Item No.	Item Title	Page No.
1	**Cameron Park - Swifts Leagues Club Ltd	17
2	Ipswich Central to Springfield Central (I2S) Public Transport Corridor: Strategic Assessment and Infrastructure Australia Stage 1 Submission	77
3	iGO Road Safety Action Plan	87
4	Adoption of the Ipswich Nature Centre Masterplan	99
5	White Rock-Spring Mountain Conservation Estate Master Plan 2020-2040	111
6	Landholder Partnerships Program - Review Recommendation	116
7	Review of Local Disaster Management Plan 2020	163
8	**Proposed New Sub Lease over Freehold Land for Community Purposes to Y-Care - South East Queensland Inc. trading as YMCA Social Impact - 7003 Parkland Drive Springfield Central	166
9	Proposed Trustee Lease over Trust Land for Recreation Purposes - Queensland Rugby Football League Limited - 43 The Terrace North Ipswich	176
10	Community Donations Report	332
11	Amendment to Delegation to CEO	338
12	**Contract for Urban Heat Island Study with Griffith University	587
13	Covid-19 Stimulus Grants - Project Status	592
14	**Demographic Information System and “Living in Ipswich” Liveability Survey	604
15	Ipswich Waste Services January - March 2020 Quarterly Report	608
16	Community Donation Requests Received in June 2020	630
17	Urban Development Institute of Australia- Proposed Memorandum of Understanding with Ipswich City Council	635
18	**Extension to Contract with RSPCA for Pound Services	643
19	Community Cat Program Proposal	648
20	Court Action Status Report	760
21	Exercise Of Delegation Report	767
22	Business Transformational Project #9 Policies - Infrastructure and Environment Department	777
23	Conflicts of Interest Policy	787
24	Motions for 2020 Local Government Association of Queensland Conference	792
25	Garage Sale Trail 2020	796

General Purposes Committee NO. 3

21 July 2020

AGENDA

1. **Cameron Park - Swifts Leagues Club Ltd

This is a report concerning the tenure of Swifts Leagues Club Ltd (Swifts) at Cameron Park and the consideration of possible options regarding the future of the facility. Swifts currently occupy part of the park under a lease with Council, which is described as Lease A in Lot 169 on RP24111 on SP147837. The lease commenced on 6 September 2001 for a twenty (20) year term with two (2) by ten (10) year options and Swifts have expressed an interest in purchasing the land and facility that they currently occupy from Council. This is a report requesting the repeal of a previous decision adopted at the Council Special Meeting of 27 June 2019.

Recommendation

A. That Council’s previous decision adopted at the Council Special Meeting of 27 June 2019, be repealed.

B. That Council receive this report and provide its direction on one of the options presented, being:

1. Retain the Land

2. Direct Disposal to Swifts

3. Disposal to Swifts following Community Consultation

2. Ipswich Central to Springfield Central (I2S) Public Transport Corridor: Strategic Assessment and Infrastructure Australia Stage 1 Submission

Council has identified the Ipswich Central to Springfield Central Public Transport Corridor (I2S Corridor) project as being a high priority Regionally Significant Project for the City. Over the past six months Council has been progressing and has now finalised a Strategic Assessment for the I2S Corridor. A Strategic Assessment is the first stage in the Building Queensland Business Case Development Framework. The I2S Corridor Strategic Assessment is presented to Council for noting in conjunction with an associated Infrastructure Australia (IA) Stage One submission.

The Strategic Assessment provides a compelling case and time imperative for the development of the I2S Corridor across transport, land use, and social outcomes. The report recommends four options to be taken forward to the Options Assessment Stage (the next stage in the business case process): heavy rail, light rail, trackless trams and bus rapid transit.

The next steps for this project is for Council to submit the Strategic Assessment to the State and Federal Governments and to commence advocacy for support and funding to progress this project to the Options Assessment Stage.

Recommendation

A. That the findings and recommendations of the I2S Corridor Strategic Assessment be received and noted.

B. That Council note that following Council consideration of the Strategic Assessment, it will be submitted to the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads for assessment.

C. That Council note that following Council consideration of the Strategic Assessment, Council will make an Infrastructure Australia Stage One submission under the Infrastructure Australia Assessment Framework.

D. That Council note the I2S Corridor will be the subject of a targeted advocacy campaign by Council to attract State and Federal support to progress the project to the Options Assessment stage of the Business Case Development Framework.

3. iGO Road Safety Action Plan

This is a report concerning the development of the iGO Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP), a key deliverable of iGO – The City of Ipswich Transport Plan. The iGO RSAP has been prepared for Council and its road safety partners to reduce road trauma in the Ipswich region in a targeted and collaborative way.

Recommendation

That Council resolve:

A. That the iGO Road Safety Action Plan and Summary Report – as detailed in Attachments 1 and 2 of the report by the Team Lead (Transport and Traffic) dated 25 May 2020, be adopted.

B. That the Chief Executive Officer and Executive Leadership Team communicate and promote the outcomes and key messages of the iGO Road Safety Action Plan with the Ipswich community and other stakeholders.

C. That the iGO Road Safety Action Plan and Summary Report be sent to the Department of Transport and Main Roads, Queensland Police Service, Queensland Fire and Emergency Services, Queensland Health and Department of Education for acknowledgment and support.

D. That Council officers, as delegated by the Chief Executive Officer, be authorised to commence implementing the iGO Road Safety Action Plan.

4. Adoption of the Ipswich Nature Centre Masterplan

This is a report concerning the adoption of the Queens Park Nature Centre and Discovery Hub Masterplan for the Ipswich Nature Centre. The Masterplan proposes an extensive and staged upgrade to improve the Nature Centre’s functionality, the user experience, and add to its draw as a major tourist destination for the City of Ipswich especially the Ipswich CBD.

A report was presented to Environment Committee No. 2019(02) of 19 February 2019 (Attachment 1). The Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolved:

· That consideration of the Ipswich Nature Centre Masterplan as detailed in Attachment A to the report by the Planning Officer (Biodiversity) dated 14 December 2018 be deferred and a report prepared and submitted to a future meeting of the Environment Committee outlining a strategy and supporting business case for reinvigoration of the Ipswich Nature Centre.

Subsequently, a Community Sentiment Survey and an Economic Impact Report have now been completed in relation to this recommendation.

Recommendation

A. That Council adopt the Queens Park Nature Centre and Discovery Hub Masterplan as per Attachment 2 as the guiding document to inform the prioritisation of investment into the revitalisation of the Ipswich Nature Centre over the life of the Plan.

B. That Council resolve to give consideration for the implementation of the Queens Park Nature Centre and Discovery Hub Masterplan, and undertake detailed design and costings to inform future capital works budget development.

C. That Council resolve to identify external grants and funding opportunities to facilitate the implementation of the Queens Park Nature Centre and Discovery Hub Masterplan.

D. That Council note that the name of the nature centre referred to in the Masterplan as the Queens Park Nature Centre and Discovery Hub is the Ipswich Nature Centre.

5. White Rock-Spring Mountain Conservation Estate Master Plan 2020-2040

The White Rock-Spring Mountain Conservation Estate Master Plan outlines a proposed vision for natural and cultural values and best practice visitor management for one of Ipswich’s premier natural area estates. The purpose of the master plan is to provide a forward-focussed approach in protecting the conservation and cultural values of the estate, and a place for safe and accessible nature-based recreation.

The White Rock-Spring Mountain Conservation Estate has experienced rapid popularity and visitation as the area surrounding continues to develop within Springfield Lakes and South Ripley. The estate has been recognised as a regional destination, with annual visitation figures increasing each year. In 2017, visitor numbers recorded at the Paperbark Flats entrance were 49,782. In the past 2 years, the number of visitors has increased by approx. 50 % to 74,975. During the COVID19 period (April / May 2020), Paperbark Flats received an estimated 36,889 visitors alone.

The implementation of the master plan is proposed to be undertaken in four stages, within a 20 year horizon. This approach will ensure the works are focused and delivered within the relevant stage while future stages are being planned to properly investigate ecological and cultural values, and to allow disturbed areas to rehabilitate. The intention of the staged approach is to strengthen the connection between Springfield Lakes in the east and Ripley in the west via Paperbark Flats and White Rock. This will provide visitors with nature based recreation opportunities in the northern section while working on protecting and enhancing the conservation and cultural values in the remainder of the estate.

The White Rock-Spring Mountain Conservation Estate Master Plan is the first in a series of mater planning exercises for the broader Natural Area Estate and Network.

Recommendation

That Council adopt the White Rock-Spring Mountain Conservation Estate Master Plan 2020-2040 as a guiding document to inform capital and operational management and investment priorities within the estate over the next 20 years, to be reviewed at least every 5 years.

6. Landholder Partnerships Program - Review Recommendation

This is a report concerning the recommendations of the Landholder Conservation Partnerships Program Review. The Landholder Conservation Partnerships Program is one of the mechanisms in the Nature Conservation Strategy 2015 used to deliver on-ground conservation outcomes on private land.

Recommendation

A. That Council endorse the Landholder Conservation Partnerships Program review report as detailed Attachment 1.

B. That Council resolve to work in partnership with landholders that have a Voluntary Conservation Agreement to transition to one of the new Landholder Conservation Partnerships.

7. Review of Local Disaster Management Plan 2020

This is a report concerning the legislated annual review of the City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Plan.

Recommendation

A. That the Local Disaster Management Plan for the City of Ipswich, as detailed in Attachment 2 be approved.

B. That the Chief Executive Officer, in consultation with the Mayor, be authorised to make amendments deemed necessary on the basis of further comment received from members of the Local Disaster Management Group, who form part of the governance arrangements for the adoption of this plan.

8. **Proposed New Sub Lease over Freehold Land for Community Purposes to Y-Care - South East Queensland Inc. trading as YMCA Social Impact - 7003 Parkland Drive Springfield Central

This is a report concerning the proposed new sub lease over Lease Area C over the land located at 7003 Parkland Drive, Springfield Central, described as Lot 1200 on SP303994, between Ipswich City Council as Sub Lessee (Council) of Lease Area C to Y-Care (South East Queensland) Inc. trading as YMCA Social Impact (YMCA).

In accordance with Council’s Community Centre Operating Model Policy (Attachment 1), it is recommended that a sub lease be entered into with Y-Care (South East Queensland) Inc. trading as YMCA Social Impact, as the successful respondent to the Expression of Interest for the tenure and management of the Community Centre component of the newly constructed Springfield Central Sport and Community Hall.

Recommendation

A. That Council as Sub Lessee resolve pursuant to section 236(2) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) that the exception referred to in section 236(1)(b)(ii) of the Regulation applies to the disposal of the leasehold interest located at part of 7003 Parkland Drive, Springfield Central and described as Lease Area C over Lot 1200 on SP303994 (“the land”), by way of a leasehold arrangement between Council and Y-Care (South East Queensland) Inc. trading as YMCA Social Impact.

B. That Council enter into a Sub Lease and Management Agreement with Y-Care (South East Queensland) Inc. trading as YMCA Social Impact (“the tenant”) for a three (3) year term plus an option period of three (3) years for a consideration sum of $1.00 per annum, if demanded (excluding GST).

C. That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to negotiate and finalise the terms of the Sub Lease 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.

9. Proposed Trustee Lease over Trust Land for Recreation Purposes - Queensland Rugby Football League Limited - 43 The Terrace North Ipswich

This is a report concerning the proposed Trustee Lease over part of the land located at 43 The Terrace, North Ipswich and described as Lease A & B in Lot 246 on Crown Plan SL8089 (Trust Land), between Ipswich City Council as Trustee (Council) of the land to Queensland Rugby Football League Limited (QRL).

Recommendation

A. That Council, as Trustee, resolve pursuant to section 236(2) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) that the exception under sections 236(1)(b)( ii)) of the Regulation applies to the disposal of the leasehold interest located at part of 43 The Terrace, North Ipswich described as Lot 246 on Crown Plan SL8089 (“the land”), by way of a leasehold arrangement between Council and Queensland Rugby Football League Limited for a consideration.

B. That Council enter into a Trustee lease with Queensland Rugby Football League Limited (“the tenant”) for a period of 20 years.

C. That the Chief Executive Officer be delegated the power under s257 of the Local Government Act 2009 to be authorised to negotiate and finalise the terms of the Trustee Lease to Queensland Rugby Football League, to be executed by Council and to do any other acts necessary to implement Council’s decision.

D. That the previous decision of Council adopted at the City Works, Parks, Sport and Environment Committee No. 2017 (09) of 11 September 2017 and as per Item No. 21 adopted by the Council Ordinary meeting of 19 September 2017, be repealed.

E. That Council terminate the agreement executed on 30 March 2008 with the entity formerly known as Ipswich Rugby League Incorporated (IRL) and now trading as Rugby League Ipswich.

10. Community Donations Report

This is a report providing detail about the year to date allocation of $327,193.70 from a budgeted $400,000 in community donations as at 30 June 2020 (Attachment 1) and providing a summary of these community donations by recipient type (Attachment 2)

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

11. Amendment to Delegation to CEO

This is a report seeking minor amendments to the existing delegation instrument (LGD-2020-02) delegating power from Council to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO). The amendments sought are generally updates from the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) to minor changes to current legislation used by local governments. The amendments also include additional powers to other existing legislation.

