contract to enable the Retail Projects to be added to the scope of the Civic Project if the Principal (ICC) requested it. The Retail Project is likely to be 25% to 35% of the value of the Civic Project depending on the elements that are chosen to proceed.

Rates for profit and overheads were included pursuant to review by the ICC’s cost consultant (Rider Levett and Bucknall). The relevant Retail Project terms were drafted by ICC’s lawyers (Clayton Utz) and included in the Contract.

The Retail Project is co-located with the Civic Project as summarised below:

- The Eats building is partially located within the Civic Project construction site. For example, the elevator to the Eats Building and several internal walls are being replaced as part of the Civic Project.

- The Metro B building is immediately adjacent the Civic Project and external paving that serves Metro B is part of the Civic Project scope of work. Work to the exterior of the Metro B will require access from the Civic Project construction site.

- The Metro A building is adjacent Metro B. It doesn’t directly interface with the Civic Project however it is also likely that work to this building may not proceed.

- The Venue building is located on Nicholas Street approximately 50m from the current site

This report is now seeking approval from Council to prepare a tender consideration plan in accordance with section 230 (1) (a) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Qld) to confirm the best option for procurement of demolition and construction work for landlord works to the Eats, Venue, Metro A and Metro B buildings.

It is recommended that Council agree to prepare a TCP to assess the suitability for Hutchinson Builders to conduct the works as a variation to their existing contract for the following reasons:

· Preserve a single Principal Contractor on the existing site and the expanded site area to facilitate safety for workers and the public.

· Preserve a single Principal Contractor in the precinct to streamline activities that may be disruptive to the tenants and public within the precinct.

· Minimise tender management costs for ICC

· Minimise tendering costs to industry.

· Make use of the Civic Project Contract clauses and rates that were negotiated prior to contract award.

· Avoid delays associated with a full procurement process.

· Gain a program benefit by starting on works while the site is still in possession of the current Principal Contractor.

· Reduce construction risk by conducting selective demolition and site investigation using resources and expertise currently on site and familiar with the precinct.

· Ensure consistency with finishes and fixtures across the precinct between the Civic Project and Retail Project.

The preparation of a tender consideration plan for Hutchinson Builders to conduct these works as a variation does not commit Council to awarding the works to Hutchinson Builders. The tender consideration plan will investigate and review the costs for Hutchinson Builders to conduct the works and have this assessed against known market values. The tender consideration plan will then be provided to Council to consider if Hutchinson Builders are the appropriate delivery contractor for these works, taking into account value for money and other procurement principles.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Regulation 2012

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are potentially significant future financial risks associated with adopting the recommendation of this report. The construction estimate for the development of all of the retail assets is approximately $47.14 million, however this report is seeking only to prepare a tender consideration plan to be considered by Council at a future Council meeting. The tender consideration plan will ensure that Council achieves value for money for the proposed works, if Council decides to proceed with the development of the assets. Once the tender consideration plan is completed, the costs for the development of these retail assets will be confirmed and Council can then consider the decision on whether or not to expend funds and the financial implications of this.

If Council were not to adopt this recommendation, there will be delays in delivering the retail assets which may have implications for the community objectives of activation of the Ipswich Central precinct.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The funding for the Retail Project will be addressed as part of a future report to Council.

The Tender Consideration Plan will investigate the likely cost impact of proceeding with the construction work as a variation to the Hutchinson contract, compared to an open tender or short-list tender pursuant to an expression of interest process. The likely advantages of proceeding with the work as a variation include:

- Reduced management costs to ICC

- Reduced tendering burden on the industry

- Competitive pricing will still be undertaken for the majority of subcontract work on site, the main item being single-sourced is the Principal Contractor role

As previously stated, the construction costs for full development of all the retail assets is approximately $47.14 million, however this report is not seeking approval to expend these funds.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Council’s finance department was consulted in relation to this report and supports the preparation of a tender consideration plan.

No community consultation has been conducted in relation to this report.

Conclusion

This report seeks approval from Council to prepare a tender consideration plan for the development of the Council owned retail assets in the Ipswich Central precinct.

