Council

Meeting Agenda

28 January

2020

Unconfirmed Minutes of Council Ordinary Meeting

10 December 2019

Held in the Council Chambers, Administration Building

45 Roderick Street, Ipswich

The meeting commenced at 9.00 am

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 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 Committee 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	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
TRIBUTES	The Interim Administrator thanked the Interim Management Committee for their advice, assistance, direction, and counselling when he needed it, over the last 15 months. He passed on his appreciation and outlined that he couldn’t have done the job without their individual and collective efforts.

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 19 November 2019 be confirmed.

The motion was put and carried.

Declarations of Interest in matters on the agenda

DECLARATIONS	The Interim Administrator declared interests in the following matters:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ITEMS 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6 – INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR	Item 2 – Ipswich Central Redevelopment Governance Item 3 – Tender Consideration Plan Approval – Retail Project Audit Consultants Item 4 – Tender Consideration Plan – Principal Contractor for Commonwealth Hotel Reconstruction Work Item 5 – Ipswich Central Program Report No. 17 to 16 October 2019 and Report No. 18 to 15 November 2019 Item 6 – Tender Consideration Plan Approval – Retail Construction – Nicholas Street – Ipswich Central. 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.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST ITEM 2 – STAN GALLO	Item 2 – Ipswich Central Redevelopment Governance Stan Gallo from the Interim Management Committee informed the meeting that for the purpose of transparency he has, or could reasonably be taken to have a perceived conflict of interest in Item 2 titled Ipswich Central Redevelopment Governance. The nature of the perceived interest is that he is a partner at KPMG, who have undertaken a financial analysis of a development and divestment strategy for retail and commercial assets. Stan Gallo confirmed that, as there is no personal or financial benefit to him and he would not be party to any analysis undertaken by KPMG, he would participate in the meeting in relation to the matter.
OFFICER’S REPORT
CONFLICT OF INTEREST – OFFICER’S REPORT – INTERIM ADMINISTRATOR	Officer’s Report titled Project Management Services – Commonwealth Hotel and Retail Components Nicholas Street – Ipswich Central 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.

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(12) of 3 December 2019 be received and adopted.

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(12) of 3 December 2019 be received and adopted.

The motion was put and carried.

Communities Committee

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

That the Communities Committee Report No. 2019(12) of 3 December 2019 be received and adopted.

The motion was put and carried.

Environment Committee

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

That the Environment Committee Report No. 2019(12) of 3 December 2019 be received and adopted.

The motion was put and carried.

Governance Committee

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

That the Governance Committee Report No. 2019(12) of 3 December 2019 be received and adopted subject to an amendment to the commentary of Item 7 titled Media Policy.

AMENDMENT

That the second paragraph of commentary in relation to Item 7 be amended as follows: Simone Webbe from the Interim Management Committee raised a concern with this suggestion stating that maybe the review could be confined to council’s role as a media outlet as a policy determination.

The motion was put and carried.

Officers’ Reports

Adoption of Meeting Conduct Policy and Public Participation at Council Ordinary Meetings Policy

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

A. That the policy titled “Meeting Conduct Policy” as detailed in Attachment 1, be adopted.

B. That the policy titled “Public Participation at Council Ordinary Meetings” as detailed in Attachment 2, be adopted.

C. That the Meetings Procedure Policy, under section 8.4.3 Order of Business, be amended by the incorporation of the following business item:

· Public Participation

and the amendment of the Business Outstanding business item to also include the words “including conduct matters”.

DISCUSSION

The Chief Executive Officer outlined that the policy for Public Participation is an opportunity for public participation at a council meeting. He stated that council is setting a new standard for public participation in meetings. He further stated that numerous councils undertake public engagement in different ways and this proposal is to allow the public to address the council meeting on specific matters.

The Interim Administrator outlined that the policy stipulates that questions from the public are required to focus on strategic and policy matters, not operational issues of council. He stated that questions need to be linked to the current strategic plan of council (Advance Ipswich Strategy) and be about council long term strategies and policies.

The Interim Administrator stated that the Meeting Conduct Policy is adopted from the state model and together with the Public Participation Policy, these two policies formulate the final piece of governance and integrity framework for councillors. He stated that Ipswich will now have the most contemporary and relevant set of councillor conduct and governance policies in the state and that there is no more that could be done by himself in terms of setting the framework for councillor behaviour and conduct.

The motion was put and carried.

Acquisition of Land for Road Purposes Redbank Plains Road Stage 3

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) having duly considered this report dated 25 November 2019, be of the opinion that the following properties (shown in Attachments 1-3) (“the land”) be required for acquisition for road purposes:

Part of Lot 35 RP135047, 2 Shannon Street Redbank Plains;

Part of Lot 8 RP856263, 204-206 Redbank Plains Road Bellbird Park; and

Part of Lot 1 RP119577, 208-210 Redbank Plains Road Bellbird Park.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) exercise its power as a “Constructing Authority” under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 and acquire the land, (as described in Recommendation A of this report dated 25 November 2019) for road purposes.

C. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate compensation and perform any other matters, arising out of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 or otherwise, and to do any other acts necessary to implement Council’s decision to acquire this land in accordance with section 13 (3) of the Local Government Act 2019.

DISCUSSION

The General Manager Corporate Services stated that consultation had been undertaken both internally and externally with the community in relation to this acquisition.

The motion was put and carried.

Acquisition of Land for Road Purposes part of 14 William Street Blackstone

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) having duly considered this report dated 26 November 2019, be of the opinion that the following property (shown in Attachment 1) (“the land”) be required for acquisition for road purposes:

Part of Lot 25 RP110739, 14 William Street Blackstone;

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) acquire the land by agreement, (as described in Recommendation A of this report dated 26 November 2019) for road purposes.

DISCUSSION

The General Manager Corporate Services stated that this is an acquisition for kerb and channel project where the owner is the state.

The motion was put and carried.

Brisbane Lions Stadium Funding Agreement

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) enter into a contract with the Brisbane Lions in accordance with the funding arrangements specified in this report.

B. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and finalise the terms 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.

DISCUSSION

The General Manager Coordination and Performance provided an overview of the report stating that the report relates to Council’s contribution towards the Brisbane Lions Stadium at Springfield.

In 2015 there was an original Heads of Agreement (HOA) signed between Council and the Brisbane Lions and that there was a subsequent HOA signed in 2017. The agreement stipulates that Council will provide the Springfield City Group’s (SCG) developer contributions for the particular fields in question, Development Areas 22A and 22B, and that Council will provide those funds directly to the Brisbane Lions for the development of the stadium. Council has been in negotiations with SCG as to the amount of that contribution and that it is a somewhat complex history but the calculation for the contribution in total from SCG is approximately $10.6 million which takes into account the LGIP construction rates. In the course of the intervening period between the HOA and now, Council has agreed to shift certain amounts of those contributions away from the development of those sports fields.

There were courts that were transferred from Development Areas 22A and 22B to Development Areas 16 and 17 which are the southern sports field. That contribution is approximately $521,800 so those have been delivered as part of the southern sports field at Springfield which are now open and operating.

Council also entered into negotiations with SCG in the realignment of Eden Station Drive when Council was constructing that particular road. The alignment of that road was shifted to the south which impacted the ability of SCG to deliver the specified number of fields and courts on that site. As part of the negotiations for that realignment, Council agreed that there would be a reduction in the SCG contribution to Development Areas 22A and 22B of one field which reduces their contribution by a further $820,000. In effect what that means is that the entire SCG embellishment contribution value to the sports fields is in fact $9,046,264. The HOA cited approximately a $12 million contribution by Council to the Brisbane Lions project. Based upon that stipulated and non-binding contribution amount the lions then went and sought state and federal funding as part of this project.

It is important to understand that whilst the HOA for $12 million was non-binding, it was part of Council’s “pitch” to secure the Brisbane Lions to build their stadium in Ipswich. There are obvious community benefits of having a national sporting facility based in Ipswich and that was the basis upon which they would build the stadium in Ipswich and sought the federal funding.

Council has calculated what the SCG contribution was, taking into account the reduction of the six courts which were delivered on the southern sports field, and the realignment of Road 10, bringing that contribution down to $9 million. This raised significant concerns with the Brisbane Lions in terms of a funding gap between their budget of what they anticipated they would receive from Council.

Brisbane Lions contacted Council and said if they were to provide the embellishment costs for 22B which is the field on the Northern side of Eden Station Drive (noting the contribution from SCG relates to the embellishment of both fields, not just the one where the stadium is) that means that Council has the responsibility to deliver the embellished fields on both 22A (stadium) and 22B (the community based sporting facilities).

There will be a contractual requirement for Council to embellish the field. Council has calculated those costs under the LGIP construction rate and it will cost $3 million to embellish it to a local sports and courts facility for the community to use. The $3 million includes the normal sports, courts and lighting but does not include any type of clubhouse.

A facility of this nature in that location, will require a clubhouse to be built at some stage and that is something that Council will need to consider in the future if we were to go down that path. As part of the negotiations with the Brisbane Lions they proposed they would embellish 22B (community sports fields) on Council’s behalf and that in this embellishment it would include a clubhouse for community use. The reason the Brisbane Lions have an interest in developing and embellishing that field is that they want to use it for warm ups for the opposition players on game days as well as for training when they want to rest the main playing surface.

There is significant interest in the Brisbane Lions to do this from an operational perspective which is the driver for wanting to see it embellished sooner rather than later. As part of this proposal the Brisbane Lions have requested Council to consider contributing the $3 million required to embellish that particular field to the Brisbane Lions. This would be contingent on a contractual arrangement that the Brisbane Lions would then embellish the field to a local sports and courts facility, including a clubhouse, within four years of Council signing the contract.

The benefit from a community perspective is that in Council’s existing long term financial forecast and capital works program, there was no intent for Council to embellish that particular sporting field within the next 10 years. By Council providing this contribution to the Brisbane Lions, Council meets its moral and ethical obligations under the HOA of $12 million. Council will also provide a total contribution to the Brisbane Lions that meets their purposes and Council will get a community sports and courts facility delivered well ahead of time than what it would have if it was otherwise left with Council. Council also get enhanced embellishment of the field as it will have a clubhouse and the intent of the Brisbane Lions is to embellish it well above the standard than Council would normally undertake for a community courts and sports facility.

The agreement would be that Council would lease the second field to the Brisbane Lions and that would be inclusive of community usage of about 90/95% of the time. It would be no different to any other sporting facility that Council has where an Expression of Interest would be called to get an idea of the sporting clubs that would want to tenant the clubhouse and use the sporting fields.

This meets Council’s obligation under the HOA and the committed funding from the state and federal governments. The Brisbane Lions stadium is built in Ipswich and Council get a community sports and courts facility delivered ahead of time and to a higher standard to what would otherwise be delivered by Council.

There is a significant demand in Springfield for sports and courts given the fact that it is the largest and quickest growing area within the Ipswich local government area so this is seen as a positive for the community and for Council.

This agreement means that Council’s total contribution is significantly less than the $15 million previously anticipated and now is a total of $13.6 million with an approximate saving of $1.4 million for the ratepayers of Ipswich.

Once approved, Council will enter into the commercial arrangements and agreements with the Brisbane Lions to ensure they are contractually bound to deliver the embellishment of 22B (the second field) to the standard that they have specified. Council will have a clause in the contract that if it isn’t completed within the specified timeframe which is envisaged at four years, Brisbane Lions have to refund Council the additional $3 million.

From an organisation and community point of view this mitigates the risk significantly. If Brisbane Lions don’t deliver within the four year timeframe, the $3 million comes back to Council and then Council fulfils its obligation to embellish that second field.

The Interim Administrator stated that this has been a huge challenge for the organisation due to the various agreements, arrangements and obligations. He stated that it was very clear that the HOA was non-binding legally but for him both ethically and morally it was a different matter particularly because the commonwealth and state governments have proceeded on that basis. He further stated that there are obvious risks in this decision however there is already embedded risk in the decisions to date in that Council was already funding the cost of the core earthworks to have a stadium ready facility there at $5 or $6 million as well as transferring the infrastructure charges of $9 or $10 million over. The Interim Administrator stated that at the end of the day Council owns these assets so regardless of lease or licence arrangements it is a Council owned stadium and Council owned sports field and courts field next door.

The motion was put and carried.

Budget Amendment - December 2019

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

A. That the amended 2019‑2020 Budget and Long Term Financial Forecast, as detailed in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 of the report by the Treasury Accounting Manager dated 1 December 2019, be adopted.