Recommendation

That Council resolve to delegate the power to the Chief Executive Officer, under s257(1) (b) of the Local Government Act 2009 in accordance with the amendments to the Delegation Instrument LGD-2020-03, as detailed in Attachment 2, of the report dated 8 July 2020 by the Project Officer, Governance Section.

12. **Contract for Urban Heat Island Study with Griffith University

This is a report concerning Council’s participation and financial contribution to the Griffith University study to investigate the effect of Urban Heat Islands within the City of Ipswich.

Recommendation

A. That Council resolve it is satisfied under section 235(a) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (Regulation) that the exemption under s235(a) of the Regulation applies and that Griffith University is the only supplier reasonably available to conduct a research study into the effects of Urban Heat Islands for the following reason:

(i) the local government resolves that, because of the specialised nature of the services that are sought it would be impractical for the local government to invite quotes or tenders.

B. That Council enter into a contract with Griffith University for the provision to conduct a research study into the effects of Urban Heat Islands for a period of not more than 3 years.

C. 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.

13. Covid-19 Stimulus Grants - Project Status

This is a report concerning the stimulus grant funding provided by both the State and Federal Governments as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The report provides a list of the projects submitted for funding under each program, their location and project status for information.

Recommendation

That the Stimulus Project Status as detailed in Attachment 1 be received and noted.

14. **Demographic Information System and “Living in Ipswich” Liveability Survey

This is a report concerning the inclusion of an annual “Living in Ipswich” Liveability Survey project, to be undertaken by Ipswich City Council’s existing supplier I.D. Consulting Pty Ltd under a current arrangement for the provision of online social and economic analytics tools (14797 Demographic information tools). This contract is contract is currently valued at $216,500 ex GST. The “Living in Ipswich” liveability survey is a variation to the scope of the original contract and will involve undertaking surveys of community values and perceptions relating to liveability in the City of Ipswich.

Recommendation

A. That Council resolve to prepare a Tender Consideration Plan for a Liveability Survey Pilot Project in accordance with section 230(1)(a) of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

B. That Council resolve to adopt the Tender Consideration Plan for a Liveability Survey Pilot Project as outlined in the report by the Principal Officer (Procurement and Contract Operations) dated 17 May 2020 in accordance with section 230(1)(b) of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

C. That Council resolve to enter into a contract with I.D. Consulting Pty Ltd for a Liveability Survey Pilot Project on the terms described in the report by the Principal Officer (Procurement and Contract Operations) dated 17 May 2020.

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

15. Ipswich Waste Services January - March 2020 Quarterly Report

This is a report concerning the Ipswich Waste Services January – March 2020 quarterly report.

Recommendation

That the Ipswich Waste Services January-March 2020 quarterly report be received and noted.

16. Community Donation Requests Received in June 2020

This is a report concerning community donation requests received in June 2020 for consideration by Council.

As these applications were received in June 2020 they were processed through the Community Donations Program. However, as they are presented to the July Ordinary Council Meeting for consideration, if successful they will be allocated from the 2020-2021 Major and Minor Funding Program which has a total budget of $558,000.

Recommendation

A. That Council approve a community donation of $6,064.00 to the City of Ipswich Pipe Band Inc towards the completion of building work at the pipe band premises.

B. That Council approve a community donation of $2,250.00 to the Rotary Club of Booval towards the cost of provisions for the Footprints in the Park project.

17. Urban Development Institute of Australia- Proposed Memorandum of Understanding with Ipswich City Council

The purpose of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is to create a strong, transparent and positive working relationship between the Ipswich City Council and the Urban Development Institute of Australia’s Ipswich Branch, to advance good planning and development and to promote the region and attract investment.

The development sector is an integral component of the Ipswich economy and the creation of the MOU and the regular meetings will provide for open and constructive dialogue between the parties.

Council’s endorsement of the MOU is recommended.

Recommendation

A. That Council endorse entering into the Memorandum of Understanding and the creation of the Ipswich City Council / Ipswich UDIA Branch Joint Working Group.

B. That Council nominate three Councillors to be members of the Ipswich City Council/Ipswich UDIA Branch Joint Working Group.

18. **Extension to Contract with RSPCA for Pound Services

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Queensland (RSPCA) currently manages the Ipswich City Pound facility (the pound). The RSPCA entered into a three-year contract with Council to manage the pound commencing 1 October 2016. The contract includes an option for an extension of two one-year periods to be exercised at the discretion of Council. Council has exercised the option to extend the contract for the first additional year leaving the final year extension available for consideration.

Under the terms of the contract, Council can extend the contract for the final year, only if satisfied that the RSPCA has performed in accordance with the contract and have met the key performance indicators. RSPCA’s performance has been assessed, and it was determined that they had met their performance requirements under the contract.

It is therefore considered appropriate for Council to grant a final year contract extension to the RSPCA to manage the pound.

Recommendation

That pursuant to section 257(1) of the Local Government Act 2009, Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power (includes authority) to negotiate and finalise the terms for the exercise of a final option (1 year option) to extend the Animal Management Services Contract No. 15-16-226 with Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Queensland.

19. Community Cat Program Proposal

Council has received a proposal from the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) to undertake a program to reduce the population of stray kittens and cats in the Ipswich Local Government area. The program is proposed to run for five years and funding is sought from Council for both a financial contribution and in-kind services. The total cash value of the funding is $360,000, with in-kind services to be provided by Council officers.

The program is a trial research program that anticipates a reduction in the amount of unwanted and stray cats in the community. The program is to desex cats that have been trapped, and then return the animal to the area where they were caught. The APWF claim that the reduction in the stray cat population will lead to savings to Council in the cost of managing nuisance cats in the community. The program also claims that fewer cats will be euthanised each year.

An initial evaluation of the proposal has identified several risks that must be mitigated against should this program be endorsed.

This request has come post-delivery of the 2020-2021 budget and Council would need to make an amendment to the budget if it was to favourably consider the program.

Recommendation

A. That Council decline the request from the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) to participate in a trial cat reduction program as part of the 2020-2021 operational plan.

B. That Council request the officers to reconsider the proposal as part of Council’s budget discussion for 2021-2022.

20. Court Action Status Report

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

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

21. Exercise Of Delegation Report

This is a report concerning applications that have been determined by delegated authority for the period 2 June 2020 to 8 July 2020.

Recommendation

That the report be received and the contents noted.

22. Business Transformational Project #9 Policies - Infrastructure and Environment Department

This is a report concerning the repeal of two current Council policies that are no longer required due to changes that have occurred as a result of the implementation of Transformational Project 9 (TP).

A review of policies relating to operational responsibilities of the Infrastructure and Environment Department has been undertaken in accordance with Council’s Policy and Procedure Framework adopted by Council on 16 July 2019 as part of the TP9.

The majority of the policy changes have now been finalised. However, two policies remain in place that have now been superseded or made redundant through the adoption or update of other policies and planning scheme mechanisms. The two outstanding policies are recommended to be repealed.

Recommendation

A. That the policy titled ‘Street Lighting’ as adopted by Council on 30 June 2015, be repealed.

B. That the policy titled ‘Disposal of Non-Reusable Spoil’ as adopted by Council on 17 September 2014, be repealed.

23. Conflicts of Interest Policy

This is a report concerning the endorsement of a Conflicts of Interest Policy for Employees.

A recent Internal Audit on Council’s approach to conflicts of interest was undertaken which identified a critical need for Council to implement an overarching framework, including a policy and procedure. This is required to increase the level of rigour around the management of conflicts of interest for employees.

Recommendation

That the policy titled ‘Conflicts of Interest for Employees’ as detailed in Attachment 1 (to be provided), be adopted.

24. Motions for 2020 Local Government Association of Queensland Conference

This is a report concerning proposed motions to be submitted to the 2020 Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ) Conference being held from 19 - 21 October 2020.

Recommendation

That Council approve the Motion as detailed in Attachment 1 of the report by the Manager Executive Services dated 13 July 2020 to be submitted to the 2020 LGAQ Conference.

25. Garage Sale Trail 2020

Garage Sale Trail is a community engagement program that promotes and encourages reuse and waste avoidance in communities. It is an Australia-wide garage sale powered by more than 140 local councils over one weekend in October each year. The program encourages people to put second-hand first and minimise our impact on the planet.

Recommendation

That Council endorse the partnership between Council and the Garage Trail initiative and promote the initiative to the community, for a three year period.

** Item includes confidential papers

and any other items as considered necessary.

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6350343

ITEM: 1

SUBJECT: Cameron Park - Swifts Leagues Club Ltd

AUTHOR: Property Services Manager

DATE: 9 July 2020

Executive Summary

RECOMMENDATION

A. That Council’s previous decision adopted at the Council Special Meeting of 27 June 2019, be repealed.

B. That Council receive this report and provide its direction on one of the options presented, being:

1. Retain the Land

2. Direct Disposal to Swifts

3. Disposal to Swifts following Community Consultation

RELATED PARTIES

Mr Brett McGrath, Property Services Manager and author of the report, declares for the Committee’s consideration that he has previously worked in the Swifts Leagues Club and played sport for the club in 2002. There is therefore potential for a perception of a conflict of interest. This potential perception of conflict of interest has been managed by ensuring that Mr Brett McGrath is not a decision-maker and his line managers have carefully reviewed the information being presented to the decision-makers.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the community

Purpose of Report/Background

Cameron Park is located at 95A Brisbane Road, Booval and is described as Lot 169 on RP24111 (5.729 ha). Swifts has a twenty (20) year lease with two (2) by ten (10) year options for Lease A in Lot 169 on RP24111 (1.119ha), which commenced on 6 September 2001 for the occupation of the land and facility as a sports and recreation club.

Swifts has expressed an interest in purchasing the land and facility that they currently occupy under lease from Council. A previous decision was adopted at the Council Special Meeting of 27 June 2019 to dispose of the proposed lot, described as part of Lot 169 on RP24111 (see attached map) to Swifts. The recommendation of the disposal included that Swifts prepare a master plan of their proposal for the site and undertake community consultation to satisfy that they have sufficient community support for the disposal.

Swifts undertook the community consultation in November/December 2019 and sent the results to Council for consideration. Upon review of the community consultation results provided by Swifts it was concluded that the process lacked the information required for the public to determine and articulate an informed position. Council advised Swifts that they need to address the uncertainties and inconsistencies raised through the community consultation by undertaking a more open and transparent process.

Swifts has not undertaken any further community consultation following the decision by Council and therefore has not met the requirements of the previous recommendation by Council. Additionally, Swifts has requested that the newly elected Council review and consider the previous decision and provide a direction on whether the disposal of the land is supported.

Therefore, the previous resolution adopted at the Council Special Meeting of 27 June 2019 is required to be repealed and the below options be considered for a new resolution by Council.

The options for Council to consider in this matter are as follows:

1. Retain the Land – Continue under the terms of the lease between Council and Swifts.

2. Direct Disposal to Swifts – Sell the land and facility to Swifts at market value.

3. Disposal to Swifts Following Community Consultation - Sell the land and facility to Swifts at market value after Council undertakes community consultation on disposal.

Option 1 – Retain the Land

Under this option, Swifts continue its occupation of the facility under the terms of the lease agreement until the end of the lease on 5 September 2041. The facility is nearing the end of its useful life and will require capital upgrades in the future to sustain the longevity of the asset. While the lease is based on non-commercial terms and provides a rent reflective of that offered to community groups, the onus will be on Swifts to make aesthetic and functional upgrades to the facility. Council may have some obligation to rectify any safety issues and possibly some structural issues with the facility.

Option 2 – Direct Disposal to Swifts

Under section 236 of the Local Government Regulations 2012 (Qld) (Regulations), Council can dispose of a valuable non-current asset without going through the tender and auction requirements under section 227, if the disposal is to a community organisation (refer to section 236(1)(b)(ii)), and Council (before the disposal) has decided by resolution that the exception contained in section 236(1) may apply.

In determining a Community Organisation, schedule 8 of the Regulations defines it as:

“Community Organisation” means—

(a) an entity that carries on activities for a public purpose; or

(b) another entity whose primary object is not directed at making a profit.

Swifts Leagues Club Ltd is a public company limited by guarantee registered with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). Swifts is a not-for-profit entity and under Rule 3(2) of the Swifts’ constitution it provides that the objects of the organisation is ‘for the benefit of the local or general community’.

Further, rules 5.1 and 6 provide that the organisation’s income must be applied to its objects and that the income and property of the organisation cannot be provided to its members. Further, upon a winding up, rule 112 provides that the property held by Swifts must be provided to an organisation with similar objects.

On the basis of the above, Swifts can be regarded as a Community Organisation for the purposes of the Regulation. Council can directly dispose of the land and facility to Swifts if by resolution the land is declared surplus to Council’s requirements and the exception for Swifts being a “community organisation” under the Regulation is applied.