Sean Madigan

General Manager - Coordination and Performance

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

David Farmer

Chief Executive Officer

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

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Doc ID No: A5800272

ITEM: N.5

SUBJECT: Project Management Services - Nicholas St Ipswich Central Project

AUTHOR: General Manager - Coordination and Performance

DATE: 23 October 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the provision of program management services for the remaining works for the Nicholas St – Ipswich Central Project (Project). The report is seeking approval from Council for a variation of contract No. 13908 with Ranbury Management Group Pty Ltd. The variation sought is to approve a fixed management fee for Ranbury for program management services for the Ipswich Central Civic Project and the Nicholas Street / Union Place upgrade. These are defined as Package 1 and Package 2 respectively.

RECOMMENDATION

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) approve a variation to Contract No. 13908 with Ranbury Management Group Pty Ltd for the provision of Program Management Services for Package 1 (Ipswich Central Civic Project) and Package 2 (Nicholas St/Union Place Upgrade) as outlined in confidential Attachment 3.

B. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and finalise any amendments or variations to the terms of the contract No/ 13908 executed by Council and to do any other act necessary to implement Council’s decision in accordance with section 13(3) of the Local Government Act 2009.

RELATED PARTIES

Ranbury Management Group Pty Ltd (Program Management Partner).

The Interim Administrator informs that he has, or could reasonably be taken to have a perceived conflict of interest in this report titled Project Management Services - Nicholas St Ipswich Central Project. The nature of the perceived interest is that Ranbury Management Group is the primary consultant for the CBD Redevelopment and from 2008 to 2012 he was an employee and was a director and part owner of Ranbury but has had no association with the company since then other than through his current role.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Strengthening our local economy and building prosperity

Purpose of Report/Background

The purpose of this report is to seek approval for a variation of Contract No. 13908 with Ranbury Management Group for the provision of program management services for the Ipswich Central redevelopment.

In 2016, Ranbury was engaged following an open public tender process as the Program Management Partner and entered into a Management Services Agreement (MSA) with Ipswich City Properties Pty Ltd (ICP). By resolution of Council on 27 June 2019, this MSA was novated to council as part of the process to transition ICP’s activities to council to allow Ranbury to continue to deliver Program Management Services to the Project.

The MSA includes a schedule of rates for Ranbury to provide various roles to undertake typical project delivery services. The term of the MSA is 36 months, with the option for the parties to extend for a further 12 months with the initial three-year term expiring in April 2020. It will be necessary to modify the terms and conditions of this contract to allow its extension to encompass the remaining works on the Project.

The MSA terms include Ranbury’s original tender proposal which included the ability for the parties to agree to fixed fees as appropriate for a particular scope of works when the scope and duration can be adequately described.

The Project has four main components (packages of work):

· Package 1 - Ipswich Central Civic Project (Administration Building, Library, Civic Space and Car Park;

· Package 2 - Nicholas Street/Union Place upgrade (new pavement, roadway, in-ground services, paving and landscaping

· Package 3 - Commonwealth Hotel (deconstruction, stabilisation and reestablishment of the building structure)

· Package 4 - Retail Precinct (refurbishment and fit-out of existing tenancies and buildings).

On the 15^th of May 2018, the Ipswich City Property Board approved a fixed fee of $2.04 million for Ranbury to program manage the construction of the Council administration building only. It is council’s ultimate intention where possible, to secure a fixed fee arrangement for the above four work packages to achieve value for money and control risk for Ipswich ratepayers.

It was considered appropriate given the history of Ranbury’s involvement in this project to seek proposals for variations from Ranbury to manage the additional components. In this case additional work as part of package 1 and all of package 2 were requested from Ranbury.

Ranbury’s Fee Proposals dated 11 September 2019 and 17 October 2019 encompassing submission of fixed fee arrangements for the above-listed packages is included in confidential Attachments 4 and 5 respectively.

The fixed fee for Package 1 is $2,854,000 (ex GST) as this now includes the Civic Space, Library and Carpark.

The fixed fee for Package 2, being the remainder of the Nicholas Street / Union Place works, is $79,800 (ex GST).

A detailed assessment of these fee proposals is included in confidential Attachment 3.