B. That the amended Debt Policy, as detailed in Attachment 4 to the report by the Treasury Accounting Manager dated 1 December 2019, be adopted.

DISCUSSION

The General Manager Corporate Services outlined the three main focus areas of the report:

1. Council has now completed its audit and it has consequential impacts on the balance sheet and profit and loss which have been adjusted.

2. Updating the key assumptions with interest revenue and interest expense and waste management utility charges.

3. Incorporation of the Retail precincts of the Nicholas Street Redevelopment.

The Interim Administrator stated that the interest revenue, interest expense and waste management are pretty straight forward to understand and that the largest impact is the retail precinct of the Nicholas Street Redevelopment. He stated that this is the last material decision that Council can make in terms of the CBD. Council acquired the CBD over a decade ago for certain reasons and the current Council has now inherited the situation. He outlined that he has talked at length about this situation within council, at committees and at community organisations.

The Interim Administrator commented that it is not a matter of debate about whether Council should own the CBD buildings or not, the fact of the matter is that it does own them and it is understanding what is the best thing to do with them. He thanked Steve Greenwood for chairing the CBD Steering Committee and outlined that Council has engaged a significant number of experts in the field to advise Council. He stated that he felt this is the best strategy and that there has been a substantive amount of well documented consulting advice to lead Council to this point. He outlined that in essence Council will spend approximately $43.6 million on the retail, commercial, entertainment and buildings that Council own, redevelop, refurbish and then lease them. The market advice from potential investors has really concluded or advised Council that they are not greatly interested in acquiring these assets at this point in time. Notionally, Council is talking about retaining these assets for a year or two before disposing of them.

The Interim Administrator stated that in his view, although a future council may form a different view, the retail buildings are not long term assets that Council should hold, they are imperative from a city building point of view. The only other option was to do nothing and leave the buildings as they are which is not really a good choice for the community. The Interim Administrator outlined that he is aware of discussions the consultants are having with potential tenants and business operators and that a future council will have the joy of announcing these. He outlined that Council is spending $43.6 million and the anticipated approximate sale price is $50 million and that there is significant risk but the bigger risk for the community is not doing anything.

The motion was put and carried.

Delegation of Council Powers and Functions to Chief Executive Officer

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

A. That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council repeal all the instruments of delegation from Council to the Chief Executive Officer as detailed in Attachment 1 of this report dated 3 December 2019.

B. That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council delegate all of the powers or functions of the Ipswich City Council to the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with Delegation Instrument LGD-2019-1(including attached schedule of powers (Attachment 3)), as detailed in Attachment 2 of this report dated 3 December 2019.

DISCUSSION

The General Counsel and Manager, Legal and Governance outlined that this report was one of the outcomes of Transformational Project #11 (Delegations). The report is in relation to the repeal of the existing delegations from Council to the Chief Executive Officer and the introduction of a new delegation instrument with the schedule and a full description of all the powers. He outlined that this just relates to the Chief Executive Officer and that there were previously around 80 existing delegation instruments however this proposal is for one delegation instrument with all the schedule of powers and conditions attached. The General Counsel and Manager, Legal and Governance stated that in a previous Council meeting a report was submitted in relation to recent changes to the Economic Development Act and that these changes have been incorporated into this review.

The Interim Administrator confirmed that the 80 delegations from Council to the Chief Executive Officer have all been wrapped into one instrument of delegation with all the powers properly described and that this could go on line as a register for members of the public to view. It will include the powers delegated and a proper description of all those powers. He stated that the Chief Executive Officer can then, at his discretion, sub-delegate the schedule of sub-delegations and that this closes another one of the Transformational projects.

The motion was put and carried.

Project Management Services - Commonwealth Hotel and Retail Components Nicholas Street - Ipswich Central

The Interim Administrator of the Ipswich City Council resolves:

That in accordance with section 175(E)(6) and 257 of the Local Government Act 2009, the decision to be made on this matter, as detailed below, be delegated to the Chief Executive Officer:

A. That Council approve a variation to Contract No. 13908 with Ranbury Management Group Pty Ltd for the provision of Program Management Services for Package 3 (Commonwealth Hotel) and Package 4 (Retail) 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.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The Interim Administrator informed the meeting that he has a real conflict of interest in the Officer’s Report titled Project Management Services – Commonwealth Hotel and Retail Components Nicholas Street – Ipswich Central.

The nature of the 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 stated that as this report is a proposed variation to the contract with Ranbury Management Group and that he was a previous employee and Director, he has decided not to make any decisions that involve a contract between Council and Ranbury. He stated that he would resolve to delegate the assessment and decision of the matter to the Chief Executive Officer.

The motion was put and carried.

CLOSING COMMENTS

As this was the last Council meeting for the Interim Administrator and Interim Management Committee, the Interim Administrator invited each member of the committee members to add closing comments.

Interim Administrator	The Interim Administrator made the following comments: This is the final council meeting and it has been a privilege and an honour to be in this role for the past 15 months. I will finish my term on 10 January 2020 which will then be a 16 month journey for all and most noticeably for the community. There is still much more change and evolution to occur in the community and for staff as we move forward. We have achieved substantial reform and I will release a report in the first week of January outlining all the achievements we have made. This will be a summary report with links to all the Transformational Projects undertaken and some of the other key initiatives that we have achieved. It will really be a statement for Council staff and the community to understand the journey Ipswich has been on for the last 15 months. Some significant achievements have been made in terms of the Councillor’s role in integrity, performance and interactions between councillors and staff. The final piece of that work in terms of Councillor governance and integrity was adopted at today’s meeting. There are no more decisions that are outstanding that I could make and it is now up to the incoming set of elected representatives to live these documents, values and policies. The CBD was the other big challenge and again, coincidentally, the last final piece was adopted today in terms of the Council decision on the CBD redevelopment. I understand there is still major ongoing reform in terms of the operating areas of Council across a number of areas and I thank David Farmer for coming on board as Chief Executive Officer and committing himself to the Council for the years ahead. I am very confident in the ability of the Council to recover from where it was. As I look around the room and think about where we were 15 months ago, it is very different. I am also confident in the communities ability to move forward. One of the greatest community meetings I attended was a couple of weeks ago with 150 community members who were looking to set up a peak body of community organisations to deal constructively with Council. This was not possible when we started as the thinking was not there so I look forward to that proceeding in the future. Thank you to the Interim Management Committee for your advice and assistance and a special thanks to Steve Greenwood for volunteering to be the Interim Administrator for the last two months. Thank you to David Farmer and all the staff. I also want to thank the Queensland Parliament for their unanimous vote in August last year to enable the sacking of councillors. Having learnt about how the organisation was run over the last 15 months, it was in my view the right decision to make. I want to thank the State Government and Minister for Local Government for entrusting me with the role. Thank you to the community. It has been a difficult journey for those watching over the last 15 months but it has been the right thing to do and I have great confidence that the council and community will continue to grow.
Robert Jones	Robert Jones made the following comments: When we started this journey we identified what our focus should be, not in this order necessarily, but it was governance, culture and transformational change with a lot of things fitting underneath these categories. The issue more immediately was to deal with complaints and grievances which obviously were significant and needed a lot of input and I think that both Simone Webbe and Stan Gallo have done a fantastic job in working through this and establishing the right frameworks and policies to move forward. In relation to the organisation, it was a great opportunity for the Interim Management Committee to make the most of this 15 months and really build Council into an organisation that is at leading practice. This was one of the objectives we really wanted to see occur when we came to Ipswich, for Ipswich to be an example to other councils and be leading practice. It is a journey and the journey will continue under management’s leadership in the new Council. Thank you to all the Interim Management Committee members for their support and comradery through the process; I have really enjoyed my time here. I couldn’t say this the day I was asked to participate as I didn’t really know what it would be. It has been a challenge and has been interesting and there are really great people here who have undertaken some good work and it has been a good opportunity to be a sounding board for these people.
Simone Webbe	Simone Webbe made the following comments: I would like to congratulate and celebrate the many individuals and teams who worked very hard and with great significance to seek the transformation of this organisation in pursuit of good governance. I acknowledge that this pursuit is an ongoing one, as it is for every organisation always. For this organisation in particular, you move from development of key scaffolds of governance to the implementation of those and that is a very difficult phase to be in as you breathe life and effect into the documents, processes and systems that you have developed. I encourage, as you embark on that very difficult challenge, the ethical leadership of all those that are charged with the responsibility to lead. I would also encourage stewardship of all officers at Council, wherever they may be, for the public accountability of the public funds and powers that you hold on public trust for the benefit of the residents and ratepayers of Ipswich. I pay tribute to the courage, resilience and patience of many who have stepped up and in a very early and timely way, identified areas that needed a priority focus, either for themselves or for the organisation generally, so that those matters could be attended to during the interim administration as a way of being able to let the whole organisation move forward. I underscore the importance of good governance generally and why all of that was worth it for the courage of various change agents in the process through this last 15 months because although at times it feels for people that we were always talking about good governance issues, whether it be people, processes, systems or procedures, they are your enabling tool to do your strategic work. The CBD, sports stadiums, the services that we offer to the community cannot happen if you don’t do the right thing, the right way at the right time, with the right people, to deliver those strategic objectives and that is what good governance is all about. It really is a stich in time and provides a safe and enjoyable, satisfying, place to work. Good luck to all, you are well on your way and look out for each other.
Jan Taylor	Jan Taylor made the following comments: I went into this task with a certain degree of trepidation as well and didn’t enjoy the first couple of months but what has really uplifted me through this process, the pleasure that I have had in meeting and dealing with the community, has been fantastic. I now do quite a lot of shopping in Ipswich, so can speak with a certain degree of knowledge of the pleasure it is to deal with some of the retail outlets. Every person I have ever dealt with who works in any shop in Ipswich has been phenomenal. They have a certain degree of acceptance of anyone and everything. One of my favourite coffee shops has an intellectually challenged young man working there and it is such a pleasure to go in there and find the degree of acceptance. He is wonderful at what he does and generally Ipswich is a community that is extraordinarily diverse. You just have to look at the architecture. I love driving through some of the streets and looking at the glorious, grand old homes and think what it would have been like to live in one of them. Ipswich is a place, is a microcosm of a whole lot of other areas, but what makes it different is an element of vitality that you don’t necessarily find in other places. I have found nothing but pleasure in getting to know a whole range of people in this town and hope that I don’t lose these ties. I think that the Council, as representing this community, has a wonderful job ahead of it. I wish all those future unnamed councillors the best of luck. I think that Greg Chemello has led a fantastic ship here and all those who follow him including Steve Greenwood, can enjoy this as well. It has been a pleasure and a challenge these last 15 months and good luck for the next 15 years at least.
Stan Gallo	Stan Gallo made the following comments: I think for me, with Greg Chemello initially coming into the leadership role in Council, I thank you for being open to the advice and animated discussion that occurred between the Interim Management Committee members and yourself occasionally, and being willing to listen. For myself, not coming from a government background, more of a corporate space, to see a bipartisan approach to everything that was achieved over the last 15 months was tremendously enlightening for someone with my background. Each of the Interim Management Committee members brought a different skill to the team. I came in thinking that I had my little piece and that essentially joined me with Simone Webbe from day one. Out of all the members, I got to work with Simone most closely and to find a lawyer with a social conscientious on her sleeve is a rare find indeed. To the other members, it has been a tremendous learning curve for me in terms of governance in government and working in government and I will take that back to my corporate future. To the team here in Council, we pushed pretty hard and we know that but to achieve what we did in the transformational projects and to achieve that change in culture that we all collectively sought, we needed to. I congratulate those who did stand up and take the reins. For those that we stood in front of in the early weeks and asked that you trust us in bringing forward the issues, complaints and all that dirty laundry, stating that we were willing to listen, in particular those people who had raised these matters before and not felt that they had been properly dealt with or had been beaten down, you were willing to stand up one more time and trust us to take these matters forward which is a tremendous step to take. I think we are still seeing ripples of this through the entire organisation. We have been able to try and wrap those governance processes around these issues to support you and I would hope that the incoming councillors will continue down that path. The framework is in place and they can carry this forward. Lastly the community, who did embrace the Minister’s termination of the Council. It was a bold move and quite a significant one in Queensland history. To be a part of that and the outcome and to also keep an eye on the local media about how we were going in the public’s view; to see that come through very positively and supportive has been tremendous. Although it has taken a lot of time in Ipswich, it has opened my eyes to how the government operates, both at local and state levels. There are a lot of learnings in the change that this organisation has undergone that can be taken to other organisations. This puts Ipswich from a place behind to a place in front which is a tremendous achievement in 15 months. Thank you to everyone and I hope it continues to move forward.
Steve Greenwood	Steve Greenwood made the following comments: I reflect on the thoughts and comments of the other Interim Management Committee members. When I was offered this position; when the Minister contacted me, I didn’t think about it too deeply and took it quite lightly. It was only about the first 30 minutes we were in Ipswich and I was speaking to staff about what had been occurring in Council and the impact on staff, that it really hit me. I realised that this was a very serious role and a very serious challenge for all of us. It is very rare in anyone’s career that you have an opportunity to be a part of something significant that is going to genuinely impact the future of a lot of people in a community. For that I am truly appreciative. I have never worked closely with Greg Chemello and have really enjoyed it. I have become one of Greg’s biggest promoters outside of Council as I have found that everything we have done, we have had to invent; it is all new. There is no guidebook and no one to follow. Everything that we have done, every decision, process, program that Greg has driven and that we have been a part of has been very difficult but also very rewarding, so thank you Greg. As Stan said and the others reflected on, the Interim Management Committee is a group of very different people, with very different backgrounds, which has created some interesting discussion but has also been the strength of the Interim Management Committee as well. It has been very enjoyable and I thank you for your collegiate nature, even though there were many stresses. For the senior executives, it has been hard. We will move on but the real load is going to be borne by you. You have been through massive change and stress and now through continuous change so I am particularly aware and recognise the weight you are carrying. I know that the Chief Executive Officer is very focussed on this in terms of ensuring the wellbeing of Council’s senior managers in carrying this reform program going forward. Thank you for your support and forbearance and I will see you back here on 13 January 2020.
Interim Administrator	The Interim Administrator made the following final comments: A comment that I make very regularly is that the Interim Management Committee and I are incredibly strong supporters of democracy which is an interesting phrase as this is a very undemocratic job. Our job was to get this council back on its feet so that elected representatives have a good platform to bring democracy back to the city. I proudly think we have done this and have achieved our job and again am privileged to be a part of this.