Option 3 - Disposal to Swifts Following Community Consultation

As with Option 2, Council can dispose of the land and facility to Swifts if the land is declared surplus to Council’s requirements in accordance with the exception under 236 (1) (b) of the Regulation, that Swifts is a “community organisation”. With Option 3, the intent is to engage with the Ipswich community to determine its support prior to the disposal of the land and facility to Swifts. Council will coordinate the public consultation and Swifts will be required to provide a detailed proposal, inclusive of a master plan, which will form the basis of the consultation. This option will require Swifts to provide all essential information on their proposal upfront to ensure the community is fully informed of their intention with the land and facility to support the disposal.

The final determination of the public consultation is subject to Council being satisfied with the outcome of the community consultation process and that the sale to Swifts Leagues Club is, overall, in the best interests of the community.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009

Local Government Regulation 2012

Planning Act 2016

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Option 1 – Given Swifts has made limited progress to develop the facility over the term of the lease, there is a low to moderate risk that they may not be able to sustain the management of the facility long-term.

Option 2 - Given that Swifts has undertaken community consultation and Council has determined the results of it as unsatisfactory, there is a low to moderate risk of community concern and adverse reaction to a direct sale of the asset, without further community consultation.

Option 3 – There is a moderate risk that at the conclusion of the community consultation led by Council, the support for the sale of the asset to Swifts may still be determined as not in the best interests of the community.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

If option 2 or 3 are adopted, Council will need to dispose of the asset in accordance with the Local Government Regulation 2012. Under section 236 (3) of the Regulation, Council can only dispose of the asset at equal to, or more than, market value. This will require an assessment by a registered valuer to determine the market value at the time of the sale.

A previous market assessment was undertaken in 2019 and this is attached in the confidential documents, however a new assessment will be required to be reflective of the current market.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Community consultation on the proposed sale was completed by Swifts. However, the results of this were unsatisfactory and not supported by Council. Swifts did not provide a master plan of their proposal as requested by Council and the majority of the feedback from the community was they had not been fully informed on the matter. Swifts were given an opportunity to redress the issues by undertaking a revised community consultation process but declined. The advice to Swifts is in the letter attached.

Conclusion

It is recommended that Council review the three options in this report and make an informed decision on the resolution concerning the tenure of Swifts Leagues Club Ltd (Swifts) at Cameron Park.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Lease - Council and Swifts Leagues Club - 95A Brisbane Road, Booval. ⇩
2.	Amendment to Lease - Council and Swifts Leagues Club Limited - 95a Brisbane Road Booval ⇩
3.	Proposed Disposal Land Area - Survey Plan SP310956 - Draft ⇩
4.	Council Report 27 June 2019 - Disposal of Part of 95A Brisbane Road, Booval - Swifts Leagues Club Ltd (A5915100) ⇩
5.	Letter to Swifts - Outcomes of Community Consultation Process ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
6.	Valuation - 23 January 2019 - Part of 95a Brisbane Rd, Booval - Revaluation on 1.633ha

Brett McGrath

Property Services Manager

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.

Sonia Cooper

General Manager Corporate Services

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

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6275403

ITEM: 2

SUBJECT: Ipswich Central to Springfield Central (I2S) Public Transport Corridor: Strategic Assessment and Infrastructure Australia Stage 1 Submission

AUTHOR: Project Officer - Major Projects and Advocacy

DATE: 3 June 2020

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

A. That the findings and recommendations of the I2S Corridor Strategic Assessment be received and noted.

B. That Council note that following Council consideration of the Strategic Assessment, it will be submitted to the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads for assessment.

RELATED PARTIES

There have been no conflicts of interests declared for the development of the Ipswich Central to Springfield Central Public Transport Corridor Strategic Assessment.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure.

Purpose of Report/Background

The I2S Corridor is a preserved 25km public transport corridor that connects Ipswich Central to Springfield Central via Ipswich’s key growth corridor through Ripley and Redbank Plains (see Figure 1).

Figure 1: I2S Corridor and expected planned stations

Ipswich City Council has progressed the Strategic Assessment for this project in recognition of this project’s transformational impact on liveability for the Ipswich region, and to expedite the progression of pre-investment planning and business case development towards the development of a transport solution in the I2S Corridor.

Infrastructure pre-investment planning by the State and Federal Governments is guided by a series of sequential business cases: Strategic Assessment (current stage), Options Analysis and Detailed Business Case. A project is required to go through each stage in the process in order to obtain funding and support to deliver the project. A project of the scale of the I2S Corridor will typically take multiple years to go through all stages in order to gain support for an investment decision by any level of Government.

Strategic Assessment Findings Summary

The Strategic Assessment for the I2S Corridor was delivered by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) as lead consultant, and meets the requirements of Building Queensland’s Business Case Development Framework, IA Assessment Framework, and Queensland Treasury’s Project Assessment Framework.

The outputs of the Strategic Assessment provide for an understanding of problems and opportunities (through an Investment Logic Mapping Process), service need (qualification of problems through data), benefits sought, cost of the problem, and initial options (solutions). The full Strategic Assessment can be viewed at Attachment 1.

The I2S Strategic Assessment defined the following problems and opportunities:

· There will be continued growth in private vehicle use without further investment in the transport system connecting Ipswich and the broader SEQ region, resulting in an increase in road congestion and reduced freight efficiency.

· The land use and dwelling population targets set out in the SEQ Regional Plan for the Ipswich, Ripley and Springfield areas will not be achieved without investment in the transport system, leading to inefficient urban form and land use outcomes.

· Equitable access to services and employment opportunities such as education, health, employment and recreation are inhibited by a lack of affordable mobility options and transport disadvantage, impact on the liveability of the Ipswich region.

· The absence of connectivity and accessibility between Ipswich, Ripley and Springfield inhibits the growth in these centres and the corridor.

· A lack of multi-modal transport options will require continued investment in the road network connecting Ipswich, Springfield, and Brisbane, to be able to provide for continued increased demand.

· Developing an affordable, sustainable and innovative mass transit corridor that captures significant current and future demand catchment will encourage strong positive economic growth in the region.

· Enhancing connectivity and accessibility in the SEQ region through improving liveability and achieving the 30-minute city and 45-minute region targets.

Table 1, below, outlines a summary of supporting data of the problems and opportunities as defined in the Strategic Assessment. This data summarises the intrinsic impact that SEQ’s expected population growth will have on transport, land use, and social outcomes in the Ipswich region and neighbouring local government areas.

Table 1: A summary of service need as defined by the Strategic Assessment

Data category	Data statement
Population Growth	Ipswich has the highest forecast growth in Queensland, of above 4% per annum to 2041.
	This will see a significant increase in population from 222,000 in 2018-2019 to 558,000 by 2041.
	Ripley is scheduled to grow at 27% per annum between 2016 and 2026, and 7% per annum between 202 and 2036.
	By 2041, Ripley will be home to 130,000 people.
	70% of Ipswich’s population growth will occur along or adjacent to the I2S Corridor.
Transport Outcomes	Population growth along the I2S Corridor will contribute to a 7% per annum increase in congestion between 2016 and 2036.
	By 2036, residents of Ripley will suffer a 2.5 hour morning commute to Brisbane CBD with an average travel speed of 17km/hr.
	Excessive congestion is defined as speeds below 70% of the posted speed on freeways and below 55% of the posted speed on other roads; this is intended to measure congestion that is considered unacceptable by the community.
	Excessive congestion is expected to cost $284 million per annum in 2026, rising to $1 billion per annum in 2036.
Land Use Outcomes	Ipswich is a key residential expansion area as nominated by SEQ Regional Plan.
	To accommodate planned growth along the I2S Corridor, 111,700 dwellings are required.
	A range of housing densities are required to suit a variety of housing needs ; transport orientated development can provide the opportunity for localised, walkable villages and economic hubs.
	Without a mass transit solution, market appetite will not value mid- and high-density residential options, locking Ripley and surrounding areas into urban sprawl for the foreseeable future.
	Under a no mass transit scenario, Ripley Town Centre will unlock only a third of planned accommodation capacity; Ripley North will unlock half of expected accommodation capacity.
	This failure to provide mixed density housing will impact the broader SEQ region, as the unaccommodated population growth will be required to be accommodated elsewhere, which is currently unplanned for.
Social outcomes	Distribution of services is currently unequitable, with half of Ipswich residents unable to access services via public transport within 30 minutes.
	Ipswich is home to, and continues to attract, a younger demographic such as young families with children.
	Without mass transit provision, non-licence holders including single car families, students, children and elderly are disadvantaged in accessing services such as education, employment and health, and socially isolated.

The development of the I2S Corridor would provide a catalyst to mixed-used land outcomes, including the potential to encourage economic hubs and enhanced service provision along the corridor, providing residents with employment and service accessibility opportunities, and local business with investment opportunities in close proximity to residential workforce.

The provision of fair and equitable access to transport, employment, education and other services is closely associated with the liveability of a region. According to the Strategic Assessment, the impact of no mass transit solution within the I2S Corridor to service the growing population will impact liveability and lower the attractiveness of Ipswich as a place to live and work. A lack of physical connection between the economic centres of the Ipswich region is resulting in the lower realisation of benefits for both residents and business, as connectivity between economic zones supports increased productivity and economic output.

A summary of the Options Assessed in I2S Strategic Assessment:

There were 11 options assessed against four criteria categories as part of a multi-criteria analysis process. These options were filtered through criteria categories that examined transport outcomes (35% weighting), liveability outcomes (30%), land use outcomes (20%) and cost (10%). The scores of the 11 assessed options are as follows in Table 2 in ranked order.

Please note that the top four ranked options (bolded) are recommended to be carried forward to the Options Analysis stage. These 4 were selected due to their significantly higher scores in comparison to other assessed options.

Table2: Ranked outcomes of Options Assessment in I2S Strategic Assessment

Rank	Score/10	Option description
1	8.2	Heavy rail in the I2S Public Transport Corridor
2	7.8	Light rail in the I2S Public Transport Corridor
3	7.7	Trackless Trams in the I2S Public Transport Corridor
4	7.4	Bus Rapid Transit in the I2S Public Transport Corridor
5	5.9	Mobility as a Service (Maas) in the I2S Public Transport Corridor
6	5.9	Enhance the existing bus network and service provision
7	4.4	Investment in the existing road network
8	4.2	Expansion of park’n’ride infrastructure
9	3.9	Non-infrastructure solution
10	3.2	Do nothing
11	3.1	Fast rail in the I2S Public Transport Corridor

Next Steps

Following Council review of the Strategic Assessment, next steps include:

1. Council will submit the Strategic Assessment to the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads for technical review.

2. Council will submit a Stage One submission to IA for project consideration as an initiative on IA’s Infrastructure Priority List.

3. Council will initiate an advocacy campaign to secure State and/or Federal commitments to progress the Options Analysis.

The Strategic Assessment provides Council with a compelling and robust evidence base to support advocacy efforts with State and Federal Governments.

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the following policy documents:

· Advance Ipswich 2015, which highlights a growing dependence on private vehicles

· 5 Year Corporate Plan – Making it Happen 2017- 2022, which aims to provide a transport system which supports the safe, reliable and sustainable movement of people and goods for all travel modes

· iGO City of Ipswich Transport Plan 2016 including relevant sub-plans

o iGO Active Transport Plan

o iGO Public Transport Advocacy and Action Plan

o iGO Intelligent Transport Systems Strategy

· Advocacy for Regionally Significant Projects Policy, which applies to this project as it has been agreed as Regionally Significant by Council

· Legislative provisions: Local Government Act 2009

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There is a risk without timely progression of this project through pre-investment planning and business case stages that the critical window to unlock land use outcomes, secure mobility for residents, and ensure transport network resilience may be missed. Ensuring project progression including securing support and funding for the next stage will rely on clear advocacy approaches and consistent messaging to a range of state, federal and industry stakeholders and maintaining positive working relationships with relevant state and federal agencies.

There is an opportunity with the upcoming State election to promote the outcomes of the Strategic Assessment in order to secure commitments to progress to the next phase of Options Analysis. This will require a planned and coordinated approach by a number of Council advocates to present a clear and articulate case in order to capitalise on this opportunity. An internal advocacy plan has been developed to support this. Failure to secure commitments is likely to delay the progression of this project.

COVID19 impacts on the community and associated recovery initiatives such as HomeBuilder may accelerate the population growth of Ipswich’s residential expansion areas, hastening the impacts of congestion on regional productivity.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Council has completed the Strategic Assessment. There are no further Council budget allocations for subsequent stages of the business case process (Options Analysis and Detailed Business Case).

Historically, these subsequent stages are undertaken by the State Government Agency responsible for delivery. In relation to the I2S Corridor, this would be Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR), with potential funding assistance from the Federal Government.

Project advocacy may incur some minor financial implications, however this will be taken from current economic development advocacy budget allowances.

Ongoing collaboration with State Agencies including TMR will be essential in ensuring project momentum. Engagement with the State and Federal Governments may have resourcing impacts, however this will be managed through existing resources.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Strategic Assessment Consultation - Council

During development of this Strategic Assessment, representatives from the following Council departments participated in workshops and provided information that contributed to forming the base case and identifying problems and opportunities.