The documents are confidential due to the commercial in-confidence nature of them that could have adverse commercial impacts on Ranbury Management Group Pty Ltd if they were publically released.

Independent Third-Party Reviews

Quantity Surveyor

Independent Quantity Surveyor, Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB), performed a fee/rate benchmarking and advice exercise of Ranbury’s two fee proposal submissions, and their conclusions are set out in the report included in confidential Attachment 6. The three (3) reports RLB prepared addressed the following:

· Compare applicable hourly rates included in the two fee proposal from Ranbury against standard current industry market rates.

· Compare quantum of fee proposal for Package 1 against projects of a similar nature.

· Compare quantum of fee proposal for Packages 2, 3 and 4 against projects of a similar nature.

Packages 1 and 2 fees and rates fell within or below standard market range.

Probity Advisor

Independent Probity Consultant, Argyle Corporate Advisers, performed a review to confirm that the process to negotiate additional project management services for the Project is consistent with:

· Council’s procurement principles;

· The existing MSA; and

· Adheres to the sound contracting principles as set out in Section 104(3) of the Local Government Act 2009.

A probity statement is included in Attachment 1, with a more detailed probity review report included in confidential Attachment 2 – both of which confirm compliance.

Based on the assessments conducted by RLB and the probity advisors advice, it is recommended that Council approve the variation to the contract to a fixed fee to achieve value for money for Ipswich ratepayers.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Failure to secure the necessary contractual variations may impact the Project’s delivery costs in relation to the program management services being provided by Ranbury Management Group. If Ranbury were to continue on the MSA hourly rates Council are unable to accurately forecast what this would ultimately cost over the duration of the project. Varying the contract to fixed fees for Packages 1 and 2 provides Council with budget certainty for the program management services for the Ipswich Central redevelopment.

There are no identified risks to Council’s reputation by approving the contract variation proposed as extensive due diligence has been conducted to ensure value for money and sound contracting principles.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Converting from the MSA hourly rates to the fixed fee provides Council with budgetary certainty in relation to the delivery of the program management services being provided by Ranbury.

The fixed price fee for Package 1 - Ipswich Central Civic Project (Administration Building,

Library, Civic Space and Car Park is $2,854,000 (ex GST).

The fixed price fee for Package 2 - Nicholas Street/Union Place upgrade (new pavement,

roadway, in-ground services, paving and landscaping is $79,800 (ex GST).

The funding for these program management services are covered under the approved

Ipswich Central Redevelopment budget.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

This report follows ongoing consultation with the Project Steering Committee and relevant internal stakeholders including Council’s Finance team.

No community consultation was required in relation to this matter.

Conclusion

Awarding of a fixed fee variation for remaining works will provide certainty in the scope and financial impact of services being provided by Ranbury for the remainder of the Project, and will ensure that intellectual property and knowledge is maintained. Reports provided by independent consultants confirming the procurement process followed with this engagement is acceptable, as well as assessment of the fee proposal issued ensuring value for money to council, provide substantiation to the recommendations of this report.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Probity Review Statement ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
2.	Probity Review Report
3.	Fee Proposal Assessment
4.	Ranbury Fee Proposal 11 September 2019
5.	Ranbury Fee Proposal 17 October 2019
5.1	Quantity Surveyor Report Hourly Rate Benchmarking and Advice
5.2	Quantity Surveyor Report Admin Civic Project Fees Benchmarking and Advice
5.3	Quantity Surveyor Report Awnings and Retail Fees Benchmarking and Advice

Sean Madigan

General Manager - Coordination and Performance

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

David Farmer

Chief Executive Officer

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

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 October

2019

Doc ID No: A5861000

ITEM: N.6

SUBJECT: Retail Property Strategy Ipswich Central

AUTHOR: General Manager - Coordination and Performance

DATE: 23 October 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning Council’s development and ultimate divestment strategy for the various retail, commercial and entertainment assets owned by Council in the Ipswich Central redevelopment area. This report will detail a proposed development and divestment strategy that has been informed by a market sounding a financial analysis conducted by KPMG. KPMG’s analysis is based on extensive investigations by various professional firms including Ranbury Management Group, Urbis, Brain and Poulter, WSP, RLB, McKenzie Group and Savills.