MEETING CLOSED

The meeting closed at 9.53 am

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

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 January

2020

Doc ID No: A5982094

ITEM: 1.1

SUBJECT: Regional Arts Development Fund (RADF) Grant Applications

AUTHOR: Community Grants Coordinator

DATE: 24 December 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning allocation of funding through the Regional Arts Development Fund.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) approve funding of $6,100 to Fusion Arts towards the development and presentation of the junior musical, The Little Mermaid, as outlined in the report by the Community Grants Coordinator dated 19 December 2019.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) approve funding of $5,000 to Eugene Gilfedder towards Stage 1 of the Legends of Cocky-Jerry-Jar project, as outlined in the report by the Community Grants Coordinator dated
19 December 2019.

C. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) approve funding of $8,400 to THAT Production Company towards the Failure to Launch creative development project, as outlined in the report by the Community Grants Coordinator dated 19 December 2019.

RELATED PARTIES

The RADF Committee is a local advisory group who were appointed through an expression of interest process in May 2019. During the online assessment of grant applications by the RADF Committee, Cassandra Ramsay declared a conflict of interest against the application from THAT Production Company. Cassandra Ramsay advised that she has not been directly involved in the “Failure to Launch” project to date, however she is the Creative Producer of THAT Production Company.

Cassandra Ramsay did not participate in the assessment of THAT Production Company’s RADF expression of interest or grant application, and did not attend the meeting where applications were discussed by the RADF Committee.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the community, and listening, leading and financial management.

Purpose of Report/Background

The Regional Arts Development Fund (RADF) is delivered as a partnership between the Queensland Government through Arts Queensland and Ipswich City Council. RADF promotes the role and value of arts, culture and heritage as key drivers of diverse and inclusive communities and strong regions. The fund invests in local arts and cultural priorities as determined by local communities across Queensland and its flexibility enables local councils to tailor RADF programs to the specific needs of their communities.

The Ipswich RADF Program is informed by the Ipswich Arts and Cultural Strategy 2018-2023. The priorities for the Ipswich RADF program are:

· Increased opportunities – providing opportunities for art and cultural experiences and participation throughout the Ipswich region, across all sectors of the community

· Coordination and partnerships – encouraging arts and cultural practitioners and organisations to collaborate across the Ipswich region

· Connected community – supporting projects that foster engagement

· Image and identity – promoting Ipswich’s rich and unique cultural heritage and thriving arts and cultural sector

· Mentorships and skills development – providing knowledge, support and guidance to arts and cultural practitioners focussing on strengthening skills.

Ipswich City Council provides funding in five (5) categories:

· Public Art

· Telling Ipswich’s Stories

· Projects – up to three (3) years in duration

· Skills Development and Mentoring

· Quick Response

RADF funding allocated to Ipswich City Council was guided by the population and co-investment tiers as outlined by the Queensland Government; 40% Arts Queensland ($35,000) and 60% Ipswich City Council ($52,500) in the 2019–2020 financial year. The RADF financial year runs from September to September.

RADF Application Process

Grant applications are assessed by the RADF Committee, a local advisory group who were appointed through an expression of interest process in May 2019, and reflect the diverse arts and culture of the Ipswich Region. Council will undertake three RADF funding rounds in the 2019-2020 financial year, in addition to provision for individual professional development applications assessed as Quick Response Grants.

The RADF grants process is a two-step process where applicants are required to submit an expression of interest which outlines the project and an estimate of how much funding will be sought from RADF.

The expressions of interest and applications are assessed against the following considerations:

· Innovation – Projects that engage audiences, provide opportunities for artists to present their works and generate social and economic benefits through skills development, employment or tourism

· The artistic merit is clearly articulated, including vision, ideas, the creative process and evidence of quality of work

· Projects that align to one or more of the RADF priorities

· Projects that increase opportunities, access and participation in arts and cultural activities

· Evidence of realistic and achievable planning and resource use, including a comprehensive budget

· Clear marketing or engagement approach (where relevant)

· The role of partners (where applicable), including confirmation of involvement

· The expected outcomes of the project are well articulated

Ten (10) expressions of interest were received and considered by the RADF Committee in November 2019, of which five (5) were invited to submit a full application. Three (3) applications were received, as one applicant decided not to submit an application at this stage, and another did not meet the closing deadline. Applicants were advised that late applications would not be accepted.

The expressions of interest which did not proceed to the application stage included submissions which contained insufficient details of the project, lacked evidence of skills development, unclear budgets, or did not articulate the ongoing impact of the project or partnerships. One application was ineligible as the project was being undertaken outside the Ipswich Region.

Grant Applications Received

Fusion Arts Incorporated

Fusion Arts Incorporated is an Ipswich based community performing arts organisation who applied for a RADF grant of $6,100. Fusion Arts will be working with children and young people between February and April 2020, to present a junior musical, The Little Mermaid. The show will be held during the April school holidays at Studio 188 and will provide opportunities for young Ipswich performing artists to showcase their skills by participating in a high quality musical.

The development of the performance will expose the performers to creditable directors and choreographers, culminating in six (6) shows.

The total cost of the project is $17,467 and following assessment, funding of $6,100 has been recommended by the RADF Committee to support the costs of the musical director, director and set designer costs.

Eugene Gilfedder

Eugene Gilfedder is an Ipswich resident who has worked extensively with major theatre companies in Australia in roles of actor, director, music director, sound artist and composer.

Eugene Gilfedder applied for a RADF grant of $5,000 towards the development of an opera, The Legends of Cocky-Jerry-Jar, which tells the true story of a Chinese man who lived in a cave on Denmark Hill. This project has several stages and funding is sought for Stage 1, which includes engaging a local theatre director to research local archives, completing the libretto from the research and engaging an Australian/Chinese playwright to write and give genuine voice to the Chinese characters, and act as a guide to Chinese tradition and culture.

This application is intended as Stage 1 of a larger project which will culminate in a complete production. Funding for later stages will be sought through QPAC, Arts Queensland and Queensland Music Festival.

The total cost of Stage 1 is $6,800 and following assessment, the RADF Committee has recommended funding $5,000 to support research, writing, composing and cultural liaison costs.

THAT Production Company

THAT Production Company is an Ipswich theatre company which has produced and presented a number of productions in the past 10 years.

THAT Production Company has sought a RADF grant of $8,400 to conduct a five phase creative development of a new play by Liam Lowth, called Failure to Launch. The project focuses on Ipswich and will take place between February and April 2020, concluding with a public showing of the work.

Failure to Launch examines some of the causes of toxic masculinity and explores the role place can play in relationships. Some Ipswich high schools have expressed interest in attending the show at Studio 188.

The total cost of the project is $14,130 and following assessment, funding of $8,400 has been recommended by the RADF Committee to support artist fees and venue hire.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009 and Local Government Regulation 2012.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are no risk management implications associated with this report.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Funding for the provision of the Regional Arts Development Fund (RADF) program is contained within the Community Engagement and Development Section 2019-2020 financial year budget.

There are no additional resourcing or budget implications associated with this report.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The contents of this report required consultation with the Ipswich RADF Committee, who assess applications and make recommendations to Council for RADF funding. The Ipswich RADF Committee meeting was held on 18 December 2019.

Conclusion

Applications for funding through the Regional Arts Development Fund are assessed in accordance with the eligibility criteria and assessment process outlined in the current Ipswich City Council RADF Guidelines.

Josie Berry

Community Grants Coordinator

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Abbey Richards

Community Engagement and Development Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Ben Pole

General Manager - Community, Cultural and Economic Development

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

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 January

2020

Doc ID No: A5979759

ITEM: 3.3

SUBJECT: Community Funding and Support Policy

AUTHOR: Community Grants Coordinator

DATE: 8 January 2020

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the adoption of a Community Funding and Support Policy to guide the effective centralised management of all of Council’s community funding and support programs.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That the policy titled Community Grants and In-Kind Assistance Policy as detailed in Attachment 1 to the report by the Community Grants Coordinator dated
8 January 2020, as per Item No. 13 of the City Management, Finance and Community Engagement Committee No. 2018(06) of 19 June 2018, adopted at the Council Ordinary meeting on 26 June 2018, be repealed.

B. That the policy titled Community Donations Policy as detailed in Attachment 2 to the report by the Community Grants Coordinator dated 8 January 2020, as per Item No. 4 of the Governance Committee No. 2019(12) of 3 December 2019, adopted at the Council Ordinary meeting on 10 December 2019, be repealed.

C. That the policy titles Bursaries, Scholarships and Other Funding for Community Purposes Policy as detailed in Attachment 3 to the report by the Community Grants Coordinator dated 8 January 2020, as per Item No. 4 of the Governance Committee No. 2019(12) of 3 December 2019, adopted at the Council Ordinary meeting on 10 December 2019, be repealed.

D. That the policy titled Community Funding and Support Policy as detailed in Attachment 4 to the report by the Community Grants Coordinator dated 8 January 2020, be adopted.

RELATED PARTIES

PricewaterhouseCoopers was engaged in 2019 to independently review Council’s community funding and support programs.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the Community, and Listening, Leading and Financial Management

Purpose of Report/Background

In July 2019, the Executive Leadership Team approved the centralisation of the management and administration of all Council funding within the Community Engagement and Development Section, Community, Cultural and Economic Development Department.

Council currently has a large number of grants, sponsorships and bursary programs which are managed in a decentralised manner across a number of departments, resulting in inconsistent approaches to grant and funding allocation, and likely creates confusion and ambiguity for the community.

In order to facilitate the centralisation of all funding and support functions, Council engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers to undertake a review of all council funding programs.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has begun this review, which is being undertaken in three (3) phases as outlined below:

- Phase 1: Current state assessment – review of Council’s current funding programs and stakeholder consultations to understand the key risks and challenges associated with the current processes

- Phase 2: Comparison with other Local Government Areas – review of the current funding programs across select Local Government Areas, and comparison with Ipswich City Council’s funding programs

- Phase 3: Documentation – draft policy and procedure documents to provide a framework for the management and administration of transparent, efficient and equitable funding programs offered by Ipswich City Council.