· Infrastructure and Environment (Infrastructure Strategy and Planning)

· Planning and Regulatory Services (Strategic Planning)

· Planning and Regulatory Services (Development Assessment)

· Coordination and Performance (Social Planning section)

· Community, Cultural and Economic Development (Community Development)

· Community, Cultural and Economic Development (Office of Economic Development)

All representatives agreed that the provision of a mass transit solution along the I2S Corridor would be a transformational city-shaping project which would improve transport outcomes for the broader region, improve social outcomes and access to services, and promote a range of housing densities required to accommodate planned population growth.

Oversight of this project was undertaken by a Project Steering Group who met on a number of occasions for project updates from PwC and to provide direction. The Project Steering Group for this project was comprised of representatives from:

· Infrastructure and Environment (Infrastructure Strategy and Planning)

· Planning and Regulatory Services (Strategic Planning)

· Community, Cultural and Economic Development (Office of Economic Development)

· Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (Rail Planning Division)

Internal Council members of the project steering group reviewed the draft Strategic Assessment and provided detailed feedback, and also reviewed the draft IA Stage One submission and were supportive of both being progressed to Council.

Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR)

In addition to participating in the Project Steering Group, representatives from TMR’s Rail Planning division undertook a review of the Strategic Assessment ahead of the public release of the document and advised no objection.

Council will continue to work with TMR throughout the upcoming submission and during future phases of the pre-investment planning. TMR is considered to be a key stakeholder for advocacy activities across both departmental and political avenues due to their high interest and high influence over this project.

Despite TMR officers participating in the project steering group and providing support for the public release of the I2S Corridor Strategic Assessment, they still need to undertake a comprehensive review and assessment of the report. The Strategic Assessment will provide TMR with evidence to assist in determining the relative priority of the infrastructure within the TMR infrastructure pipeline. Successful project advocacy will be critical to support the progression of the project within the State Government.

Infrastructure Australia

IA is an independent federal statutory body with a mandate to prioritise and progress nationally significant infrastructure. IA provides independent research and advice to all levels of government, as well as investors and owners of infrastructure, on the projects and reforms Australia needs to support economic growth and quality of life, and to materially improve national productivity across infrastructure sectors.

IA manages an assessment framework that considers projects for inclusion on the Infrastructure Priority List (IPL). The IPL is the list of initiatives and priorities which have been identified by IA to address nationally significant infrastructure problems and opportunities.

According to the IA Assessment Framework, initiatives are identified through ‘a collaborative process between proponents and IA to identify and prioritise evidence-based problems and opportunities of national significance’. The outcome of Stage One is that ‘the problem is added to the IPL as an IPL Initiative’.

The assessment framework includes a five stage process to progress projects from problem identification through to post completion review, as follows:

· Stage 1 – Problem Identification and Prioritisation (we are here)

· Stage 2 – Initiative Identification and Options Development

· Stage 3 – Business Case Development

· Stage 4 – Business Case Assessment

· Stage 5 – Post Completion Review

IA typically only considers projects for inclusion on the IPL if the project is a transport, communications, water, or energy infrastructure. Table 3 provides a comparison of the I2S Corridor Strategic Assessment outcomes with the IA benchmarks for a nationally significant problem:

Table3: IA Nationally Significant Problem Benchmark

IA Benchmark – Nationally Significant Problem

I2S Corridor Assessment Outcomes – Cost of Problem

Annual Cost:

$30 million

$284 million in 2026

$1 billion in 2036

In addition to the Strategic Assessment, Council engaged PwC to prepare a Stage One IA submission. The Stage One submission captures and summarises key outcomes from the Strategic Assessment in an IA submission template and this is provided for Council noting (Attachment 2).

On 19 June 2020, Mayor Harding wrote to Ms Romilly Madow AO, Chief Executive Officer, IA to advise of the forthcoming IA Stage One submission for this project (Attachment 3). A briefing with senior officials in IA has been scheduled for Wednesday 22 July 2020.

Community Consultation

Council recognises the community to be a key stakeholder as direct beneficiaries of this project. The Strategic Assessment methodologies did not require dedicated community consultation as the focus was identifying overarching strategic problems and opportunities and verifying these problems and opportunities through data. Community consultation is expected to form a part of the Options Analysis.

Previous community consultation is understood to have been undertaken by TMR during earlier studies and corridor preservation activities.

Conclusion

The I2S Corridor is considered to be a transformational city shaping project by Ipswich City Council. The Strategic Assessment confirms that there is a critical need for the development of a mass transit solution in the I2S Corridor, and that there is a time imperative to development which is critical to securing beneficial outcomes to the Ipswich region and South East Queensland.

Council will engage with state and federal agencies to advocate for project progression to the next phase of Options Analysis.

Immediate next steps for this project include submitting the I2S Corridor Strategic Assessment to TMR for technical review, progression of the IA Stage One submission and targeted advocacy to State government stakeholders ahead of the upcoming State election.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	I2S Corridor - Strategic Assessment (under separate cover)
2.	I2S Corridor - Infrastructure Australia Stage 1 Submission (under separate cover)
3.	Mayor Harding Letter to Infrastructure Australia - 19 June 2020 (under separate cover)

Clare Coburn

Project Officer - Major Projects and Advocacy

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”

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6090210

ITEM: 3

SUBJECT: iGO Road Safety Action Plan

AUTHOR: Team Lead (Transport and Traffic)

DATE: 25 May 2020

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

That Council resolve:

A. That the iGO Road Safety Action Plan and Summary Report – as detailed in Attachments 1 and 2 of the report by the Team Lead (Transport and Traffic) dated 25 May 2020, be adopted.

D. That Council officers, as delegated by the Chief Executive Officer, be authorised to commence implementing the iGO Road Safety Action Plan.

RELATED PARTIES

There is no declaration of conflicts of interest regarding this report. Details of the related parties that were consulted as part of the development of the RSAP are provided below under the community and other consultation heading.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

Background

At its Ordinary Meeting on 24 May 2016, Council adopted iGO - The City of Ipswich Transport Plan (iGO) as its master plan to shape Ipswich’s transport future [refer Item 4 tabled at the City Infrastructure and Emergency Management Committee Meeting No. 2016(02)].

The iGO delivery structure (refer Figure 1 below) includes the development and implementation of a number of more detailed network action plans relating to the following transport elements:

· Active Transport;

· Public Transport;

· Road Safety;

· Parking;

· Freight;

· Direction Signs; and

· Local Area Traffic Management

Figure 1: iGO Delivery Structure

Subsequently, a key road network action of iGO (R10) is to “Develop and implement a citywide Road Safety Action Plan which will consider all road users. This will include analysis of historic data of incidents across the city to identify trends and then develop targeted investment and community programs to address these safety issues”.

Development of the RSAP commenced in late 2018 and the technical report was completed in February 2020. Ipswich City Council has worked closely with key stakeholders from various Queensland Government Departments to formulate a clear vision, provide guidance and formulate the necessary actions for improving road safety within the City of Ipswich.

Premise

Between 2008 and 2017, there were a total of 1,924 reported Fatal and Serious Injury (FSI) crashes in the City of Ipswich. This represents approximately less than 200 FSI crashes per year. The current rate of fatalities per capita in Ipswich is currently approximately five deaths per 100,000 population, however, total fatalities in Ipswich have fluctuated across the ten year period with some years showing spikes and other years showing much lower levels. Compared to other local governments such as Brisbane and Logan, Ipswich has a higher rate of fatalities per 100,000 population but lower rate of hospitalisations. It is the intent of the RSAP to reduce both fatal and serious injuries on the Ipswich road network.

Road safety strategies across the globe as well as national and state based strategies recognise and adopt a Safe System approach which accepts human error and shared responsibilities for road safety. The transport system should therefore be designed so that crashes do not result in serious injuries or fatalities. The Safe System approach also promotes a shared responsibility to reducing road trauma, as road safety is not an issue that can be solved in isolation but needs governments, communities, business and individuals to all take responsibility, ownership and action.

The principles of the Safe System Approach are:

· Mistakes are inevitable;

· Human beings have natural limits;

· The system should account for this;

· People should not die as a result of a crash;

· Everyone shares the responsibility for road safety.

Figure 2: Safe System Approach

iGO Road Safety Action Plan

The iGO Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) has been formulated on the basis of the Safe System approach, based on the Queensland Road Safety Strategy as outlined in Figure 2 above. Its objectives are as follows:

· Emphasise Road Safety Culture in Ipswich

· Address Road Safety Issues with Infrastructure Programmes

· Improve Safety for all Transport Modes

· Improve Collaboration Between Road Authorities and Stakeholders

· Improve Emergency Response Capabilities

· Reduce the Occurrence of Road Trauma.

For ease of reference, a summary of the key components of the RSAP are outlined in Table 1 over.

iGO RSAP Strategic Framework

Table 1: iGO RSAP Key Components

ELEMENT	DETAILS / COMMENTS	MORE INFORMATION
ROAD SAFETY IN IPSWICH	Existing Situation Analysis of crash data (between 2008 and 2017) and identifies trends and major influences. Approach to Road Safety An acknowledgement is made to Safe System Framework – an internationally adopted framework that forms the basis of the RSAP. The safe system approach recognises that: · People are error prone and make mistakes · Human tolerance to physical forces is limited · A forgiving road network reduces the likelihood of harm to its users	Pages 7 – 9 in Attachment 2
ASPIRATIONS	Vision The Ipswich community has a shared responsibility and commitment to collaboratively working towards reducing transport-related trauma, saving lives and improving road safety on the Ipswich transport network. Horizon The horizon of the RSAP is consistent with the horizon of iGO – The City of Ipswich Transport Plan - ensuring that the Ipswich transport network can support a population of 435,000. Objectives The objectives of the RSAP have been developed to establish high-level aspirations that will be at the forefront of decision-making and progress evaluation. · Emphasise a Road Safety Culture in Ipswich · Address Road Safety Issues with Infrastructure Programmes · Improve Safety for all Transport Modes · Improve Collaboration Between Road Authorities and Stakeholders · Improve Emergency Response Capabilities · Reduce the Occurrence of Road Trauma. Targets On a per capita basis, the RSAP is targeting a continuous annual reduction in both fatal and serious injuries that occur on the Ipswich road network. Eleven (11) targets have been set focussing on the Areas of Opportunity.	Pages 10-14 in Attachment 2
ELEMENTS	Areas of Influence The areas of influence refer to key areas that council and stakeholders have direct ability to address in terms of financial capital, human resources and legislative powers. Five (5) areas of influence were identified in the RSAP: · Users · Infrastructure · Community · Systems · Organisations Areas of Opportunity Opportunities for improving road safety in the Ipswich region were identified through a statistical review of the past 10 years of road safety data as well as a literature review of emerging trends in road safety and best practice approaches to addressing key issues. The following areas of opportunity are based on significant trends or overrepresentation of specific types of crashes, and where stakeholders can have a strong influence on outcomes. · Driver behaviour · Drugs and alcohol · Motorcyclists · Commuter fatigue · Roadside hazards · Pedestrians · Speed · Males (young and old) · Intersections · Core arterial roads · Health Countermeasures The countermeasure categories form the link between the Areas of Influence and RSAP actions. The countermeasures categories have been considered in application to all Areas of Influence to identify options to improve road safety. Seven (7) countermeasures were identified within the RSAP: · Education · Enforcement · Engineering · Exposure · Examination of competence · Emergency response · Evaluation	Pages 15-17 in Attachment 2
DELIVERY	Action Plan The plan establishes 45 actions which have short, medium and long term timeframes, with actions led by council and its road safety partners to collaboratively address road safety issues via a multi-faceted approach. Monitoring and Evaluation For monitoring and evaluating the RSAP, the following procedures will be undertaken: · progress tracking · dashboard development and assessment of key performance indicators · annual reviews · quarterly meetings with key stakeholders of the RSAP	Pages 18-28 in Attachment 2

The timeframes for each action have been established based on need, opportunities and alignment with Council’s other strategic directions. The actual delivery of each action will be subject to resourcing and Council’s on-going relationship with its road safety partners.