The report will recommend that Council expend funds to develop the retail, commercial and entertainment assets in a staged approach designed to achieve the key objectives of the Ipswich Central redevelopment. The report cites that Council will need to hold and operate these “non-core” assets to demonstrate that they are an ongoing commercial success in order to divest the assets to maximise the return on investment for Ipswich ratepayers.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the Recommended Development Strategy for the Nicholas Street Retail Assets as detailed in the report be adopted.

RELATED PARTIES

Ranbury Management Group Pty Ltd (Program Management Partner).

KPMG

There are no other known conflicts of interest in relation to this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Strengthening our local economy and building prosperity

Purpose of Report/Background

Ipswich City Council (ICC) is currently undertaking a major redevelopment of the Ipswich Central Business District referred to as Ipswich Central. The Ipswich Central project includes a civic precinct, a community library and the Council Administration building. These are referred to as council’s “civic assets”. The precinct also includes a number of retail, commercial and entertainment assets that had been acquired by Council over the last decade which when fully developed will comprise retail, cinemas, food and beverage and commercial buildings. These are referred to as the “Nicholas Street retail assets”. For ease of reference, Table 1 below has been included to clearly identify the various Council owned assets in the precinct.

A construction manager, Hutchinson Builders, has been contracted by Council to deliver the Civic Precinct, community library and the Ipswich City Council Administration building. These components of the Ipswich Central redevelopment are integral to the operations of Council and will be retained in long-term Council ownership. The adjoining retail, commercial and entertainment assets owned by Ipswich City Council are largely vacant in advance of redevelopment.

In May 2019, Council commenced a review of the then strategy around the development and divestment of the Nicholas Street retail assets. In determining a pathway forward, Council was seeking to balance its primary objective of renewing the Ipswich CBD with a prudent financial and risk management overlay. Council commissioned Ranbury Management Group to prepare a business case for the redevelopment of the Nicholas Street retail assets owned by Council (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”). This business case was issued in draft format in June 2019 and was then submitted by Council to KPMG for peer review. The review of the business case was conducted by KPMG who provided Council with a number of recommendations, including that Council:

· Undertake market sounding to better inform the optimum delivery pathway and divestment strategy.

· Establish Council’s financial and commercial objectives for the Project;

· Update the financial analysis for the Project; and

· Further progress design and obtain updated cost estimates for the Project;

Council subsequently engaged KPMG to undertake the following scope of works:

· Establish Financial and Capital Management Objectives: assist Council define its key financial and commercial Project objectives.

· Market Sounding: Engage with real estate developers, investors and agents to seek insights on the Project, including market and project risks and appetite for end asset take out and participation in delivery.

· Coordinate an Independent Valuation: coordinate and manage an independent valuation to provide a valuation of the Project assets on an “as-is” basis and an “as-if complete” basis.

· Financial Analysis: undertake financial analysis based on the updated Project inputs and assess the alternate development and divestment pathways. As part of their financial analysis, KPMG also analysed the staged delivery of the components of the Project.

KPMG completed this scope of work and provided Council with a final report detailing their findings. A copy of the KPMG report “Ipswich Central Redevelopment – Nicholas Street Retail” is attached to this report.

A summary of the key findings for each component of the scope of works conducted by KPMG are as follows:

Establish Financial and Capital Management Objectives

The overarching objectives of the CBD precinct redevelopment have previously been established by Council and are as follows:

· Deliver an enduring and activated Civic Heart;

· Deliver cultural and entertainment activities that complement other activity centres;

· Provide space for growth of key employers and service providers;

· Relocate Council’s administration centre and unlock Council land for Queensland Health;

· Provide opportunities for Private sector investment in the renewal; and

· Project governance is robust, resilient and replicable.

Council worked with KPMG to clearly define and refine the retail Project objectives to support the assessment of the optimum development and divestment strategy for the Project. The strategic objectives were identified as:

· Community: Deliver a vibrant city centre; Provide complementary retail offerings; Generate growth opportunities.

· Financial: Achieve a positive project return; Income certainty to cover debt serviceability; Minimise funding cost.