A final report from PricewaterhouseCoopers is forthcoming, however, some of their initial findings in relation to risks and issues can be summarised as follows:

- Council has an inconsistent approach to the management and administration of Council’s funding activities across the organisation

- No formal program evaluation has occurred across the various funding programs in order to form an assessment of the benefits realised through Council funding

- Council offers a larger number of funding programs (double the average number compared with other Council’s reviewed), likely creating confusion for community members trying to determine the most appropriate funding stream to support their activity

- The current community funding procedures do not include detailed steps around the funding approval process

- There are multiple processes and avenues for community members to apply for funding

- Decision makers are not provided with information about non-conforming or ineligible applications

- The evaluation criteria for applications is complex, and the weighting/sliding scale based on the assessors scores, may result in worthy projects not receiving sufficient funding

- Inconsistency of documentation across the various funding programs

- Differences in the approval processes across funding programs, that is, some grants require Council resolution, others do not and community donations of less than $15,000 are approved by the Interim Administrator.

PricewaterhouseCoopers has recommended that Council consider the following actions which are designed to provide practical guidance to revise, refine and update the management and administration of Ipswich City Council’s funding and support activities:

1. Adopt a community funding framework for the management of community funding programs

2. Evaluate Council’s current suite of funding programs

3. Review the number of current funding programs and allocation of budget between community donations and other funding

4. Review and refine the current funding approval processes to address risks with the current differences in approval processes

5. Review and update existing program material (including simplification of application forms and evaluation criteria)

6. Develop a resourcing plan to consider appropriateness of current resourcing to both implement and address recommended activities and the ongoing management of Council’s community funding and support programs

PROPOSED FRAMEWORK

A high level Community Funding and Support Framework has been developed. This framework provides for an overarching policy supported by one comprehensive procedure and the development of a guideline document for each program.

The adoption of the one Community Funding and Support Policy (Attachment 4) for all types of funding and support will replace the three (3) policies currently in place (Attachment 1, 2 and 3) related to grants and funding and which will govern Council’s Event Sponsorship

Policy. A high-level visualisation of the proposed Community Funding and Support Framework is set out above:

Currently Council has sixteen (16) funding and support programs and, in line with the recommendations of PricewaterhouseCoopers, it is proposed to reduce the number of programs by approximately 50% (which would align Ipswich City Council closer to other benchmarked Local Government Areas).

NEXT STEPS

In line with the proposed Community Funding and Support Framework, the Community Engagement and Development Section will undertake the following steps to support the implementation of the centralised funding model by 1 July 2020:

1. January 2020 – Whole of Council Community Funding and Support Policy is adopted by Council

2. January 2020 continue to work with PricewaterhouseCoopers to finalise their final report and associated documents

3. February 2020 – Draft and finalise a Community Funding and Support Procedure

4. February/March 2020 – Undertake a community engagement process to determine the strategic direction of Council’s community funding programs, including the distribution of funding budgets

5. March/April 2020 – In consultation with internal stakeholders, design funding programs in accordance with Community Funding and Support Procedure and develop supporting guideline documents

6. April/May 2020 – Finalise administrative processes (i.e. application forms, funding agreements, and acquittal forms) and ensure that applicant processes are streamlined, accessible and clear

7. 1 July 2020 – Community Funding and Support Framework complete

8. July 2020 – Deliver community information sessions and grant writing workshops.

BENEFITS OF PROPOSED CHANGES

Council will continue to receive applications for funding and support via the SmartyGrants database.

It is anticipated that centralisation and transformation of Council’s funding and support programs will result in a more streamlined process for applicants, including:

· Reducing the number of funding programs offered, whilst still ensuring the programs align to, and deliver on, Council’s strategic objectives

· A single entry point to guide applicants to the most appropriate funding program for their project

· Simplified application process and clearer process for community to access information and funding

Further, the centralisation of all council funding and support will ensure a consistent approach to the management and administration of Council funding and reduce the inherent risks associated with decentralised management.

RESOURCING

Within the Community Engagement and Development Section, the Community Grants Team consists of two (2) full-time staff. With the proposed changes to funding and support, including a reduction in the number of grants programs, it is anticipated (at this stage) that no further full-time resources will be required to administer the funding and support programs.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009 & Local Government Regulation 2012

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

A number of risks related to the current process for managing funding and support were identified by PricewaterhouseCoopers and are noted within this report. The proposed Community Funding and Support Framework, and the actions outlined earlier in this report will provide a consistent approach to the management and administration of Council funding.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

In the 2020-2021 financial year, funding for the provision of Council funding and support will be contained within the Community Engagement and Development Section budget.

The Community Engagement and Development Section has budget available in the
2019-2020 financial year to assist with costs to undertake community consultation to determine the strategic direction of Council’s community funding and support program.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Internal stakeholders have reviewed and provided input into the proposed Community Funding and Support Framework and the proposed Community Funding and Support Policy (Attachment 4). Internal stakeholders consulted with include the Environment and Sustainability Branch, Community and Cultural Services Branch and Marketing and Promotion Branch.

Feedback received has been discussed and incorporated into the content of the Community Funding and Support Policy. No objections have been received regarding the adoption of the Community Funding and Support Policy. The Executive Leadership Team has reviewed the contents of this report.

Conclusion

This report provides detail about a new Community Funding and Support Framework and seeks adoption of a new Community Funding and Support Policy to guide the effective management all of Council’s community funding and support programs.

The Community Funding and Support Framework will continue to be developed and is scheduled to be complete by 1 July 2020.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Community Grants and In-Kind Assistance Policy ⇩
2.	Community Donations Policy ⇩
3.	Bursaries, Scholarships and Other Funding for Community Purposes Policy ⇩
4.	Community Funding and Support Policy ⇩

Josie Berry

Community Grants Coordinator

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Abbey Richards

Community Engagement and Development Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Ben Pole

General Manager - Community, Cultural and Economic Development

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

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 January

2020

Doc ID No: A5896057

ITEM: 6.6

SUBJECT: Moores Pocket / Tivoli Sports Complex

AUTHOR: Manager, Community and Cultural Services

DATE: 6 January 2020

Executive Summary

This is a report recommending the repeal of the recommended actions of Council from May 2017 concerning the proposed acquisition of property situated at 166 Moores Pocket Road and the subsequent investment into facilities at Tivoli Sports Complex.

Following further investigation by council it is evident that the recommended action would not be in the best interests of council and the community.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

That the previous recommendations A and B as per Item No. 8 and adopted at Council Ordinary Meeting 30 May 2017 - Refer: City Works, Parks, Sport and Environment Committee No. 2017(05) of 22 May 2017, be repealed.

RELATED PARTIES

Related parties include St Edmunds College and a number of existing community sports user groups including Queensland Christian Soccer Association, Whitehill Soccer Club, Colleges United FC, Western Pride Football Club, Ipswich Oztag, Marburg Mount Crosby Cricket Club, Tigers Softball and Norths Rugby League.

There are no apparent conflicts of interest associated with this report or recommendation.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

The report and recommendations of May 2017 (Attachment B) concern the potential purchase of 166 Moores Pocket Road from the Trustees of Edmund Rice Education Australia (St Edmund’s College) and the potential investment by St Edmund’s College in the Tivoli Sports Complex as a priority user group.

Confidential Attachment A summarises the key elements of such a transaction, the attachment has been made confidential as it captures details of commercial in confidence between council and St Edmund’s College.

Since the time of the May 2017 report and recommendations council has assessed the suitability of 166 Moores Pocket Road for open space and recreational use. Whilst the site provides some benefit in achieving open space requirements for the surrounding community, its positioning in relation to one in 20 year and one in 100 year flood events means it would not be suitable for any level of recreational infrastructure.

If the transaction was to proceed, it would require council to reset arrangements with community sporting groups at the Tivoli Sports Complex. Council officers have concluded that community sporting groups currently utilising the facility and new potential user groups would be disadvantaged by such arrangements.

It is important to clarify that the proposed acquisition of 166 Moores Pocket Road and the subsequent investment into facilities at Tivoli Sports Complex with St Edmund’s College was an opportunity well worth exploring.

Throughout the process St Edmund’s College has conducted themselves with absolute professionalism and community mindedness at all times.

Through the process of diligently investigating this opportunity with St Edmund’s College it has clarified a variety of factors which in the assessment of council officers require reconsideration of the original report and recommendations.

LEGAL/POLICY BASIS

Not Applicable

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Resolving the recommendation of this report will cease discussions on the matter with St Edmund’s College. Given this is a repeal of a previous council decision from more than two years ago, there is a risk that St Edmund’s College has a grievance with the extended process and reversal of council’s commitment. This risk has been mitigated by the ongoing relationship between council officers and St Edmund’s College and their awareness of the recommendation of this report.

Not resolving the recommendation of this report commits council to entering into a contract with the Trustees of Edmund Rice Education Australia for Council to purchase 166 Moores Pocket Road - conditional upon a separate agreement to reinvest the proceeds of sale into a clubhouse at the Tivoli Sports Complex. The implications relating to council’s ownership of 166 Moores Pocket Road and the impact on sporting user groups of Tivoli Sports Complex poses an ongoing financial, safety and community risk to council.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no apparent financial or resource implications associated with this report or its recommendation.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Council’s Executive Leadership Team has been consulted on this report and have approved.

Council’s General Manager Infrastructure and Environment has been consulted on this report and approves.

Council’s General Manager Community, Cultural and Economic Development has been consulted on this report and approves.

Council’s Property Services Manager has been consulted on this report and approves.

Council’s Principal Officer Sport and Recreation Programs has been consulted on this report and approves.

Given the activity has not progressed past initial negotiations there has not been any community consultation undertaken.

Conclusion

The proposed acquisition of 166 Moores Pocket Road and the subsequent investment into facilities at Tivoli Sports Complex with St Edmund’s College was an opportunity well worth exploring.

However, council officers have assessed 166 Moores Pocket Road would not be suitable for any level of recreational infrastructure.

Furthermore, community sporting groups may be disadvantaged by the need to reset user arrangements at the Tivoli Sports Complex.

These factors considered, a repeal of the original report and recommendations is in the best interests of council and the community.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Proposed acquisition of land located at 166 Moores Pocket Road, Moores Pocket CWPSE May 2017 ⇩
1.1	Property Plan for 166 Moores Pocket Road, Moores Pocket ⇩
1.2	Committee Recommendation from Committee Report of November 2007 ⇩
1.2.1	Committee Report from November 2007 - Partnership with St Edmunds College ⇩
1.3	Committee Recommendation from Committee Report of May 2015 ⇩
1.3.1	Committee Report from May 2015 - St Edmunds College Tivoli Sports Complex Clubhouse Partnership ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
2.	Moores Pocket / Tivoli Briefing Note
2.1	Attachment to Attachment 2 - ELT Report August 2019
2.1.1	Site Context Plan - 166 Moores Pocket Road, Moores Pocket
2.1.2	Site Plan - 166 Moores Pocket Road, Moores Pocket
2.1.3	Flood Impacts - 166 Moores Pocket Road, Moores Pocket

Don Stewart

Manager, Community and Cultural Services

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Ben Pole

General Manager - Community, Cultural and Economic Development

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

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 January

2020

Doc ID No: A5998463

ITEM: 8.8

SUBJECT: human rights act 2019

AUTHOR: Senior Solicitor

DATE: 10 January 2020

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the commencement of the Human Rights Act 2019 (‘HRA’) and the obligations imposed by the HRA on Council. This report recommends the adoption of a Human Rights Policy that states Council’s commitment to human rights and an amendment to Council’s Complaints Management Framework to recognise human rights complaints.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That the policy titled “Human Rights Act Policy” as detailed in Attachment 1, be adopted.

B. That the Complaints Management Framework be amended as outlined in Attachment 3.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related party matters associated with this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Strengthening our local economy and building prosperity

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Caring for the community

Listening, leading and financial management

Purpose of Report/Background

The provisions of the HRA relevant to public entities commenced on 1 January 2020.^{^[1]} The objects of the HRA include protecting and promoting human rights and building a culture in the public sector that respects and promotes human rights.