Whilst it is acknowledged that several of the actions are capital intensive, there are also several actions that can be undertaken by Council relatively quick and easy and are less capital intensive. A list of Council’s short-term ‘priority’ actions are identified in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Short-term ‘priority’ actions

ID	Action	Area of Opportunity	Timeframe	Stakeholders
U4	Identify intersections where illegal manoeuvres are known to be performed regularly and develop passive and reactive enforcement measures to reduce the occurrence of illegal manoeuvres. As part of this, collaborate with TMR and QPS to identify opportunities for the installation of enforcement devices such as speed or red-light cameras.	Intersections	Short	ICC, TMR, QPS
C5	Encourage and improve active travel amongst school students by further developing school-based road safety programs such as the Active School Travel (AST) program and walk to school week.	Pedestrians	Short	ICC, DoE, TMR, QPS, QH, QFES
S6	Generate increased awareness of road safety issues through the development of monthly social media messages and other platforms.	Driver Behaviour	Short	ICC
S2	Establish an iGO Road Safety and Operations Committee made up of key stakeholders which meet quarterly to discuss general road safety issues and annually to review the iGO Road Safety Action Plan progress.	N/A	Short	ICC, DoE, TMR, QPS, QH, QFES
O1	Improve road safety awareness through the delivery of collaborative education campaigns, focusing on key periods such as Road Safety Week, Fatality Free Friday and Bike Week.	Driver Behaviour	Short	ICC, TMR, QPS, QH, QFES, DoE
S4	Document the extent of the road network for which road safety audits have been undertaken and review of the outcomes of audits undertaken in the past. Subsequently, develop a prioritised list of high-risk locations to be considered for infrastructure improvements.	Intersections	Short	ICC, TMR
S5	Develop a long-term programme of road safety audits for the local road network.	Intersections	Short	ICC, TMR
S1	Establish a stakeholder agreement that commits all volunteering organisations to work collaboratively towards the improvement of road safety within the Ipswich region. Conduct an unveiling ceremony at the completion of the RSAP to signify this moment.	N/A	Short	All
S11	Investigate opportunities for the incorporation of low-cost smart road safety initiatives across the Ipswich region in alignment with the iGO Intelligent Transport Systems Strategy.	N/A	Short	ICC, TMR, QPS
I1	Identify mass action programs that can provide low-cost safety improvements and be delivered through new works programs with additional funding (e.g. guardrails, lighting, guideposts, signs and lines).	Core arterial motorways	Short	ICC, TMR
I6	Identify opportunities to improve the safety of existing and new infrastructure at or around schools within the network through existing infrastructure programs such as the School Transport Infrastructure Program.	Pedestrians	Short	ICC, TMR, DoE
I9	Improve pedestrian and cyclist safety through the identification of locations where safety can be implemented at low-cost through measures such as speed reductions and pedestrian prioritisation treatments.	Pedestrians	Short	ICC, TMR
S9	Undertake a review of roads within urban centres with high volumes of active transport users. Identify opportunities where localised or targeted speed limit reductions may be appropriate and warranted.	Pedestrians	Short	ICC, TMR, QPS

Legal/Policy Basis

This report and its recommendations are consistent with the policy outlined in the endorsed iGO - City of Ipswich Transport Plan.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Whilst the percentage of FSI crashes compared to total crashes within the City of Ipswich is below the State’s average, the National Road Safety Strategy acknowledges a ‘towards zero’ visionary target.

This Vision Zero advocates that Australians should not accept road deaths as inevitable. It acknowledges that the task of eliminating deaths and serious injury is difficult and that some crashes will always be inevitable but should not be considered acceptable.

The RSAP provides the City of Ipswich with a plan to reduce transport-related trauma and improve the road safety on the Ipswich transport network. If the RSAP is not endorsed by Council, the City of Ipswich will have no overarching strategy to combat growing numbers of road trauma, and will need to continue to rely on ad-hoc road upgrades and State and Federal Government grant funding for road safety improvements. The RSAP provides the City of Ipswich with a pro-active approach to road safety, aligning with the State and Federal Government’s direction on road safety.

Additionally, one of the most significant risks to the successful delivery of RSAP is political support (from all levels of Government) and adequate and timely funding. In both instances the risks are highly likely to materialise and if not addressed, represent an unacceptable risk to the successful delivery of RSAP.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Council currently conducts programs that target improved road safety on the local transport network, mainly delivered through the Road Safety and Operations Sub-Program. In the past five years, Council has dedicated a budget for road safety improvements between $0.5M to $3.8M per year. Council’s other infrastructure programs do not specifically target road safety improvements, but indirectly provide them through upgrading facilities to current standards and maintenance of assets. These programs include:

• Strategic roads programs

• Traffic signal modifications programs

• Signage and line-marking maintenance works

• Mass action rehabilitation programs

• Footpath rehabilitation works

• Minor improvements programs

• Public transport and sustainable travel programs

The RSAP presents numerous actions that may be considered ‘business as usual’ and are unlikely to require an additional level of funding beyond current provisions. However, it is estimated that a third of the actions proposed for the RSAP are unlikely to be delivered as part of current programs that would require additional budget to be sourced. The table of actions in the Technical Report (Attachment 1, Appendix C) also provides high-level estimates on the cost to deliver and whether on-going funding will be required. The actions in the Technical Report have been divided into the following cost ranges:

· Low (<$150K)

· Medium ($150K to $1 Million)

· High (>$1 Million)

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The development of the RSAP has been guided by a series of collaborative workshops with various organisational stakeholders contributing to the Project Advisory Group (PAG) and Working Group (WG). A total of three (3) WG meetings and two (2) PAG meetings were undertaken as part of the RSAP program.

The PAG and WG meetings were attended by representatives from the following organisations:

· Ipswich City Council (ICC) - Infrastructure and Environment Department

· Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR)

· Queensland Police Service (QPS)

· Queensland Fire and Emergency Services (QFES)

· Queensland Health (QH)

· Department of Education (DoE)

Outside of the project workshops and meetings, industry consultation was undertaken with several key organisations external to the PAG and WG to gain an understanding of their organisation’s impression of road safety in Ipswich. Those organisations approached that provided input included:

· The Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ)

· Brisbane West Bicycle User Group

· Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland

· Bicycle Queensland

· Australian Road Research Board (ARRB)

Other organisations that were approached included Motorcycling Queensland, Motorcycle Riders' Association of Queensland and the Department of Communities, Disability Services and Seniors but were unavailable to provide input.

The key messages from these organisations who responded include:

· On-going education of all road users and support for a road safety culture is extremely important and should be supported by enforcement of behaviours that contribute to road trauma.

· Improvements to transport networks (particularly active travel and public transport), is likely to have a positive outcome for road safety in Ipswich, by reducing private vehicle trips and in particular long commuter trips.

· On-going maintenance of poor condition roads is important as well as reducing congestion where possible.

· Lower speed limits are desired within built-up areas of Ipswich, and a 40 km/h speed limit was considered desirable in major centres with high volumes of active transport users.

· Acknowledgement that funding and competing priorities can be difficult to overcome.

Given the large amount of government data available to the project team (crash data, police reports etc.), no external consultation process with the public was undertaken.

Conclusion

Road safety is an issue that requires an on-going commitment from road authorities and the community to see positive influence and change.

The iGO Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP), a key action from iGO – The City of Ipswich Transport Plan outlines an ambitious but realistic vision for reducing road trauma in Ipswich. The RSAP targets a continuous annual reduction of Fatal and Serious Injury (FSI) crashes, with 11 specific targets to address key opportunities for improvement. These targets will be addressed focussing on five Areas of Influence, by which 45 actions have been identified for Council and its supporting partners to undertake. The RSAP highlights the shared responsibility to reduce road trauma on the Ipswich transport network.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	iGO Road Safety Action Plan - Technical Report (under separate cover)
2.	iGO Road Safety Action Plan - Summary Report (under separate cover)

Berto Santana

Team Lead (Transport and Traffic)

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”

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6330275

ITEM: 4

SUBJECT: Adoption of the Ipswich Nature Centre Masterplan

AUTHOR: Planning Officer (Biodiversity)

DATE: 30 June 2020

Executive Summary

A report was presented to Environment Committee No. 2019(02) of 19 February 2019 (Attachment 1). The Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council resolved:

Subsequently, a Community Sentiment Survey and an Economic Impact Report have now been completed in relation to this recommendation.

Recommendations

C. That Council resolve to identify external grants and funding opportunities to facilitate the implementation of the Queens Park Nature Centre and Discovery Hub Masterplan.

D. That Council note that the name of the nature centre referred to in the Masterplan as the Queens Park Nature Centre and Discovery Hub is the Ipswich Nature Centre.

RELATED PARTIES

There was no declaration of conflicts of interest in development of the Queens Park Nature Centre Masterplan

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Caring for the environment

advance ipswich linkage

Advance Ipswich recognises that the conservation of the natural environment is a key component in creating a sustainable and liveable community. The following responses identify how the Ipswich Nature Centre renovation project aligns with and responds to Advance Ipswich:

Goal 1
Strategy 3	Develop the Ipswich City Centre as the regional capital of the Western Corridor of SEQ and as an important regional employment centre.
Item 3.6	Key Action Ensure the Ipswich City Centre is well served with appropriate infrastructure, including digital infrastructure, transport, parklands and public spaces	Response to Key Action The Ipswich Nature Centre is the City’s most visited tourist attraction. Management and upgrading of the facility ensures that the Centre, and associated parkland (Queens Park), services and responds to the growing needs of community within the context of the City Centre’s open space requirements.
Goal 4
Strategy 6	Improve environmental awareness, education and compliance.
Item 6.1	Key Action Environmental education and awareness programs are planned and promoted to the community, land owners and other key stakeholders.	Response to Key Action As an interface and gateway with the City’s conservation areas for key flora and fauna species, the upgraded Ipswich Nature Centre will provide increased education, promotion and awareness of the City’s precious natural environment and rich natural heritage and Aboriginal cultural heritage.

Purpose of Report/Background

The Ipswich Nature Centre (Nature Centre) is South East Queensland’s only known free zoo and is Ipswich’s number 1 tourist attraction as ranked by TripAdvisor with over 140,000 visitors seen in 2019 alone. The Ipswich Nature Centre has not had any major updates or improvements since the installation of the Bilby enclosure in 2009.

As an iconic day-trip destination, a key driver of visitors into Ipswich CBD and with Advance Ipswich noting the community’s connection to Ipswich’s heritage, bushlands and rural identity, it is timely for Council to consider the next stage of enhancement for the Nature Centre to be seen as a Queensland Landmark. As a premier tourist attraction, the Nature Centre can also function as a ‘Gateway’ to Ipswich CBD, and the City’s natural area network; showcasing Ipswich’s diverse array of native flora and fauna, and our adopted iconic species.

The Queens Park Nature Centre and Discovery Hub Masterplan (Attachment 2) identifies the following visions and objectives:

· Provide an up-close, personal and educational interaction with Australian Wildlife and Ipswich’s Iconic Species

· Enhance the overall visitor experience of the Ipswich Nature Centre through the use of smart technology and well-designed enclosures to communicate the environmental and cultural heritage values of Ipswich

· Act as a gateway to the conservation estates and reserves across the City as key habitat areas for native flora and fauna

· Promote the Ipswich Nature Centre as a premier tourist destination in Queensland supporting visitation and spend into Ipswich.

The Nature Centre Masterplan proposes a number of embellishments of varying size and scale to enhance the visitor experience and meet the visions and objectives for the site. Several embellishments have been identified as being signature projects that are likely to have a major impact on the overall site. These include:

· Creation of a new and more user friendly entrance

· Creation of an aquatic fauna centre and platypus enclosure

· Creation of a koala enclosure

· Enhanced nocturnal experience

The successful implementation of the Nature Centre Masterplan is expected to make a significant contribution to the local economy, local tourism and visitor experience.

An Economic Impact (Attachment 3) and Community/Visitor Sentiment Study (Attachment 4) were commissioned to support the implementation of the Nature Centre Masterplan. The high-level findings were:

Visitor Numbers:

A - 45% (rounded) of visitation is from outside the Ipswich Council area

B - 55% (rounded) of visitation is generated from Ipswich residents

Visitor Expenditure:

· The study estimated that total visitor expenditure within the precinct of Queens Park and the Nature Centre is $774,770;

· The study estimated expenditure by visitors from outside the Ipswich Council area as being $309,652 and from within Ipswich Council area as being $465,117.

· The additional total expenditure (outside the Queens Park and Nature Centre precinct) by visitors from outside the City as approximately $2.5 million (including: meals and shopping).

Based on modelled concepts, similar SEQ and National case studies and current visitor data it is estimated that the implementation of the Nature Centre Masterplan would increase external tourism by 106% (approximately 141,210 additional visitors per year) and internal tourism by 105,591 visitors a year.

In turn, the Study estimates that this would result in an increased total contribution as a result of the Nature Centre upgrades into the local economy from $2.5 million in 2018-2019 to $5.54 million by 2024-2025.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006 – for the regulation of displays and keeping of animals.

Queens Park Land Management Plan 2013 – sets the strategic direction for Queens Park in its entirety.

Queensland Heritage Act 1992 – sets the legislation for the management of Queens Park as a heritage listed park.

Local Government Act 2009

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

A number of risks have been identified throughout the development of the Nature Centre Masterplan.

One of the major concerns with implementing the Masterplan was ensuring that the facility can remain open and flowing well during construction of new additions or enclosures. To avoid these potential impacts the Masterplan has been carefully planned and staged to keep disruption to a minimum.

The proposed increases to the number and type of animals was also identified as a risk for keeping the Nature Centre functioning as intended. As a result an upgrade to the back of house facilities was also included and would be required early in the redevelopment. Similarly, increased staffing would be required and also presents a risk. In particular with any potential koala display given, feeding requires significant labour involved with finding fresh food daily or weekly.

As the Nature Centre has not had a significant upgrade in over a decade a further identified risk is the potential for the facility to become dated, obsolete and fall behind its competitors. This would have a potential negative impact to visitors to the Nature Centre and flow on into the local economy.