· Commercial: Divest on or before construction completion; Stage delivery to inject critical mass; Optimise commercial offering.

Further details in relation to these objectives are contained in pages 18 to 21 of the KPMG report.

Market Sounding

Market sounding was conducted by KPMG in relation to external investment interest in project delivery, ultimate asset divestment and leasing. Some of the key findings of this market sounding are as follows:

Investment

· Proven letting up and tenant trading performance is needed before market investment. Due to the history of the precinct, a history of proven trading performance (up to 24-months) will be important to support investment confidence and pricing from investors.

· Quality of asset, including tenant covenant and long lease profile, is critical to support marketability.

Project Delivery

· There is limited interest from the market to deliver the project.

· Any private sector involvement in project delivery will likely be highly conditional and unlikely to provide value for money to Council.

· Stage the project to deliver a sustainable quantum of retail initially. Staging the project to support retail operators and build trading history will support the long-term viability of the project.

· Co-timed delivery of the Council Administration building will support retail trading.

Leasing

· Reputable national anchor tenants, particularly a cinema operator, are required to activate the precinct and underpin the end value of the development. Nationally recognised anchor tenants will also help to attract food and beverage operators and other retailers into the precinct.

· Entertainment / Leisure offerings are needed to generate critical mass. Delivery of these offerings is required upfront in the project.

· Curate the tenancy mix to minimise competition and provide a point of difference.

The significant implications for Council identified from the market sounding include:

· The market sounding has identified that Council will be unlikely to achieve its stated objective of divesting the assets prior to or upon completion of construction. There is limited interest from investors to purchase the assets prior to or upon completion of construction. The market sounding has indicated that the Project needs to demonstrate proven letting up and tenant trading performance before the market is likely to be interested in acquiring the assets.

· Council needs to invest in the quality of the assets to support marketability

· Council needs to plan on potentially holding the assets for an extended period post completion of the development to maximise market interest in a future divestment

· Development and leasing of the Venue asset is critical to the success of the precinct

· Council needs to coordinate an extended and diverse events programme to drive trade, critical mass and precinct brand.

Coordinate an Independent Valuation

KPMG commissioned Savills Valuations to provide an independent valuation of all assets within the scope of the Project. The outcomes of this valuation are presented in Page 35 of the KPMG report. The “As-Is” valuation for all of the assets totals $18.85 million. The “As If Complete” valuation based on a fully let scenario totals $60.8 million.

Financial Analysis

KPMG conducted a detailed financial analysis of the Project. This analysis is contained in pages 42 to 51 of the KPMG report. The KPMG analysis determined that the Project generates a loss of $19.92 million, with a negative NPV of $20.45 million. This figure incorporates the “As-Is” valuation of the land of $18.85 million as a development cost.

The sites are already owned by council. Whilst it is entirely appropriate for KPMG to include the land costs as part of their feasibility analysis (as that reflects the conventional approach to such reports), it is critical to note that council will not actually be incurring any further land acquisition costs for the Project.

Removing the “As-Is” value from the development costs, the Project in fact is projected to generate a loss of $1.07 million, with a negative NPV of $1.6 million.

Whilst this analysis reveals that Council will not meet its stated financial objective of achieving a positive return, the market sounding has identified that there is limited interest from the market to purchase the assets as they are at present. If Council decides not to invest in the development of these assets in a staged approach, it is considered that the stated Community Objectives of the Project will be put at significant additional risk.

In plain terms, should council elect not to proceed with the Project, Ipswich Central will continue to have a substantively derelict Nicholas Street precinct with minimal retail, commercial and entertainment “life”, albeit near a new library, plaza and council administration building.

KPMG also conducted a delivery analysis of the various assets, based on the assumption of Council retaining ownership of the assets for a 24 month period (As per the market sounding). This analysis is contained on pages 55 to 58 of the KPMG report.

KPMG finalise the report with their Conclusion and Key Considerations (Pg 61). In terms of the delivery considerations, they state that Council should consider staging project delivery to balance community and financial objectives tied to a maximum peak exposure that is manageable within Council’s forecast financial capacity. The report also states that the market feedback is that delivery of the Venue asset as part of the initial stage is critical to support precinct activation. Finally, the report states that market feedback is that the number of food and beverage offerings is too large for an unproven precinct and that it should be staged and aligned to the opening of the Council Administration building.