The human rights protected under the HRA are:

· recognition and equality before the law

· right to life

· protection from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

· freedom from forced work

· freedom of movement

· freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief

· freedom of expression

· peaceful assembly and freedom of association

· taking part in public life

· property rights

· privacy and reputation

· protection of families and children

· cultural rights – generally (enjoyment of culture, religion and language)

· cultural rights – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

· right to liberty and security of person

· humane treatment when deprived of liberty

· fair hearing

· rights in criminal proceedings

· children in the criminal process

· right not to be tried or punished more than once

· right not to be subject to retrospective criminal laws

· right to education

· right to health services.^{^[2]}

All individuals in Queensland have human rights and human rights only apply to individuals.^{^[3]} Human rights in the HRA are not absolute. They may be subject under law to reasonable limits that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.^{^[4]}

Obligations of Public Entities under the HRA

Public entities

The HRA imposes obligations on ‘public entities’ in relation to human rights. A ‘public entity’ includes:

· a local government, councillor of a local government and a local government employee^{^[5]}. Therefore, the obligations under the HRA apply to councillors and employees of Council, not just Council as a body corporate;

· an entity performing ‘functions of a public nature’ for a public entity (whether under contract or otherwise)^{^[6]}. For example, a Council contractor may be a ‘public entity’ (and therefore have obligations under the HRA) if it carries out functions of a public nature for Council.

Obligations

As a public entity, Council is obligated to:

· act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights; or

· when making a decision, Council must give consideration to a human right relevant to the decision.

These obligations are set out in section 58(1) of the HRA.

An act or decision will be ‘compatible with human rights’ if the act or decision:

· does not limit a human right; or

· limits a human right only to the extent that is reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom.^{^[7]}

Effect of a failure to comply with obligations

A failure to comply with the obligations in section 58(1) of the HRA:

· does not render an act or decision invalid; and

· a person does not commit an offence against the HRA merely because the person acts or makes a decision in contravention of section 58(1).^{^[8]}

However, if a person is entitled to seek relief or remedy in relation to an act or decision of Council on the ground that the decision was unlawful other than because of section 58 (i.e. an independent ground of unlawfulness) the person may seek the remedy or relief on the ground of unlawfulness arising under section 58 (conduct of public entities) even if the person may not be successful in obtaining the relief or remedy under the other ground.^{^[9]}

A person is not entitled to be awarded damages on the ground of unlawfulness arising under section 58.^{^[10]}

A person is also entitled to make a human rights complaint to the Human Rights Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’).^{^[11]} A human rights complaint is a complaint about an alleged contravention of the obligations in section 58 by a public entity in relation to an act or decision of the public entity.^{^[12]} A person can make a human rights complaint to the Commissioner only if:

· the person made a complaint to the public entity the subject of the alleged contravention; and

· at least 45 business days have passed since making the complaint; and

· the person has not received a response to the complaint or received a response they feel to be an inadequate response.^{^[13]}

The Commission may accept a complaint prior to the expiry of the 45 day period in exceptional circumstances.^{^[14]}

Implementation of the HRA

The Legal and Governance Branch of the Corporate Services Department is managing the implementation of the HRA and is identifying actions and developing materials that will assist Council meet its obligations.

Two priority actions are:

· the implementation of a policy (Attachment 1) detailing Council’s commitment to human rights; and

· an amendment to Council’s current Complaint’s Management Framework (Attachment 2) as detailed in Attachment 3 to recognise human rights complaints under the HRA.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Human Rights Act 2019

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The HRA places obligations on public entities to act and make decisions in a way that is compatible with human rights. A person is entitled to make a human rights complaint under the HRA to Council if they feel Council has not acted or made a decision in a way that is compatible with their human rights. Incorporating human rights complaints into Council’s Complaints Management Framework is necessary to allow Council to manage human rights complaints effectively in accordance with its legislative obligations.

The adoption of a policy detailing Council’s commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights is also an important step in the implementation of the HRA. A strong policy commitment will assist in promoting a culture within Council that respects human rights.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct costs associated with this report other than the periodical review of the new policy which would form part of the operating budget for the Corporate Services Department.

In the future, there may be costs associated with other aspects of the implementation of the HRA. For example, staff training.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Consultation has been undertaken with the Complaints Management Unit of the Legal and Government Branch of the Corporate Services Department in relation to the amendment to the Complaints Management Framework to include a human rights complaint.

Consultation has been undertaken within the Legal and Governance Branch regarding the implementation of a policy regarding the HRA.

Conclusion

The HRA places obligations on Council to protect and promote human rights. The adoption of a policy stating Council’s commitment to human rights will assist in promoting human rights within the organisation. An amendment to Council’s Complaint Management Framework is necessary to recognise human rights complaints made to Council under the HRA.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Human Rights Policy ⇩
2.	Current Complaints Management Framework ⇩
3.	Amended Complaints Managment Framework - Track Changes ⇩
4.	Amended Complaints Management Framework - Clean ⇩

Shasha Ingbritsen

Senior Solicitor

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Allison Ferres Macdonald

Deputy General Counsel

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Tony Dunleavy

Manager Legal and Governance (General Counsel)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Sylvia Swalling

Acting General Manager Corporate Services

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

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 January

2020

Doc ID No: A5997663

ITEM: 21.21

SUBJECT: Temporary Local Planning Instruments No. 1 and No. 2 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation)

AUTHOR: Senior Planning Officer (Strategic)

DATE: 10 January 2020

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the proposed renewal of two Temporary Local Planning Instruments (TLPIs) for the regulation of waste activity uses; Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2018, which regulates waste activity uses in the Swanbank / New Chum waste activity area and Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 2 of 2018, which regulates waste activity uses in the Ebenezer / Willowbank / Jeebropilly waste activity area.

In accordance with the Planning Act 2016, both Temporary Local Planning Instruments will expire this year. Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation) expires on 6 April 2020 and Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 2 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation) expires on 29 May 2020. It is proposed to remake two TLPIs to reflect the provisions of the existing TLPIs in order to facilitate the temporary extension of the current waste activity use assessment provisions.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council make Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) as detailed in Attachment 1 to the report by the Manager, City Design, dated 10 January 2020.

B. That Council make Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 2 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) as detailed in Attachment 2 to the report by the Manager, City Design, dated 10 January 2020.

C. That Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) and Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 2 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) as detailed in Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 to the report by the Manager, City Design, dated 10 January 2020 be forwarded to the Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning, requesting the Minister approve the remaking of the TLPIs in accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of the Planning Act 2016 and the Minister’s Guidelines and Rules with an earlier effective day of 7 April 2020 in accordance with section 9(4) of the Planning Act 2016.

D. That Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) and Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 2 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) be forwarded to the Minister for Local Government, Racing and Multicultural Affairs, requesting the Minister approve the remaking of the TLPIs in accordance with the provisions of Section 90(B) of the Local Government Act 2009, as exceptional circumstances apply and it is in the public interest for Council to remake the TLPIs during or immediately after the caretaker period for local government elections (2020) .

RELATED PARTIES

State government

On 6 April 2018, the Honourable Cameron Dick MP, Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning made Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation) (cited as TLPI No. 1 / 2018) in accordance with section 27(3) of the Planning Act 2016. TLPI No. 1 / 2018 applies to the regionally significant economic area of Swanbank / New Chum. Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 2 of 2018 (Waste Activity Regulation) (cited as TLPI No. 2 / 2018) made by Council, applies to the area of Ebenezer / Willowbank / Jeebropilly. On 18 December 2019, officers from the Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning advised that Council may proceed to forward a proposal to the Minister to remake TLPI No. 1 / 2018.

The two TLPIs are identical, apart from their respective areas of influence. To ensure the continuity of existing waste activity use assessment provisions across the entire local government area, extension of both waste activity regulation TLPIs will be required.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

Background

Ipswich has experienced substantial growth in the volume of waste being received at various sites throughout the City, and this has in turn generated significant levels of concern in the community regarding waste industry operations, and has raised questions as to the need and appropriateness of the quantity of waste being disposed of in Ipswich.

The existence of former open cut mining voids located within the Ipswich local government area has resulted in the establishment of waste activities including landfills and compost manufacturing, particularly in the regional business and industry areas of Swanbank / New Chum and Ebenezer / Willowbank / Jeebropilly.

On 6 April 2018, the Honourable Cameron Dick MP, Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning made TLPI No. 1 / 2018. The intent of TLPI No. 1 / 2018 was to take urgent action to ensure that the regionally significant economic area of Swanbank / New Chum is appropriately regulated to protect existing, approved or planned residential and other sensitive receiving land uses from adverse impacts associated with waste activity uses.

Subsequently, Council made TLPI No. 2 / 2018 with an early effective day of 29 May 2018 to similarly regulate waste activity uses in the Ebenezer / Willowbank / Jeebropilly Waste Activity Area.

Each TLPI suspends and otherwise affects the operation of the provisions contained in the Ipswich Planning Scheme 2006 to the extent of matters outlined within each TLPI for each of their respective areas.

Purpose of Report

The duration of a TLPI under the Planning Act 2016 is two years from the effective day or such longer period as may be permitted by law or unless repealed sooner, and there is no power to extend the operation of a TLPI beyond the period stated. TLPI No. 1 / 2018 is due to expire on 6 April 2020 and TLPI No. 2 / 2018 is due to expire on 29 May 2020.

The process of preparing a new planning scheme for the Ipswich local government area has commenced, and once implemented, will appropriately address contemporary waste activity uses and their associated potential impacts. This will remove the need for the TLPIs.

To ensure continued application of the current waste activity provisions by Council until the adoption of the new planning scheme, it is proposed to remake the TLPIs to continue the regulation of waste activity uses in the Swanbank / New Chum and Ebenezer / Willowbank / Jeebropilly Waste Activity Areas as established by Temporary Local Planning Instruments No. 1 and No. 2 of 2018. This will also enable the current regulatory framework to continue over the 2020 election ‘caretaker period’ and the subsequent return to an elected council.

It is further proposed that the new TLPIs (refer to Attachment 1 - Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) and Attachment 2 – Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 2 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation)) take effect from 7 April 2020 for a currency period of two years, until 7 April 2022. The required material for the making of a TLPI is contained in the Statement of Reasons (Attachment 3 – Statement of Reasons, TLPI No. 1 / 2020 and Attachment 4 – Statement of Reasons, TLPI No. 2 / 2020), and is in accordance with the Planning Act 2016 and Minister’s Guidelines and Rules July 2017.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Planning Act 2016

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Alignment of waste activity regulation across all waste activity areas

In order to ensure continued consistency of assessment requirements for waste activities across the City, the commencement of TLPI No. 1 / 2020 and TLPI No. 2 / 2020 should occur simultaneously to provide the same currency period for all affected waste activity areas.

Timeframes and available Council meetings

The January Council meeting precedes the commencement of the caretaker period for the 2020 local government elections. The expiry date of TLPI No. 2 / 2018 falls shortly after the local government elections, on 29 May 2020, however the expiry date for TLPI No. 1 / 2018 is 6 April 2020. It is recommended that an early effective day of 7 April 2020 be requested for both remade TLPIs (in accordance with section 9(4) of the Planning Act 2016) to enable both TLPIs to apply until 7 April 2022.

Additionally, it is recommended that the TLPIs are forwarded to the Minister for Local Government, Racing and Multicultural Affairs, requesting that the Minister approve the remaking of the TLPIs in accordance with the provisions of Section 90(B) of the Local Government Act 2009, as exceptional circumstances apply and it is in the public interest for Council to remake the TLPIs during or immediately after the caretaker period for local government elections (2020).

The request will explain the need for continuity of the TLPIs (that the remade TLPIs continue the regulatory framework of the existing TLPIs), and that the current expiration date of TLPI No. 1 / 2018 (6 April 2020) falls only 8 days after the local government election, and does not allow sufficient time for a council meeting between the election date and the date of expiry of the TLPI. The request will also explain (by including the Statement of Reasons for each TLPI) that the decision to approve by exceptional circumstances is in the public interest, as it provides for the current regulatory framework to continue over the 2020 election ‘caretaker period’ and the subsequent return to an elected council.

Alternatively, if the Minister for Local Government, Racing and Multicultural Affairs should determine that there are insufficient grounds for the remaking of the TLPIs during the caretaker period for local government elections, once notice is received that the remaking of the TLPIs has been approved by the Minister for State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning, Council can consider the remaking of the TLPIs at the next available Council meeting (post local government elections).

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial or resource implications to Council relating to the adoption of new TLPIs for the Swanbank / New Chum and Ebenezer / Willowbank / Jeebropilly Waste Activity Areas.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

A temporary local planning instrument under the Planning Act 2016 suspends or otherwise affects the operation of the planning scheme. The making of a TLPI is to protect all or part of a local government area from adverse impacts in urgent or emergent circumstances, where the delay involved in amending the planning scheme would increase the risk. As a TLPI is not a planning scheme amendment and is temporary in nature, in accordance with the Planning Act 2016, there are no requirements for public consultation.