Further there is or will be growing social concern for animal welfare in captivity. Traditional menagerie style animal exhibits are now viewed by many as cruel and antiquated as well as posing genuine animal welfare concerns. It is generally expected that modern animal or nature centre public attractions put animal welfare, conservation and education at the fore of their operations. Planning and investment is required to maintain the legislated ethical and safe standards of animal husbandry and care, as well as to ensure that the community expectations are met and exceeded in relation to the conditions and state of animal enclosures, level of interpretation and information provided going forwards.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Cost estimates have been provided by the consultant team and are included in detail within the Masterplan. Works are outlined in stages per proposed feature habitat area of the Masterplan. These costs are considered to be high-level indicative costs, and will require detailed design and costing to be completed as the next step to understanding the full cost implications of the Masterplan.

A summary of cost estimates are as follows:

Description of Works	Value of Works	Contingency	Total
Description of Works	Value of Works	20%	Total
Stage 1	$2,794,588.80	$558,918	$3,353,506.56
Stage 2	$888,816	$177,763	$1,066,579.20
Stage 3	$3,234,032	$646,806	$3,880,838.40
Stage 4	$1,082,608	$216,522	$1,299,129.60
Stage 5	$253,360	$50,672	$304,032
Total Cost Estimate			$9,904,085.76

Service Infrastructure improvements, such as water, electricity, communications, and civil works associated with each stage of works are not specifically identified and will need to be reviewed within the detailed design phase. There are a number of works which are encouraged to proceed independent of primary feature works projects, including planting consistent with future landscape character for each habitat area, circulation and interpretive signage and artworks.

The Cost Benefit Analysis conducted through the Economic Impact Report (Attachment 3) provides an objective assessment of approximately $10 million investment into Nature Centre upgrades. The Cost Benefit Analysis determines that the upgrades would be economically desirable and provide both net social and economic benefit over a 20 year time frame.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Through the development of the Masterplan consultation with a number of stakeholders was undertaken. This includes:

· Department of Environment and Science with regards to the management of Queens Park as a heritage listed park

· Council’s Transport and Traffic Team with regards to proposed changes to traffic flow

· Council’s Native Title and Cultural Heritage Officer with regards to cultural heritage management and themes represented in the Masterplan

· Various technical experts within the consultant team

· Council’s City Maintenance staff in relation to management concerns, staffing implications and future plans of the site

· Council staff in relation to aligning management between Ipswich Nature Centre and Queens Park Environmental Education Centre

· Council’s Heritage Officer from the City Design branch within the Planning and Regulatory Services Department

· Council’s Tourism team from the Cultural Community and Economic Development Department

All related parties consulted above agreed in principle to the contents of the Nature Centre Masterplan.

Community sentiment and attitudes to the existing Nature Centre and the proposed upgrades was done through a Visitor Sentiment Survey. The highlights of the surveys are as follows:

· Over 94% of respondents from the general community survey (online survey) indicated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Nature Centre

· Over 96% of surveyed visitors to the Nature Centre indicated they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the Nature Centre

· Over 99% of people surveyed would recommend the Nature Centre as a place to visit

· 71% of people agree that the Nature Centre is an iconic Ipswich location

Conclusion

The Queens Park Nature Centre & Discovery Hub Masterplan sets a vision and clear staged implementation plan for updating the Ipswich Nature Centre into a modern native animal encounter and education facility. The Ipswich Nature Centre would be transformed into a Queensland landmark with greater representation of Ipswich’s Natural and Cultural Heritage. Importantly, the changes will create an exciting and improved visitor experience for the residents of Ipswich and visitors from the south-east Queensland catchment and broader. The masterplan is designed to preserve the heritage of viewing animals for free in Queens Park.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Environment Committee Report 19 February 2019 ⇩
2.	Queens Park Nature Centre and Discovery Hub Masterplan (under separate cover)
3.	Economic Impact Report for Nature Centre Extension (under separate cover)
4.	Queens Park Nature Centre Community Sentiment Survey (under separate cover)

Tim Shields

Planning Officer (Biodiversity)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Phil Smith

Natural Environment and Land Manager

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”

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6326246

ITEM: 5

SUBJECT: White Rock-Spring Mountain Conservation Estate Master Plan 2020-2040

AUTHOR: Project Officer (Natural Environment)

DATE: 29 June 2020

Executive Summary

The White Rock-Spring Mountain Conservation Estate Master Plan is the first in a series of mater planning exercises for the broader Natural Area Estate and Network.

Recommendation

RELATED PARTIES

There are no conflicts of interest.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

The purpose of the White Rock-Spring Mountain Conservation Estate Master Plan is to provide a considered, well informed and planned approach to the protection, enhancement and the conservation of ecological and cultural heritage values within the estate. It does this whilst balancing the needs and impacts of nature-based recreation opportunities for visitors.

The guiding principles and objectives of the master plan are:

§ To protect, manage and enhance the diversity and health of native flora and fauna, vegetation communities and waterways

§ To identify, protect and raise awareness of culturally significant sites, and to reflect and include the Traditional Owner knowledge and interests in the estate planning and management

§ To allow for public appreciation of the estate by providing sustainable nature-based recreation infrastructure and opportunities

§ To conserve the geological, scenic and landscape features of the estate, and to minimise and mitigate impacts such as soil erosion within the estate

§ To provide opportunities for community engagement and education that are compatible and complementary to the important conservation values contained within the estate

§ To create landscape connectivity and maximise the connections between the estate and surrounding areas

The master plan provides strategic direction for:

§ The installation of sustainable visitor infrastructure, such as: amenity upgrade to Paperbark Flats day use area; installation of boardwalks and stairs; upgrade to existing tracks; and planning, design and installation of new tracks

§ Themed trails that provide key points of interest and educational / interpretive signage to illustrate the conservation and cultural significance of the estate

§ A staged approach ensuring works are focused and delivered within the relevant stage while future stages are being properly planned

§ Opportunities to engage with the community in educating visitors in protecting the natural and cultural values of the estate while enjoying the nature-based recreation available

§ Monitoring and measuring visitor use of the estate and the impact this has on the current and future conservation and cultural values

§ Undertaking flora and fauna surveys and monitoring programs to measure existing conditions and trends to compare changes in the ecological health of the estate

§ Maximising landscape connectivity within the estate and on a broader scale across the regionally significant Flinders Karawatha Corridor

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009

Nature Conservation Act 1992

Nature Conservation (Protected Areas) Regulation 1994

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The risk of not progressing with an approved master plan is that it may result in the ongoing degradation of the values within the conservation estate. This includes but is not limited to areas of high conservation and cultural heritage values, biodiversity, habitat value, waterway health, and sediment and erosion control. Importantly, the protection and enhancement of the estate contributes directly to the health of the Flinders Karawatha Corridor which is the largest remaining stretch of open eucalyptus forest in South East Queensland.

Another key risk of not adopting the master plan is that Council is not proactively managing or accommodating for the increased use and visitation to the White Rock-Spring Mountain Conservation Estate, and not providing nature-based recreation infrastructure to meet community expectations and demand, or Australian Standards.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The master plan informs investment priorities and projects that will be captured within capital and operational planning each year, under the Enviroplan Levy. Detailed designs and costing are yet to be completed.

Some opportunities and projects identified in Stage 1 of the master plan have been put forward for consideration under current grant funding programs this financial year.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Internal stakeholder consultation was undertaken with officers from:

§ Environment and Sustainability

§ Community and Cultural Services

§ Infrastructure Strategy

Council’s Visitor Management Officer conducted an online survey and face to face discussions to understand how many people visited the estate and why they visited the estate. Further to this, monitoring and interaction with visitors and key user groups is ongoing and feedback is actively sought.

Visitor numbers are monitored regularly to gauge the use of the estate. This information has assisted in the development of the master plan.

Conclusion

The White Rock-Spring Mountain Conservation Estate Master Plan provides a considered, well informed and planned approach towards balancing the protection of the conservation and cultural values within Council’s natural area estates, whilst providing a safe and accessible location for nature-based recreation.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	White Rock Spring Mountain Conservation Estate Master Plan 2020-2040 (under separate cover)

Carmel O'Neill

Project Officer (Natural Environment)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Phil Smith

Natural Environment and Land Manager

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”

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6161195

ITEM: 6

SUBJECT: Landholder Partnerships Program - Review Recommendation

AUTHOR: Program Officer (Natural Environment)

DATE: 25 June 2020

Executive Summary

RecommendationS

A. That Council endorse the Landholder Conservation Partnerships Program review report as detailed Attachment 1.

B. That Council resolve to work in partnership with landholders that have a Voluntary Conservation Agreement to transition to one of the new Landholder Conservation Partnerships.

RELATED PARTIES

· Envirosphere Consulting

· Landholder Partnerships working group

There was no declaration of conflicts of interest for this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

Private landholders manage more than 80% of Ipswich’s land area, including some of the City’s most important ecological values and intact wildlife corridors. It is widely recognised that private land conservation is a crucial part of protecting Ipswich’s environmental assets, and thereby contributing greatly to broader conservation outcomes for the City.

Conservation partnerships on private land are a fundamental and valuable tool in achieving Council’s corporate objectives, specifically in regards to caring for the environment. Without such partnering arrangements in place, coordinated conservation efforts, education and communication are limited to land owned and managed by Council.

Under the Nature Conservation Strategy 2015 (NCS), promoting partnerships is one of four (4) objectives in place to achieve Ipswich’s vision ‘...to support a healthy and vibrant natural environment highly valued by, and connected to the community’.

The Landholder Conservation Partnerships Program (LCPP) is a tool used to engage the Ipswich community and create awareness of key threats and conservation priorities in Ipswich. The Program has shown increasing success measured by the number of new members, and has been delivered by one or two Program Officers since its inception in 1997. The Program was one of the first and leading programs in South East Queensland to be supported through an Environmental Levy – the Enviroplan Levy. Today the program has 167 Voluntary Conservation Agreement members, 195 Land for Wildlife members and over 1,000 Habitat Gardens members.

2019-2020 Review Purpose

Envirosphere Consulting was engaged by Council in October 2019 to facilitate a comprehensive review of the program following the outcomes of internal audits, legal review of the grants process, and continual landholder feedback. The objectives of the review were to:

· Align the Landholder Conservation Partnerships Program with the Ipswich Enviroplan Program and Levy Policy, and the Nature Conservation Strategy

· Address transparency, accountability, objectivity and legal concerns

· Provide effective long-term support for existing and future partnering landholders in Ipswich

· Ensure that the Program is relevant to landholder needs in accordance with Council Policies

The proposed Program supersedes the current nine (9) partnerships with six (6) new partnerships and introduces a statutory option for a permanent protection measure. The partnerships are designed to deliver on the requirement for greater transparency, accountability and objectivity with assessment tools being developed for Program registration as well as for determining eligibility and prioritisation of Program support (Attachment 4). The transition to the new Program will offer more suitable support for the existing partners, while managing the City’s natural resources in a more efficient and strategically-aligned manner.

New Program Overview

The vision for the new Program is to protect, maintain and enhance biodiversity. The program objectives are to:

· Foster stewardship and environmental advocacy

· Facilitate on ground conservation outcomes and provide a reliable platform for conservation on private land

· Support and up-skill private landholders through education, provision of resources and knowledge sharing

· Actively engage with landholders across strategic priorities (geographically and ecologically defined) as per the Nature Conservation Strategy and the Waterway Health Strategy

· Engage with internal and external stakeholders to achieve broad environmental outcomes

A key change to the Program structure is the introduction of a Voluntary Conservation Covenant (VCC) which will provide permanent conservation protections attached to the property Title (Attachment 1).

A further key change for the proposed new Program structure is the ceasing of Land Management Payments (LMP) for all landowners (with the exception of VCC Partners). The LMP will be replaced by Nature Conservation Grants which will be directly linked to projects submitted as part of a co-signed Property Management Plan. This will ensure targeted and transparent use of Council funds.

New Program Requirements

Annual reporting will be required for Landholders to receive Council incentives. Information provided in annual reports will be used to measure the success of the overall Program, and will be presented in an annual report to Council.

Program Incentives

The proposed new incentives (Attachment 3) include:

· Nature Conservation Grants

· Land Management Payments for VCC partners

· Technical and in kind support to landholders after initial registration to help support, encourage and educate landholders

Nature Conservation Grants and Land Management Payments

The new program includes an increase in the eligible Nature Conservation Grant amount from $6,000 to $8,000 to keep up with current practices and costs for the delivery conservation projects. Landholder feedback indicated that the scale of proposed projects does not adequately reflect funding opportunities. The proposal to open grants up to Land for Wildlife is to provide those landholders an opportunity to enhance ecological values and become eligible for a the higher-level agreements, and working towards VCC’s. The same amount is proposed to allow for consistency across all partnership agreement types within the new program.

Land Management Payments are proposed as an annual incentive for VCC’s only, as an additional incentive to assist in achieving conservation outcomes. The payment will be awarded once a property management plan (PMP) is approved and endorsed. Payments will align with the plans 5-year term and outlined property actions. An inclusion of a budget and finance section will be made mandatory and will be reviewed annually to allow for proper project consideration and accurate budget proposals. Timeframes for payments will be outlined in the associated PMP. This additional incentive, above that of all other partnerships will provide further support of Council’s investment in long-term conservation on private land. This commitment will also allow for more valuable conservation projects in high quality conservation areas.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009

As part of the transition planning, legal advice was obtained from Council’s Legal Services to determine the following:

· Council’s responsibilities

· Land owner’s responsibilities

· The life of each agreement

· Zoning implications

· Whether Council is able to cancel the agreements and cease payment

· Validity of agreements that are not fully executed

Whether Council is able to cancel the agreements and cease payment was identified as a priority and at most risk to the transition into the new program. It was identified that most of the agreements that currently receive Land Management Payments can be terminated by Council (provided that Councils gives the required notice), with the exception of a small number of agreements.