Recommended Development Strategy for the Nicholas Street Retail Assets

Based on the market sounding and the financial analysis conducted by KPMG the following staged development strategy is recommended for the development and ultimate divestment of the retail assets that are part of the Project:

Stage 1: The development of the Venue and Eats assets, dependent on the securing of key tenants such as a cinema offering. It is critical to the successful activation of the precinct and the commercial viability of the food and beverage offerings in the other assets that a nationally recognised entertainment offering such as a cinema is operating in the Venue asset.

It is also recommended that Council continue with the development of the Commonwealth Hotel as part of Stage 1. The Commonwealth Hotel has been deconstructed and it is considered imperative that the asset be developed to prevent further deterioration.

Stage 2: Development of the Metro B Asset with a completion date to coincide with the Council occupation of the new Council Administration building, again dependent of securing of key tenants.

Stage 3: Development of the Metro A asset: At this time it is not recommended that Council proceed with the development of the Metro A asset. It is proposed that the development of this asset be considered at a later time, once the rest of the assets have been developed and have been proven as ongoing commercial successes.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Not Applicable

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are a number of significant risks associated with the recommendations contained in this report for the development of the retail assets in Ipswich Central.

Financial Risk

There is a significant financial risk associated with investing in the development of the retail assets, in what the market has advised is an unproven retail precinct. If Council develops the retail assets and then fails to operate them as a commercial success, the value and marketability of these assets will be reduced and Council’s return on investment will be impacted. Further, if the precinct is not commercially successful, Council may be forced to retain possession of the retail assets beyond the proposed 2 year period which will have cost implications.

Reputational Risk

If Council approves the recommended strategy, the reputation of Council could be damaged if the development of the retail assets is not successful in terms of demonstrating that the precinct is a commercial success and Council is then able to maximise its return on investment when the assets are divested.

Whilst there are significant financial and reputational risks associated with the recommendation to develop the retail assets in a staged approach, extensive due diligence has been conducted through the engagement of KPMG to inform this report and its recommendation. The market sounding has identified that there is limited market interest from investors to purchase or develop the assets and that the development of the Venue asset in particular, is critical to bringing people back into the Ipswich Central precinct to activate the area. If Council were to decide to not proceed with development of the retail assets, the community objectives of the precinct would be negatively impacted.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The KPMG report conducted an analysis of the construction costs for the project based on the schematic designs developed by Ranbury Management Group. The schematic design report completed by Ranbury Management is attached to this report. The schematic designs were assessed by a quantity surveyor who has provided a construction cost estimate for the Project of approximately $47.14 million which allows for full replacement of the services in the assets. KPMG then assessed the total development costs at $53.29 million. The details of these costings are contained in pages 30 and 31 of the KPMG report.

Further work is required to be conducted by the project team to test the construction costs with the market. This report is not seeking Council approval for the expenditure of these funds, however it is prudent that the financial implications of the strategy to develop these assets are considered by Council. If the strategy to develop these commercial assets is approved by Council, further analysis will be conducted by the project team in consultation with Council’s Finance Department. If the strategy to develop the assets is adopted, a report will be presented at a future Council meeting, seeking funding approval.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The community was consulted in relation to the Ipswich Central Master Plan that was reviewed by KPMG in the completion of their report.

The Council Finance team were consulted as part of the KPMG review and agree with the recommendations of this report.

The Interim Administrator and CEO were consulted in the development of this report.

Conclusion

The Ipswich Central redevelopment is of significant importance to the future of the city of Ipswich. The CBD needs to be developed to bring people back into the area and the development of the retail assets is a key factor in achieving the community and economic objectives of the precinct.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Ranbury Schematic Design Report ⇩
2.	KPMG Nicholas Street Market Sounding and Financial Analysis - Public ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
3.	Ranbury Schematic Design Report - Construction Cost Summary
4.	KPMG Nicholas Street Market Sounding and Financial Analysis - Confidential