Notwithstanding, public consultation on the new draft planning scheme (which will incorporate contemporary development assessment provisions for waste activity uses) will occur at a later date, enabling comment and submissions from the community and waste industry.

Conclusion

It is recommended that Council adopt two remade TLPIs, being Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) as contained in Attachment 1 and Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 2 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) as contained in Attachment 2.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Draft Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 1 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) ⇩
2.	Draft Temporary Local Planning Instrument No. 2 of 2020 (Waste Activity Regulation) ⇩
3.	Statement of Reasons for TLPI No. 1 / 2020 ⇩
4.	Statement of Reasons for TLPI No. 2 / 2020 ⇩
5.	Minister's Guidelines and Rules (Chapter 3 - Minister's rules for making and amending a planning scheme policy (PSP) or temporary local planning instrument (TLPI) ⇩

David Fermer

Senior Planning Officer (Strategic)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Dannielle Owen

Manager, City Design

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 January

2020

Doc ID No: A6001695

ITEM: 22.22

SUBJECT: Draft SEQ Koala Conservation Strategy and Habitat Mapping

AUTHOR: Planning Officer (Strategic)

DATE: 13 January 2020

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the release of the draft South East Queensland Koala Conservation Strategy 2019-2024. The draft strategy has been prepared to guide management actions to retain viable koala populations and conserve and manage suitable habitat within South East Queensland (SEQ).

The draft strategy introduces a new planning framework for the koala underpinned by proposed new koala habitat mapping, identification of Koala Priority Areas and strict clearing controls.

There are a number of issues of concern and points of clarification that will need to be addressed by the State government prior to finalisation and implementation of the draft strategy and mapping. It is proposed that the matters identified in this report form the basis of a Council submission to the State government in response to the draft strategy. The proposed Koala Conservation Plan Map has also been reviewed for its implications for the Ipswich local government area. This information is not public and therefore forms a confidential attachment to this report.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That the report be received and the contents noted.

B. That the contents of the report by the Manager, City Design dated 13 January 2020 be used to inform a submission in response to the State government’s draft South East Queensland Koala Conservation Strategy 2019-2024.

RELATED PARTIES

The draft strategy and supporting habitat mapping has been reviewed by Council’s Environment and Sustainability Branch and Engineering, Health and Environment Branch, their input has been used to inform this report by the City Design Branch. Advance Ipswich Theme.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the environment

Background

Koala populations in South East Queensland (SEQ) have dramatically declined over the past decades. In response to community concern regarding the decline of the koala, the State government appointed a Koala Expert Panel (KEP) in July 2016 to provide recommendations on the most appropriate and realistic actions to address the decline in and ensure the persistence of, koala populations in the wild in South East Queensland. The KEP made six (6) recommendations with supporting actions. The State government’s response to the KEP report committed to implementing all six (6) recommendations.

On 8 December 2019, the State government released the draft South East Queensland Koala Conservation Strategy 2019-2024 (draft strategy) and associated proposed Koala Conservation Plan Map that will support the implementation of the strategy for public consultation (refer Attachment 1 ). The draft strategy outlines the proposed actions that respond to each of the recommendations of the KEP. The State government is seeking comments in response to the draft strategy by 31 January 2020. The formal public consultation period for the proposed Koala Conservation Plan Map closed on 22 December 2019 but the results of the consultation are not yet publicly available.

The draft strategy addresses the primary causes of koala decline including habitat loss, disease management, car strikes, and dog attacks. The primary intent of the draft strategy is to guide management actions across mapped habitat areas to retain viable koala populations and conserve and manage suitable habitat within SEQ. The draft strategy introduces a new planning framework for the koala underpinned by the proposed new mapping of koala habitat and the identification of Koala Priority Areas (KPA) with the proposal for strict clearing controls. These areas will be the focus for sustained habitat protection, habitat restoration, and threat mitigation, community partnerships, and recovering actions for koalas across SEQ.

Given the highly constrained timeframe imposed by the State government for the provision of comments on the draft mapping, officer comments only were able to be provided to the State government (refer Attachment 3) without a prior briefing to Council.

OVERVIEW OF DRAFT SOUTH EAST QUEENSLAND KOALA CONSERVATION STRATEGY
2019-2024

Aim of the draft strategy

The aim of the draft strategy is to:

1. Provide a safe environment for the community where risks associated with koala habitats are appropriately managed and clearing of vegetation and habitats are reduced as much as possible;

2. Identify, establish and enhance koala habitat and wildlife corridors to support koala populations, movement and dispersal;

3. Manage the impacts of clearing and development on the koala populations, in accordance with State’s and Council’s legislative and regulatory obligation responsibilities;

4. Outlining strategies to reduce threats to individual koalas including impacts from vehicle strike, dog attacks, predations and disease; and

5. Build community awareness of the value of koala conservation initiatives.

Proposed actions

The vision and targets set by the draft strategy are based on and respond to the recommendations of the Koala Expert Panel (KEP) and include six (6) priority areas for proposed action over the next five (5) years:

1. Strategic coordination – a strategic and coordinated approach to koala conservation;

2. Habitat protection – ensuring koala habitat is protected;

3. Habitat restoration for koalas – strategic and landscape-scale koala habitat restoration;

4. Threat management – coordinated threat reduction and koala population management;

5. Community engagement – strong community partnerships and engagement; and

6. Improved mapping, monitoring, research and reporting – targeted mapping, monitoring research and reporting.

Key targets

The draft strategy proposed targets for koala habitat, koala population and threat reduction for the life of the strategy as follows:

· ‘No net loss’ in koala habitat;

· Commencement of rehabilitation to restore 1000ha of cleared habitat in KPA in SEQ over the life of the strategy;

· No long term decline in koala population numbers in SEQ; and

· 25% reduction on injury and mortality across ten key road threat hotspots in SEQ where threat mitigation measures are implemented within the life of the strategy.

Key issues of concern or requiring further clarification

The following provides an overview of the key issues of concern or requiring further clarification that arise from the draft strategy:

· The proposed scale and breath of the proposed exemptions are of concern and have the potential to undermine the intent of the draft strategy and create confusion in the community regarding its intent versus practical application. In particular the proposed exemptions for fire management and essential management as defined in the Planning Regulations 2017 need to be further considered. Further clarification and discussion with local government is required regarding what “necessary” means in terms of actions necessary to protect infrastructure which is an undefined term. The fire break exemptions also allow clearing of 1.5 times the height of the nearest tree which in the case of a 30m tree could result in a fire break of 45 metres. In some conditions this could completely sever habitat corridors and create significant edge effects.

· Removing the two exemptions for 5ha in an urban area, and urban area purpose are a significant step forward in providing better protection and recognition for koalas in urban areas. However, it is concerning that these could only apply to koala habitat, while other matters continue to be exempt. These two exemptions combined have had a significant impact on biodiversity in SEQ.

· The ability to achieve the State government’s commitment of ‘no net loss’ of Koala habitat is questioned given the clearing exemptions proposed. It is unclear whether the government proposes to provide compensatory planting for the vegetation cleared as a result of the noted exemptions.

· The compliance regime to enforce these provisions needs to be suited to the intent of the provisions, and the risk to the outcomes sought.

The following matters regarding threat management require further clarifications:

(a) Funding and resourcing

The koala expert panel recommendation for threat management indicates the need to “resource and implement a new coordinated threat management strategy”. The strategy outlines a number of different components that will be addressed but lacks specific detail regarding implementation. For example, it is unclear whether it will be one threat management strategy or a series of actions plans. It is not clear how all of the threat management components will be resourced. Most of the activities referenced in the draft strategy are funding dependent or dependent on a coordinating state officer to work with other stakeholders but it is currently unclear whether either of these will be available. For example, the biggest threats to koalas in the Ipswich area are discrete road kill hotspots on both the Cunningham and Warrego Highways but have not been addressed in the draft strategy.

(b) Local threat mapping

It is considered appropriate threat mapping undertaken by local government be incorporated in the draft strategy. In addition, any partnerships established need to be between local governments and Department of Environment and Science (DES), and also include Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) if they are to achieve impactful outcomes.

The draft strategy mentions threat reduction at ten sites across SEQ. However, it is not clear where these areas are and requires further discussion with local governments.

(c) Fauna sensitive road design manual

It is acknowledged that updating and modernising the fauna infrastructure guidelines would have benefit, however the apparent shortcoming of the previous manual are from an implementation perspective particularly funding required to implement and maintain appropriate infrastructure.

(d) Koala hospital data

Currently koala hospital data is not readily available and easily accessible by the general public. While appreciative of the privacy concerns regarding dog attacks on private land, this causes a number of issues. In particular for Commonwealth referrals under the Environmental Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC) where proponents are required to provide information on threats. Currently many proponents rely on crowd sourced online maps to find data on threat, however these are heavily flawed. While a single point of truth for all koala records is an excellent idea, a number of major issues could be solved simply by making hospital data available more publically.

(e) Reducing dog attacks

Changes to local laws are complex and likely to be met with opposition from the community, in particular relating to dog control. Given the proposed KPAs within Ipswich are in rural areas where dogs may also perform a role on a property, this is likely to be more difficult to resolve. In addition, the resourcing required to enforce any proposed changes requires careful consideration. Any desired local law changes should be targeted to each KPA and work within that landscape as each are very different. Further clarification and discussion with local government is required prior to finalisation of the draft strategy and associated regulatory changes. It should be noted that limitations on dog ownership (be that type of domestic dog, or restrictions on domestic dogs) is extremely difficult to regulate, to the point of almost being unenforceable.

Relationship with Commonwealth Legislation

The relationship between the draft koala strategy and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 remains unclear. Prior to finalisation of the draft strategy the following needs to be clarified:

1. Can approval under commonwealth legislation override a clearing prohibition under the proposed draft strategy?

2. Where commonwealth legislation can override the draft strategy, is the override applied from the time of referral, controlled action decision or formal approval? For example, are Commonwealth referrals currently undergoing assessment and not having formal approval by the time the strategy is implemented still able to override the prohibition?

3. If the commonwealth legislation can override the state government changes, is there any risk that proponents could circumvent the clearing prohibitions within a KPA by referring and receiving Commonwealth approval for actions that would not have required EPBC approval previously?

4. How does the draft koala strategy apply when an action has been referred to the Commonwealth but has been deemed “not a controlled action”?

DRAFT KOALA CONSERVATION PLAN MAP:

The draft SEQ Koala Conservation Strategy 2019-2024 indicates the State government is committed to implementing a single koala habitat map for SEQ intended to underpin major reforms to the Queensland planning framework to ensure the protection of koala habitat in KPA in SEQ. The proposed Koala Conservation Plan map has been produced using modelling based on a combination of biophysical measures, suitable vegetation and koala occurrence records (refer Attachment 2). The koala habitat within the identified KPA is intended as the best habitat suitable for sustaining populations of koalas. KPA are large, connected areas that contain both koala habitat and restoration areas that are intended to focus efforts for habitat protection, restoration (and offsetting) and threat mitigation actions of the draft strategy to areas deemed to have the highest likelihood of success for koala conservation. The State government intends to implement regulatory amendments to ensure KPA have the strictest clearing controls and are the focus for restoration actions to enhance existing protected habitat. Regulatory amendments will also protect koala habitat that is outside KPA. Development will only be exempt from the controls on clearing koala habitat if it meets one of the specified exemptions.

Changes to Planning Legislation

The draft strategy outlines the proposed nature of the reforms to the Queensland planning framework however the specific amendments have not been released for public consultation. The key planning provisions of KPA include:

· Prohibiting the clearing of koala habitat areas in a KPA (unless otherwise meeting specified exempt criteria – clearing for a development footprint up to 500m² and clearing for a range of purposes including firebreaks around buildings and structures). This applies regardless of whether a koala habitat area is in or outside the Urban Footprint of the South East Queensland Regional Plan 2017.

· Local government assessment of development impacts in a KPA where development is proposed that does not involve clearing against new assessment benchmarks to be included in the Planning Regulations 2017, to ensure other conservation outcomes such as habitat quality protection and safe koala movement area achieved.

· Protection of koala habitat in SEQ outside of KPA. It is proposed the State government assess development applications that involve clearing of koala habitat outside the KPA with consideration to the ‘avoid, minimise and offset’ hierarchy (with similar exemptions to those allowed in a KPA to apply). This assessment is currently a role of local government.

· A new code in the State Development Assessment Provisions will be introduced to provide the criteria for assessing clearing of koala habitat areas that are outside of KPA and for an extractive industry in a key resource area in a KPA. This code has not been released for public consultation.