In the event that the landholder does not voluntarily agree to terminate their existing agreement, both parties will have to wait until after the agreement expiry date, property sale or through deceased estate to terminate the agreement.

The transition of landholders from the old program to the new will be a collaborative and planned process, whereby landholders with agreements that cannot be terminated by Council will be encouraged to transition to partnerships that achieve better outcomes for both the landholder and Council.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

An initial risk assessment analysis was undertaken to examine key Program values and critical success factors, potential risks and likely causes, levels, and consequences.

The greatest risk to the success of the transition to the proposed Program was identified to be with landholder relationships and cooperation. To date that risk has been managed through detailed consideration of the feedback received through both the landholder surveys undertaken prior to commencing the review and the landholder working group meetings for VCA’s and Habitat Gardens held on 31 January 2020. In alignment with the communication plan, effective and open communication has been undertaken with landholders, with monthly updates, telephone communication and face-to-face conversations with landholders.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Program services and transition costs include;

Program and Agreements Resourcing 2019-2020	BUDGET
Land Management Payments	$115,000
Nature Conservation Grants	$110,000
Voluntary Conservation Agreement Incentives	$5,000
Landholder workshops -Catering and workshop costs	$5,000
Land for Wildlife - General	$15,000
	$250,000

Program and Agreements Resourcing 2020-2021	BUDGET
Land Management Payments for current program during transition	$115,000
Nature Conservation Grants for current program during transition	$110,000
Land for Wildlife - General	$15,000
	$240,000

Program and Agreements Resourcing 2021-2022	BUDGET
Land Management Payment for new VCC properties and transition payments	$60,000*
Voluntary Conservation Covenant establishment (x2) and associated property and legal fees**	$40,000**
Nature Conservation Grants (5% growth, presumption for new applicants from Land Management Payment loss) ($110,000 combined with remaining Land Management Payment $50,000)	$180,000
Voluntary Conservation Agreement Incentives	$5,200
New Program Launch - Landholder workshops -Catering and workshop costs	$5,500
Land for Wildlife - General	$15,000

Program Review – Legal Requests	$15,750
Program Review – Administration Assistance – CRM data migration	$10,000
Program Review – New Sign Printing	$8,000
	$339,500

Table 2 - Current Program and Proposed Transition Costs

* $60,000 for VCC payments and any remaining payments required as landholders transition from previous agreements through to the new partnerships. Includes the administration and legal costs and is a re-allocation from the previous $115,000 formerly assigned to Land Management Payment in the 2020-2021 budget. This budget may be lower with a successful transition to the new program.

** $40,000 for the estimated cost of registering a Conservation Covenant as a one off $20,000. Cost inclusions;

· Legal fees for producing and reviewing the agreement

· Property surveying fees for boundary alignment

The budget is funded from the Enviroplan Levy.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Landholder working groups were consulted with in a number of different ways including mail outs, electronic newsletters and a series of facilitated workshops. Their feedback was taken on board and the groups agreed with the proposed changes made to the Program.

The following methods of consultation were undertaken;

· Landholder survey

· Expression of interest to landholders willing to participate in working groups

· Two workshops presenting the proposed new program

· Monthly updates to landholders

· Meetings with landholders

· Internal meetings with representatives from the Environment and Sustainability Branch

· Internal meetings with Council’s Nursery

Conclusion

Council’s Landholder Conservation Partnerships Program provides an opportunity to deliver key conservation outcomes in priority areas in line with Council’s Nature Conservation Strategy and The Ipswich Enviroplan Program and Levy Policy. The proposed Program and associated Agreements will be delivered to achieve greater transparency, accountability and objectivity with emphasis on more reporting and measurable outcomes for overall Program success. The transition into the proposed Program offers a higher level of service, aiming for a self-managed program supported by an engaged community and further protecting the City’s biodiversity on private land.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Landholder Partnerships Program Recommendation Report ⇩
2.	Landholder Survey Results ⇩
3.	Landholder Program Incentive Summary ⇩
4.	New Program Eligibility Criteria ⇩

Stephani Macarthur

Program Officer (Natural Environment)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Phil Smith

Natural Environment and Land Manager

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”

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6292969

ITEM: 8

SUBJECT: Proposed New Sub Lease over Freehold Land for Community Purposes to Y-Care - South East Queensland Inc. trading as YMCA Social Impact - 7003 Parkland Drive Springfield Central

AUTHOR: Senior Property Officer (Tenure)

DATE: 12 June 2020

Executive Summary

RECOMMENDATION

A. That Council as Sub Lessee resolve pursuant to section 236(2) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) that the exception referred to in section 236(1)(b)(ii) of the Regulation applies to the disposal of the leasehold interest located at part of 7003 Parkland Drive, Springfield Central and described as Lease Area C over Lot 1200 on SP303994 (“the land”), by way of a leasehold arrangement between Council and Y-Care (South East Queensland) Inc. trading as YMCA Social Impact.

RELATED PARTIES

Four (4) responses were received to Council’s Expression of Interest for the tenure and management of the Community Centre component of the newly constructed Springfield Central Sport and Community Hall. These (4) respondents are noted in Confidential Attachment 3.

The Evaluation Panel first considered conflicts of interest before analysing and appraising the responses to the Expression of Interest (detailed in Confidential Attachment 3). Council’s Procurement Manager has reviewed Confidential Attachment 3 and no objections have been noted to the processes undertaken.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure and Caring for the community.

Purpose of Report/Background

In accordance with Council’s Community Centre Operating Policy (Attachment 1), on 7 December 2019, Council opened an Expression of Interest (EOI) for the tenure and management of the Community Centre component of the newly constructed Springfield Central Sport and Community Hall (the Community Centre). The intention of the EOI was to establish a partnership with a community organisation whose services aligned with the strategic intent of Council to facilitate the provision of quality social and community outcomes, focused specifically on children, young people and families.

The Community Centre is one component of the larger Springfield Central Sport and Community Hall which incorporates:

- A Community Centre (coloured green in the floor plan at Attachment 2);

- Shared School and Community Sporting Spaces (coloured yellow in the floor plan at Attachment 2); and

- Department of Education/Springfield Central State High School Spaces (coloured purple in the floor plan at Attachment 2).

Applications to the EOI closed on 11 February 2020 and attracted a total of three (3) compliant expressions of interest. Each response was evaluated by a Panel of Council representatives and the successful respondent was identified as Y-Care (South East Queensland) Inc. trading as YMCA Social Impact (see Confidential Attachment 3).

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Land Act 1994

Local Government Act 2009

Local Government Regulation 2012

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Known risks associated with management of the community centre will be addressed through the terms of the Sub Lease.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Council will be responsible for costs associated with the general cleaning of the shared use area (Area A) and sub lease area (Area C) and general repairs and maintenance within Area C in relation to planned and emergent maintenance as per the Sub Lessors maintenance standards. Council is also responsible for the relevant insurances and associated utility costs for Area C.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Council approached organisations through an EOI process to establish a partnership that will facilitate the provision of quality social and community outcomes through the tenure and management of the Community Centre component of the newly constructed Springfield Central Sport and Community Hall (the Community Centre).

To encourage applicants from the local industry and market, Council advertised the EOI in both the Queensland Times and The Courier Mail newspapers and online at LGTenderbox.

The contents of this report do not require any community consultation.

In relation to internal/organisational consultation, the following have been consulted and have noted no objections to the contents of this report nor its recommendations:

- Manager, Procurement;

- Manager, Community and Cultural Services; and

- Community Development Manager.

Conclusion

In accordance with Council’s Community Centre Operating Model Policy (Attachment 1), it is recommended that a sub lease be entered into with Y-Care (South East Queensland) Inc. trading as YMCA Social Impact, as the successful respondent to the EOI for the tenure and management of the Community Centre component of the newly constructed Springfield Central Sport and Community Hall.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Community Facilities and Operating Model Policy ⇩
2.	Floor Plan ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
3.	REOI Evaluation Report

Kerry Perrett

Senior Property Officer (Tenure)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Brett McGrath

Property Services Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Sonia Cooper

General Manager Corporate Services

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

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6239668

ITEM: 9

SUBJECT: Proposed Trustee Lease over Trust Land for Recreation Purposes - Queensland Rugby Football League Limited - 43 The Terrace North Ipswich

AUTHOR: Property Services Manager

DATE: 18 May 2020

Executive Summary

RECOMMENDATION

A. That Council, as Trustee, resolve pursuant to section 236(2) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 (the Regulation) that the exception under sections 236(1)(b)( ii)) of the Regulation applies to the disposal of the leasehold interest located at part of 43 The Terrace, North Ipswich described as Lot 246 on Crown Plan SL8089 (“the land”), by way of a leasehold arrangement between Council and Queensland Rugby Football League Limited for a consideration.

B. That Council enter into a Trustee lease with Queensland Rugby Football League Limited (“the tenant”) for a period of 20 years.

E. That Council terminate the agreement executed on 30 March 2008 with the entity formerly known as Ipswich Rugby League Incorporated (IRL) and now trading as Rugby League Ipswich.

RELATED PARTIES

There were no conflicts of interest declared by any parties involved in the new proposal of the lease with the QRL. The external parties involved in this matter include the following community sporting groups:

· Queensland Rugby League

· Rugby League Ipswich

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the community

Purpose of Report/Background

The property located at 43 The Terrace, North Ipswich is described as Lot 246 on Crown Plan SL8089 and is known as the North Ipswich Reserve. The property is owned by the State under the Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Energy (DNRME) and is a Deed of Grant in Trust (DOGIT) for Recreation Purposes. The DOGIT was previously held by the Trustees of the North Ipswich Rugby League Football Ground (Reserve Trustees) before transferring to Council in 2017. Previous to becoming the Trustee, Council was the Trustee Lessee and had an Agreement with the Ipswich Rugby League (IRL) for their occupation and use of the land. The following gives a more detailed history on the occupation of the North Ipswich Reserve.

In 1993, the IRL entered into a Trustee Lease with the Reserve Trustees for a 20 year term with an option for a further 20 year term expiring in 2033. The lease area was for the whole of the lot excluding the canteen site which was a Trustee Lease to Swifts Leagues Club the canteen site only. This lease was surrendered by Swifts in 2006.

In 2008, the IRL transferred the Trustee Lease to Council and all parties consented to a Deed of Assignment. Under the terms of the deed, the assignment fee was $1 and the IRL assigned to Council all their rights, title, and interest in the fixtures and fittings currently upon premises. In conjunction with the assignment of the Trustee Lease, Council and the IRL entered into an Agreement, dated 30 March 2008, to give the IRL occupation and use of the Office at the grounds only. The use of the fields and other facilities was by Permit each season and shared with the Jets Rugby League Club as well as other users and events.

The term of the Agreement was for the same term as the Trustee Lease until 2033 and does not have a defined rental amount. As per the terms of the Agreement, Council pay the IRL’s budget deficit based on annual financial statements provided. Council have been paying the deficit to the IRL, which has been on average between $40,000 and $50,000 per annum.

In 2017, the IRL rebranded to a newly incorporated company, Rugby League Ipswich (RLI), which was formed to amalgamate the junior and senior rugby league entities. RLI requested that Council novate the existing Agreement to the new company. Under the Agreement clause 12.2 expressly prohibits the IRL from transferring, assigning or otherwise dealing with its rights and interests under the agreement. Given the existing Agreement could not be assigned, the Works, Parks and Recreation department put up a report with a recommendation to enter into a new agreement with RLI and this was adopted at the Council Ordinary meeting of 19 September 2017.

RLI requested the same terms of the existing Agreement to be honoured in the new Agreement, however Council proposed another option of paying an annual fixed fee to RLI instead of relying on paying a budget deficit. Both options intended that Council continue to provide in-kind support to RLI, while providing them a facility to use for no rent and Council being responsible for all overhead costs, including the maintenance of the property. The parties did not agree to terms and an Agreement was not finalised between the parties.

Also in 2017, the Trustees of the North Ipswich Rugby League Football Ground resigned and their Trusteeship of the North Ipswich Reserve was revoked. As a result DNRME transferred the DOGIT to Council to manage the Trust land. This effectively rendered the Lease agreement between the Reserve Trustees and Council to be invalid and no longer in place.

Proposal

Negotiations between Council and RLI for a new Trustee Lease agreement commenced in late 2019 to formalise the use of the Reserve and finalise an appropriate tenure arrangement. For the benefit of all potential user groups of the North Ipswich Reserve, it was decided that the playing fields and ancillary facilities would be available for use by way of a seasonal permit. The clubhouse and can bar was offered to RLI under a Trustee Lease instrument for exclusive use of this facility as a rugby league headquarters for Ipswich.