· The Queensland Environmental Offsets Policy will be amended to reflect the proposed changes to the planning framework making the State government responsible for imposing offset conditions for koala habitat in SEQ. In the interim, amendments are proposed to be made to enable significant residual impacts on koala habitat outside a KPA to be offset.

Summary of draft mapping submission

The proposed Koala Conservation Plan map was reviewed for its implications for the Ipswich local government area. Given the highly constrained timeframe for provision of comments to the State government on the draft mapping, officer comments were provided (refer Attachment 3) without a briefing to Council. The officer review identified significant issues and inconsistencies with the proposed mapping as summarised below:

· The proposed Koala Conservation Plan map significantly reduces the extent of the current state koala habitat mapping across Ipswich. There has been no field validation of the areas to be removed.

· The proposed Koala Conservation Plan map includes additional hectares of koala habitat in Ipswich that has already been approved and cleared of vegetation. This additional habitat is distributed across areas and not focused in any one location.

· Some of the proposed koala habitat is located outside of KPA which are currently identified under the current State mapping as being high value and medium value koala bushland habitat. Under the Planning Regulation 2017 clearing this type of habitat is prohibited. With the removal of these areas from the KPA there will no longer be a prohibition on clearing. Similarly, some of the areas proposed outside of KPA are located in critical areas of known koala populations, east of Purga, Swanbank (east) and south of Mount Mort.

· Some of the habitat areas that are proposed to be removed are justifiable on the basis that the land does not have koala habitat values such as where new housing development has occurred owing to the State mapping having not been updated since its release in 2010.

· The proposed mapping contains many inconsistencies with contiguous vegetation being part mapped as a Koala Habitat Area while other parts of the same patch of bushland are mapped as not having any koala habitat value. This results in one area being included in the mapping and subject to clearing prohibition and adjoining areas with the same vegetation not being mapped and subject to clearing prohibition.

There appears to be inconsistencies in the mapping methodology applied to the Ipswich local government area. It would appear that a policy decision has been made to exclude significant areas of potential koala habitat in the Ipswich local government area including major inconsistencies and discontinuation of core koala habitat area and KPAs. A key reason that appears to explain the issues identified above relates to the methodology that produced the map which uses State regional ecosystems and high value regrowth mapping that does not reflect the full extent of ecosystems on ground.

Areas the subject of detailed master planning by Ipswich City Council have not been recognised in the mapping. It is therefore possible that significant areas of South Redbank, Swanbank (East), Walloon, Thagoona, and Chuwar that are zoned or designated for urban development will be subject to the provisions of the State Planning Policy and Planning Regulations 2017 after conservation, recreation and green space has been excised.

WHERE TO FROM HERE:

It is proposed that the matters identified in this report form the basis of a Council submission to the State government in response to the draft South East Queensland Conservation Strategy 2019-2024.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Planning Act 2016

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The risk of not providing the State government with a submission in response to the proposed draft SEQ Koala Conservation Strategy 2019-2024 include:

· Diminishing the effectiveness of the new SEQ koala planning framework to protect koala habitat.

· Reducing the ability of the new SEQ koala planning framework to contribute to protecting the koala population in Ipswich.

· Lack of public confidence in new koala mapping.

· Negative community perception of inaction by Council on koala conservation.

Providing a submission in response to the draft strategy will contribute to improvement of the accuracy and effectiveness of the proposed state koala habitat mapping and strategy prior to its commencement.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no direct financial/resource implications in providing a submission on the draft strategy. However, the implementation of the proposed mapping and draft strategy may require additional officers and resources from a number of Council environmental and planning teams to undertake further comprehensive analysis and the implementation of any new requirements.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Officers from Council’s Planning and Regulatory Services and Infrastructure and Environment Departments have been consulted during the preparation of this report and confer with the recommendations.

Conclusion

It is proposed that the contents of this report form the basis of a Council submission to the State government in response to the draft SEQ Koala Conservation Strategy 2019-2024.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Draft South East Queensland Koala Conservation Strategy 2019-2024 ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
2.	Proposed Koala Conservation Plan Map (Ipswich extract)
3.	Officer submission on proposed Koala Conservation plan map

Faezeh Sphikas

Planning Officer (Strategic)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett Davey

Development Planning Manager

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

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 January

2020

Doc ID No: A5870743

ITEM: 23.23

SUBJECT: Review of the Domestic Waste Collection Policy, Temporary Cancellation of the Domestic Refuse and Recycling Collection Services Policy and Use of Driveways as Turnaround Areas for Domestic Waste Collection Vehicles Policy

AUTHOR: Senior Business Advisor

DATE: 29 October 2019

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning a review of the Domestic Waste Collection Policy, Temporary Cancellation of the Domestic Refuse and Recycling Collection Services Policy, and Use of Driveways as Turnaround Areas for Domestic Waste Collection Vehicles Policy.

Recommendations

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That the policy titled ‘Domestic Waste Collection Policy’, as detailed in Attachment 2 to the report by the Senior Business Advisor dated 29 October 2019, as per Resolution No. 06.02 of the Health and Sport Committee of 20 January 1998, adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting on 28 January 1998, be repealed.

B. That the policy titled ‘Domestic Waste Collection Policy’, as detailed in Attachment 3 to the report by the Acting Ipswich Waste Services Manager dated 29 October 2019, be adopted.

C. That the policy titled ‘Temporary Cancellation of the Domestic Refuse and Recycling Collection Service Policy’, as detailed in Attachment 4 to the report by the Senior Business Advisor dated 29 October 2019, as per Resolution No. 4 of the City Management and Finance Committee of 23 June 2015, adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting on 30 June 2015, be repealed.

D. That the policy titled ‘Use of Driveways as Turnaround Areas for Domestic Waste Collection Vehicles Policy’, as detailed in Attachment 5 to the report by the Senior Business Advisor dated 29 October 2019, as per Resolution No. 3 of the City Management and Finance Committee of 12 February 2013, adopted at the Council Ordinary Meeting on 19 February 2013, be repealed.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no declaration of conflicts of interest.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

On 12 March 2019, the Environment Committee considered a report on a review of the Domestic Waste Collection Policy and the Temporary Cancellation of the Domestic Refuse and Recycling Collection Services Policy (refer Attachment 1). From the report, Council resolved that a community consultation process be undertaken to seek community feedback on the proposed changes to the Domestic Waste Collection Policy particularly in relation to removal of the ability for properties in excess of 8 hectares to be exempt from the waste collection service. Further discussions have suggested that the Domestic Waste Collection Policy can be updated prior to the community consultation process but removal of the
8 hectare exemption should be considered after the community consultation process is undertaken.

The review of the Domestic Waste Collection Policy and the Temporary Cancellation of the Domestic Refuse and Recycling Collection Services Policy found that both policies are significantly outdated and do not clearly articulate the required waste management obligations imposed on Council.

Since the March 2019 Environment Committee report was considered by Council, it has also been identified that the policy statements within the Use of Driveways as Turnaround Areas for Domestic Waste Collection Vehicles Policy should be moved into the Domestic Waste Collection Policy. No amendments are required to the former policy statements within the Use of Driveways as Turnaround Areas for Domestic Waste Collection Vehicles Policy.

The following attachments detail the suggested amendments to the Domestic Waste Collection policy:

· Attachment 2 is the current adopted Domestic Waste Collection Policy;

· Attachment 3 is the current adopted Domestic Waste Collection Policy with the suggested changes in tracked changes;

· Attachment 4 is the proposed policy in the updated corporate policy format;

· Attachment 5 is the current Temporary Cancellation of the Domestic Refuse and Recycling Collection Services policy; and

· Attachment 6 is the current Use of Driveways as Turnaround Areas for Domestic Waste Collection Vehicles Policy.

The following amendments are proposed including updates to current legal requirements and terminology as follows:

Domestic Waste Collection policy

· Formally designate the waste collection area in the policy. This is practically done through Council’s mapping system and would exclude properties without occupiable dwellings and properties that cannot be serviced.

· Recognise the rated household waste service utility charge as an access or availability charge rather than a direct fee for service.

· Provide guidance on how the rated household waste service utility charge is applied in relation to unoccupied and uninhabitable dwellings.

· Change the term "Certificate of Occupancy" to "Final Inspection".

· Transfer the policy statements within the Use of Driveways as Turnaround Areas for Domestic Waste Collection Vehicles Policy into the Domestic Waste Collection Policy.

Temporary Cancellation policy

· Repeal the Temporary Cancellation of the Domestic Refuse and Recycling Collection Services policy. This policy will be no longer required with the adoption of the new Domestic Waste Policy.

Use of Driveways as Turnaround Areas for Domestic Waste Collection Vehicles Policy

· Repeal the Use of Driveways as Turnaround Areas for Domestic Waste Collection Vehicles Policy. This policy will be no longer required with the adoption of the new Domestic Waste Policy.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Environmental Protection Regulation 2008

Public Health Act 2005

Waste Reduction and Recycling Regulation 2011

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There have been no adverse risks identified from the proposed changes to the Domestic Waste Collection Policy.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial or resource implications from the proposed changes to the Domestic Waste Collection policy.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

There are no changes proposed that would impact on the community. The proposed changes to the Domestic Waste Collection policy simply better articulate current practice.

Conclusion

A review has been undertaken of Council’s Domestic Waste Collection, Temporary Cancellation of the Domestic Refuse and Recycling Collection Services, and Use of Driveways as Turnaround Areas for Domestic Waste Collection Vehicles policies. The review has indicated that all three policies could be amalgamated into one policy. The proposed policy in the new policy format does not provide any changes to current practices.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Environment Committee Report March 2019 - Review of Domestic Waste Collection and Temporary Cancellation of Refuse and Recycling Collection Service Policies ⇩
1.1	Previous report attachment: Domestic Waste Collection Policy - current version ⇩
1.2	Previous report attachment: Suggested amendments to current Domestic Waste Collection Policy tracked changes ⇩
1.3	Previous report attachment: Proposed Domestic Waste Collection Policy ⇩
1.4	Previous report attachment: Temporary Cancellation of the Domestic Refuse and Recycling Collection Services policy ⇩
2.	Current Domestic Waste Collection Policy ⇩
3.	Current Domestic Waste Collection Policy: Suggested Track Changes ⇩
4.	Proposed Domestic Waste Collection Policy ⇩
5.	Current Temporary Cancellation Policy ⇩
6.	Current Use of Driveways as Turnaround Areas for Domestic Waste Collection Vehicles policy ⇩

Kay Clarke

Senior Business Advisor

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Kaye Cavanagh

Manager, Environment and Sustainability

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

Council

Meeting Agenda

28 January

2020

Doc ID No: A5974464

ITEM: 24.24

SUBJECT: Addressing Congestion, Cross River Connectivity and Network Resilience in the Ipswich City Centre - Strategic and Preliminary Business Case

AUTHOR: Principal Transport Planner

DATE: 13 January 2020

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the development of a business case Addressing Congestion, Cross River Connectivity and Network Resilience in the Ipswich City Centre, also known in the community as ‘Norman Street Bridge’. The business case has been developed in accordance with the Building Queensland Business Case Framework, with the Strategic and Preliminary stages (ie. stages one and two) complete. The Preliminary Business Case recommends two new river crossing options to be taken forward for further consideration in the third and final stage – the detailed business case.

Recommendation/s

That the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolve:

A. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) note and endorse the findings and recommendations of the Strategic Business Case and the Preliminary Business Case.

B. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) support the submission of Option 8 for assessment under Council’s new ‘Regional Significant Project Prioritisation Process’.

C. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) support the production of a newsletter and visualisation video based on the latest information from the Preliminary Business Case.

D. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) support the submission of the Strategic Business Case and the Preliminary Business Case to the Department of Transport and Main Roads.

E. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) support the submission of the Strategic Business Case and the Preliminary Business Case to Infrastructure Australia.

F. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) seek funding and support from the Queensland and Australian Governments to undertake the Detailed Business Case stage.

G. That Council (Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council) support the commencement of the Detailed Business Case to confirm the final preferred option.

RELATED PARTIES

There have been no conflict of interests declared for the development of the Strategic and Preliminary Business Cases.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

Background

Council’s transport and land use planning framework includes a proposed new bridge crossing of the Bremer River linking North Ipswich and East Ipswich in the vicinity of Norman Street, this is known in the community as the ‘Norman Street Bridge’. The intent of the bridge is to take non-essential through traffic out of the core of the Ipswich City Centre (refer Figure 1 below). The bridge and its benefits are broadly understood by the community.

Figure 1 – Norman Street Bridge Stage 1

This new crossing was identified as a ‘catalytic project’ in the Ipswich Regional Centre Strategy (2008) to relieve traffic congestion in (and thus promote revitalisation of) the Ipswich City Centre. As such, Norman Street Bridge is seen as a key infrastructure driver for the future economic and civic success of the Ipswich City Centre as a ‘Principal Regional Activity Centre’ under the South-East Queensland Regional Plan.

In June 2011, Council endorsed the framework and objectives of the ‘Ipswich City Centre Orbital Road System’ (Orbital Road System) as a long term solution to address increases in cross-city travel demands as a result of forecast growth. The Norman Street Bridge forms a key section of the Orbital Road System.

As part of its endorsement of the Orbital Road System, Council approved more detailed ‘corridor’ planning to be undertaken on various sections of the Orbital Road System. The Norman Street Bridge and Jacaranda Street Extension Feasibility Study was hence undertaken in 2011 and was a joint commission by Council and the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR).

The strategic delivery process for the Norman Street Bridge was outlined in 2016 as follows:

At its Ordinary Meeting on 26 July 2016, Council endorsed the preparation of a business case. The State Government advised that the business case should follow Building Queensland’s (BQ) Business Case Development Framework (BCDF) to ensure future funding submissions aligned with their requirements. The business case framework consists of three stages:

1. Strategic Business Case (SBC);

2. Preliminary Business Case (PBC); and

3. Detailed Business Case (DBC).

Stage one (SBC) focused on the problem definition and the benefits sought and identified potential options, while Stage two (PBC) has focused on assessing the long list of options and has recommended a short-list of options to be taken forward for further more detailed considering in Stage three (DBC). The end of Stage two, represents a major decision gateway to proceed to Stage three.

Current Status

The development of the business case process is well underway with Stages one and two now complete. The SBC and the PBC were prepared in accordance with the BQ framework, and the PBC was recently completed in December 2019. Both business cases have been endorsed by the Project Steering Group which consists of both Council and State Government officers. This endorsement has supported a recommendation to progress the PBC to Stage three – Detailed Business Case.

Strategic Business Case – Addressing Congestion, Cross River Connectivity and Network Resilience in the Ipswich City Centre (November 2017 - Refer Attachment 1)

The overall findings of the SBC were as follows:

Problem definition

1. Congestion in the Ipswich City Centre, a SEQ Principal regional activity centre, is restricting successful revitalisation and economic development.

2. The single Ipswich City Centre Bremer River crossing is compromising connectivity, population growth, and broader economic growth.

3. Limited capacity and service life of the existing Ipswich City Centre/North Ipswich cross-river link (David Trumpy Bridge and approaches) compromises the augmentation needed for traffic growth and mode shift.

4. Lack of network redundancy during incidents or major events (such as floods) lead to network failure.

The problem definition was used to define the benefits sought, the strategic response and define the long list of options in the SBC. The long list of options developed in the SBC are outlined in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Long list of Options and alignment with State Infrastructure Priorities (SIP)

The long list of options have been driven by the need to undertake reform, better use and improve existing infrastructure assets before proposing new infrastructure. The abovementioned options have been assessed in Stage two and the PBC has recommended a set of short-list options to carry into the DBC.

Preliminary Business Case – Addressing Congestion, Cross River Connectivity and Network Resilience in the Ipswich City Centre (December 2019 - Refer Attachment 2 - Executive Summary)

The PBC was developed from 2018 to 2019 and it calculated that the existing problem is costing the Ipswich City Centre approximately $34 million dollars per year. The PBC also assessed the long list of options (ie. the nine options identified in the SBC), with two options short-listed to progress into the Detailed Business. The short listed options are:

· Option 8 - A new all modes, inner-city Bremer River crossing at the Norman Street location. With staging options including:

- 4 Lane Bridge; or

- 2 Lane Bridge

· Option 9 – New northbound and southbound bridges adjacent to, but clear of, the existing David Trumpy Bridge to service pedestrian, cycle and bus movements.

The PBC developed both options 8 and 9 further to determine the cost estimate, the Net Present Value (NPV) and the overall Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) for both options. The results of the economic analysis identified Option 8 to be the most viable option with a Net Present Value of $188.40 million and a Benefit Cost Ratio of 1.97. The overall results are shown in Table 2:

Table 2: Economic Analysis Results of Options 8 & 9

The BCR for Option 8 (4 lane bridge) showed that for every dollar spent nearly two dollars will be expected in return. Option 8 performs significantly better than Option 9, however both options will be taken forward to the Detailed Business Case, in accordance with Building Queensland Business Case Framework requirements, for a more detailed assessment and confirmation of the preferred option. The current economic assessment has only monetised the directly attributable traffic benefit of the options (i.e. travel time savings and crash reduction), and are considered to provide a conservatively low assessment of the potential overall project benefits.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and recommendations are consistent with the Ipswich City Centre Revitalisation Strategy - catalytic project 8 and the City of Ipswich Transport Plan 2016 iGO Action R9 – Develop a detailed Business Case for the Norman Street Bridge to assist with securing funding for its construction. Council’s Transformational Project #18 ‘Develop a Prioritisation and Advocacy Framework for Regionally Significant Projects’ has introduced a new prioritisation process for the verification and assessment of projects which are considered to be regionally significant. It is envisaged that the outcomes of the PBC will deliver a regionally significant project and as such it is intended to submit Option 8 through this process to confirm regional significance. ‘Regionally Significant Project’ status for Option 8 will allow advocacy activities to be coordinated, precise and dynamic and produce better outcomes for the potential delivery of the bridge.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Endorsement of the Strategic and Preliminary Business Cases will allow Council to formally adopt the results and recommendations of the first two stages of the business cases and to confirm funding and support towards the final stage of the business case process.

Without endorsement Council will be unable to seek funding and acquire support from the Queensland and Australian Governments towards the detailed business case and the future construction of the project and the project will not be realised.

To date, Council has planned to deliver the project via an investment partnership with the Australian and Queensland Governments with a proportional arrangement similar to other funding arrangements used for the delivery of the Gold Coast Light Rail and Morten Bay Rail Line projects.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The cost for delivery of Option 8 (four lane bridge and associated road upgrades), has been estimated at $372 million. Building Queensland had previously advised that the costs of completing a Detailed Business Case would be in the order of $2.5 million. However, this estimate needs to be tested in the market. Council will require a contribution from the Queensland Government to secure adequate funding towards the DBC, and should also seek a contribution from the Australian Government.

In January and May 2019, Council wrote to the Department of Transport and Main Roads, seeking a contribution of $750,000 towards the DBC. However, TMR advised that the Department was unable to provide a contribution at that point in time. Therefore, in order to secure funding towards the DBC, it is critical that the Strategic and Preliminary Business Cases are submitted to the Queensland and Australian Government for assessment and support towards the project.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The Strategic and Preliminary Business Cases have been guided by a Project Steering Group (PSG) including the General Manager (Infrastructure and Environment), General Manager (Planning and Regulatory Services), Infrastructure Planning Manager and TMR’s Metropolitan District Manager for Planning and a Technical Working Group (TWG) made up of Council and TMR officers.

Project Steering Group and Technical Work Group Meetings were held on the following dates:

· TWG Meeting – Investment Logic Mapping Workshop (26 October 2017)

· PSG Meeting - Project Charter and Scope and findings (12 December 2017)

· TWG Meeting - Option Shortlisting Workshop (8 March 2018)

· TWG Meeting - Risk Workshop (17 May 2018)

· TWG Meeting – Transport Demand Forecast (26 July 2018)

· PSG Meeting 2 – PBC findings and conclusions (5 December 2019)

The project team also consulted with the following internal stakeholders for the production of the PBC:

· Environment and Sustainability Branch

· Finance Branch

· City Design Branch

· Performance Branch

· Economic and Community Development Branch

External Consultation

Council has also consulted with the Department of Transport and Main Roads via Metropolitan Region.

Public consultation was also undertaken for the Norman Street Bridge and Jacaranda Street Extension Feasibility Study (2013).

Conclusion

The Strategic and Preliminary Business Cases have been completed and are ready to be considered by Council for final endorsement. The Preliminary Business Case has recommended Options 8 and 9 to be taken forward into the Detailed Business Case to determine the preferred option. The Project Steering Committee has endorsed both the Strategic and Preliminary Business Cases and has supported a recommendation to progress the Preliminary Business Case to third and final stage – Detailed Business Case. Funding support is now required from the Queensland and Australian Governments to commence the Detailed Business Case.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Addressing Congestion, Cross River Connectivity and Network Resilience in the Ipswich City Centre - Strategic Business Case - Final ⇩
2.	Ipswich City Centre Cross River Connectivity - Preliminary Business Case - Final Executive Summary ⇩

Berto Santana

Principal Transport Planner

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Mary Torres

Infrastructure Strategy and Planning Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Tony Dileo

Manager Infrastructure Strategy

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Charlie Dill

General Manager - Infrastructure and Environment

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

1.	Community Donations - December 2019 - Report ⇩
2.	Community Donations - December 2019 - Recipient Type ⇩

1.	Advocacy for Regionally Significant Projects Policy ⇩
2.	DRAFT Regionally Significant Project Prioritisation Procedure ⇩

1.	Committee Report titled ‘City Heart Cabs Program’, Item No. 1 of the Communities Committee No. 2019(12) of 3 December 2019 ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
2.	Confidential Attachment

1.	Lease - Pine Mountain Rural Fire Service - 841-855 Pine Mountain Road Pine Mountain ⇩
2.	Current Title Search - Lot 2 on SP103268 ⇩
3.	Lease A on SP130864 ⇩

1.	Report to Governance Committee of 14 May 2019 ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
2.	Confidential Background Paper 1
3.	Confidential Background Paper 2

	CONFIDENTIAL
1.	Framework for Development Applications and Related Activites Policy
2.	13980 Request for Tender Evaluation Report.pdf

	CONFIDENTIAL
1.	RFQ 14176 Asset Valuation- Land, Building and Infrastructure Assets (Revised Scope)
2.	Quote for Original Scope - Cardno QLD Pty Ltd - RFQ 14176
3.	Quote for Original Scope - Jones Lang LaSelle Public Sector Valuations Pty Ltd - RFQ 14176 - Part A
4.	Quote for Original Scope - Jones Lang LaSelle Public Sector Valuations Pty Ltd - RFQ 14176 - Part B
5.	Quote for Revised Scope - Cardno (QLD) Pty Ltd - RFQ 14176
6.	Quote for Revised Scope - Jones Lang LaSelle Public Sector Valuations Pty Ltd - RFQ 14176 - Part A
7.	Quote for Revised Scope - Jones Lang LaSelle Public Sector Valuations Pty Ltd - RFQ 14176 - Part B
8.	Evaluation Report - RFQ 14176 Asset Valuation - Land, Building and Infrastructure Assets
9.	Evaluation Matrix - RFQ 14176 Asset Valuation - Land, Building and Infrastructure Assets

	CONFIDENTIAL
1.	Evaluation Report
2.	Procurement Plan
3.	Request for Tender
4.	Tender Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Plan
5.	Conformance and Compliance report
6.	Evaluation Committee's consolidated notes

1.	Tender Evaluation and Probity Plan ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
2.	Road Realignment & Signalisation - Marsden Parade, Ipswich Contract No. 13087 Evaluation Report

1.	2017 Heads of Agreement ⇩
2.	Brisbane Lions Constitution ⇩

1.	Tender Consideration Plan ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
2.	Service Agreements Term of Engagement Summary
3.	Service Agreements Current Approved Expiry Date Summary

1.	Summary Report No. 19 ⇩
2.	Summary Report No. 20 ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
3.	Executive Report No. 9
4.	Executive Report No. 10

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme

Purpose of Report/Background

Legal/Policy Basis

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme

Purpose of Report/Background

Legal/Policy Basis

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme

Purpose of Report/Background

Legal/Policy Basis

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme

Purpose of Report/Background

Legal/Policy Basis

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme

Purpose of Report/Background

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme

Purpose of Report/Background

Legal/Policy Basis

8.1.7 As provided by Section 210(1) of the Local Government Regulation Council will appoint one of the external independent members of its Audit and Risk Management Committee to be Chairperson.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme

Purpose of Report/Background

Legal/Policy Basis

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Conclusion

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme

Purpose of Report/Background