RLI coordinates the junior and senior rugby league competitions in Ipswich under the South East Queensland division and is a branch of the overarching Queensland Rugby League (QRL). Operational staff of the QRL are deployed to the Ipswich division to provide rugby league development in collaboration with the strategic direction provided by RLI Board. The QRL’s operational staff occupy the facility at the North Ipswich Reserve and previously, RLI employed staff through grant funding from QRL that occupied the facility, however this is no longer provided.

Therefore, the decision was made that the Trustee Lease will be formed between the QRL and Council rather than RLI. The management and usage of the clubhouse and can bar facilities will be directed by the QRL Ipswich League Manager with input from the RLI Board. The RLI Board in consultation with the QRL Ipswich League Manager will provide ongoing direction and support for rugby league development in Ipswich.

Under the Land Act 1994 a Trustee Lease with sporting clubs to occupy the land can be for a maximum term of 20 years. It is proposed that Council enter into a Trustee Lease with the QRL over the Trust Land in line with the Mandatory Standard Terms Document 711932933 attached and satisfy all requirements of the Land Act 1994, the Land Regulations 2009 and the State’s Operational Policy - Secondary Use of Trust Land. The proposed trustee lease terms are as follows:

Term:	20 years
Options:	Nil
Rent:	3% of the statutory land valuation, which is valued at $265,000 for the lease areas. Commencing rent will be $7,950 (plus GST) per annum.
Rent Free Period:	3 years from the commencement of the Trustee Lease.
Fixed Review:	Indexed at 3% annually on the anniversary of the Commencement Date.
Market Review:	Every 5 years.
Maintenance:	RLI will be responsible for the minor maintenance of the facility and Council will be responsible for the major maintenance. Both parties have agreed to the Maintenance Schedule attached.
Utilities:	RLI will be responsible for the costs and connection of utilities in the Lease area.

The QRL are categorised as a non-profit organisation by the Australian Securities & Investment Commission. The QRL constitution demonstrates that the QRL is intended to be administered consistent with the principles of a community organisation as it is defined under the Local Government Regulation 2012.

Under section 236(1)(b)(ii) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 it provides an exception from the requirement to dispose of a lease interest in land other than by tender or auction if the disposal is to a community organisation. The Council must however decide by resolution that the exception applies to this category of disposal.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Regulation 2012 + Land Act 1994 + Local Government Act 2009

Additionally, the determination of rent and maintenance requirements has been assessed under Council’s Tenure over Council Land Policy. The QRL align with category C of Schedule 1 – Rent Category under the policy.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There is risk of non-compliance with legal and governance standards and requirements if Council does not resolve to enter into a new agreement with the QRL. The previous agreement terms with RLI were non-conventional in the sense that Council pays the budget deficit of a community group to occupy Council land.

Council also must comply with its obligation as Trustee of the land under the Land Act 1994. This requires using the correct instrument in offering tenure over Trust land for exclusive use and the Trustee Lease with the QRL is the correct agreement.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Council is responsible for the maintenance and repairs of the North Ipswich Reserve and in the financial year 2018-2019 these costs totalled approximately $280,000. The maintenance costs are inclusive of maintaining the fields, buildings and contributing utility charges to operate the facility.

This is Ipswich’s premiere sporting facility for rectangular field sport and it is the main facility for the local rugby league competition and the Ipswich Jets who play in the state competition. User groups of the facility pay the standard seasonal permit fee for use of the field and associated facilities. The QRL and RLI will occupy the office and can bar on an exclusive use agreement and this will be used as a headquarters for rugby league in Ipswich.

The commencing rent will be $7,950 (plus GST) following the three year rent free period.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Council officers met with the board members of RLI and delegates from the QRL to try and resolve this matter. The approach from Council has been to terminate the existing agreement between the parties and enter into a Trustee Lease to allow their continuing occupations of the Reserve. The negotiations of the attached new terms initially were not supported by RLI, however the attached Trustee Lease has been accepted and agreed to by all parties. Given that QRL staff undertake the management and usage of the clubhouse and can bar, it is prudent that the Trustee Lease be formed between Council and the QRL.

Conclusion

It is recommended that Council enter into a Trustee Lease with the QRL inclusive of the Mandatory Standard Terms Document 711932933, which will reflect the requirements of the Land Act 1994 and the State’s Operation Policy – Secondary Use of Trust Land. This will also resolve the issues with the previous agreement between Council and RLI and the cessation of the payment of RLI’s budget deficit (approximately $45,000 per annum).

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Current Agreement - Rugby League Ipswich/Ipswich Rugby League ⇩
2.	Proposed Trustee Lease - QRL - 43 The Terrace, North Ipswich ⇩
3.	Survey Plan of Lease Area ⇩
4.	Proposed Lease Areas A & B (Aerial Map) ⇩
5.	ASIC Company Extract for Queensland Rugby Football League Limited ⇩
6.	Constitution of Queensland Rugby Football League Limited ⇩
7.	Mandatory Standard Terms Document 711932933 ⇩

Brett McGrath

Property Services Manager

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.

Sonia Cooper

General Manager Corporate Services

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

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6333344

ITEM: 10

SUBJECT: Community Donations Report

AUTHOR: Community Grants Coordinator

DATE: 1 July 2020

Executive Summary

This will be the final Community Donations Program report, as from 1 July 2020 the Community Donations Program is replaced by the Major and Minor Funding Program and Councillor Discretionary Funds.

The Community Donations Program will be reported to Council quarterly and the Councillor Discretionary Funds will be reported to Council monthly. As well, both programs will be reported at www.ipswich.qld.gov.au/community/funding-and-support.

Recommendation/s

That the report be received and the contents noted.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no known related party matters associated with this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the Community and Listening, Leading and Financial Management

Purpose of Report/Background

Through the provision of community donations, Ipswich City Council seeks to support the role of community organisations and recognise the significant role they play in developing and delivering initiatives that encourage participation in community life, foster social cohesion, celebrate diversity, and contribute to a vibrant, healthy and sustainable city.

The Community Donations Program allows for funds to be allocated to not-for-profit community organisations for community purposes and supports community organisations to deliver initiatives that address identified local community needs.

A total $400,000 was allocated to the Community Donations Program in the 2019-2020 financial year. As at 30 June 2020 $327,193.70 had been successfully allocated to community outcomes.

Management and Coordination of the Community Donations Program

The Community Development Section manages the receipt, assessment and allocation of funding applications received through the Community Donations Program in accordance with the Community Funding and Support Policy and associated Administrative Guidelines.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009 and Local Government Regulation 2012.

Specifically, section 109 of the Local Government Act 2009 provides local governments with the ability to utilise discretionary funds in accordance with the requirements prescribed under the Local Government Regulations 2012.

Sections 201A, 201B, 202 and 202A of the Local Government Regulations 2012 prescribes a number of requirements for –

a) a local government for making discretionary funds available; and

b) a councillor for using discretionary funds.

Discretionary funds allocated are required to be publically reported under section 202A of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are no risk management implications associated with this report.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Within the Community Development Section, the Community Funding Team is responsible for the management and coordination of Council’s Community Donations Program and community funding and support programs. The Community Funding Team is a team of two (2) full-time staff.

Funding for the provision of community donations is contained within the Community 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 did not require any community consultation.

Conclusion

Applications for funding through the Community Donations Program are assessed in accordance with the eligibility criteria and assessment process outlined in the Community Funding and Support Policy and associated Administrative Guidelines.

This report provides detail about the allocation of community donations for the 2019-2020 financial year up to 30 June 2020 (Attachment 1), and provides a summary of these community donations by recipient type (Attachment 2).

This will be the final Community Donations Program report, as from 1 July 2020 the Community Donations Program is replaced by the Major and Minor Funding Program and Councillor Discretionary Funds.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	2019-2020 Community Donations Report - 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 ⇩
2.	2019-2020 Community Donations Recipient Type - 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 ⇩

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”

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6250622

ITEM: 11

SUBJECT: Amendment to Delegation to CEO

AUTHOR: Project Officer

DATE: 8 July 2020

Executive Summary

Recommendation/s

RELATED PARTIES

There are no identified conflicts of interest associated with this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Listening, leading and financial management.

Purpose of Report/Background

As a result of Transformation Project 11 – Delegations, Governance Section continues to monitor all minor changes to existing legislation which may impact and require amendments to Council’s delegation instrument of powers from Council to the CEO. The monitoring and review of ongoing legislative change and updates are completed by both the Governance Project Officer, subscribing to updates from the LGAQ and the Legal Services Section monitoring additional changes through Parliament.

Over the summer recess of Parliament the LGAQ engaged King and Co to conduct a full review of the LGAQ delegations register which resulted in a number of changes being advised through the subscription service. These changes include:

· New additional powers under the State Penalties Enforcement Regulation 2014, Transport Infrastructure (State-controlled Roads) Regulation 2017 and the Environmental Protection Regulation 2019

· Minor additional amendments have also been made to a number of sections under the Land Act 1994, Local Government Act 2009, Acquisition of Land Act 1967 and Economic Development Act 2012.

Attachment 1 to this report contains the pages indicating the relevant amendments made to the delegation instrument in track changes, to allow Council to identify which minor changes have been made to the current delegation instrument. Attachment 2 is the fully amended version of the delegation instrument from Council to the CEO (LGD-2020-03), with the instrument updated, reflecting the changes identified in Attachment 1.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The current instruments of delegation from Council to the CEO must meet legal requirements under the Local Government Act 2009 (LGA) and the Local Government Regulation 2012 (LGR). In order for the delegation of power to be effective under s257 (1) (b) of the LGA it must relevantly contain, for the purpose of section 260(1) of the LGA, the particulars prescribed under section 305(1) of the LGR.

The amendments to the schedule of powers contained in the delegation instrument (LGD-2020-03) (Attachment 2) from Council to the CEO, meet the criteria under the LGA and LGR.

In summary

The additional powers under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 are:

· The power to agree in writing with the person entitled as owner to compensation, in respect of taking of land, to the revesting of land or part of it, to which a gazette resumption notice relates.

· The power to refer the determination of compensation to the Land Court (this relates to very specific matters) not general compensation matters under this Act.

The State Penalties Enforcement Regulation 2014 provides additional powers for Council to apply to the State Penalties Registrar to be an approved sponsor, for a work development order, for an individual who has a debt to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry.

The Transport Infrastructure (State-controlled Roads) Regulation 2017 has one additional power for Council to give further information to the chief executive of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, for an application for approval of ancillary works on a State Controlled Road. The power is only to allow Council to provide more information to the chief executive.

The delegation of the additional powers are low risk to Council, and just minor legislative updates.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial implications as a result of this report.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The contents of this report did not require any community consultation.

Conclusion

The minor amendments to existing legislative power delegated from Council to the CEO and the addition of any new legislative power has been identified in attachment 1 and 2 of this report from LGAQ legislative updates. The amendments have been incorporated into Council’s delegation instrument (LGD-2020-03) from Council to the CEO as contained in attachment 2 of this report.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Amendments to CEO Delegation ⇩
2.	Delegation Instrument LGD-2020-03 ⇩

Alisha Campbell

Project Officer

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Angela Harms

Governance Manager

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.

Sonia Cooper

General Manager Corporate Services

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

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6260958

ITEM: 14

SUBJECT: Demographic Information System and “Living in Ipswich” Liveability Survey

AUTHOR: Principal Officer (Procurement and Contract Operations)

DATE: 27 May 2020

Executive Summary

RECOMMENDATION

A. That Council resolve to prepare a Tender Consideration Plan for a Liveability Survey Pilot Project in accordance with section 230(1)(a) of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

B. That Council resolve to adopt the Tender Consideration Plan for a Liveability Survey Pilot Project as outlined in the report by the Principal Officer (Procurement and Contract Operations) dated 17 May 2020 in accordance with section 230(1)(b) of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

C. That Council resolve to enter into a contract with I.D. Consulting Pty Ltd for a Liveability Survey Pilot Project on the terms described in the report by the Principal Officer (Procurement and Contract Operations) dated 17 May 2020.

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

RELATED PARTIES

There are no reported declarations of conflict of interests.

Council is currently working with the supplier I.D. Consulting Pty Ltd in a four-year contract for the Council to utilise online social and economic analytics tools. Council has engaged I.D.Consulting Pty Ltd since 2015.

Contractor details:

I.D. Consulting Pty Ltd

10 Easey Street, Collingwood, VIC, 3066

ABN: 44 084 054 473

Advance Ipswich Theme

Managing growth and delivering key infrastructure

Purpose of Report/Background

The ‘Living in Ipswich Liveability Survey is a supplier initiated offer presented to Council by I.D. Consulting Pty Ltd. Considered a variation through the addition of scope to current Contract 14797 Demographic information tools, undertaking annual surveys, relating to community values and perceptions relating to liveability in the City of Ipswich.

Due to the unique nature of benchmarking already undertaken by I.D. Consulting Pty Ltd regionally, state and nationally, Council has identified that there are limited suppliers, with the intellectual property to establish a database and systems in place able to provide a suitable alternative.

Council has been offered to participate in this pilot project at a minimal cost. In comparison to seeking open tender offers from suppliers that will require the establishment and coordination of a multi-regional community value and perceptions survey project, able to be undertaken periodically over a number of years.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Regulation 2012

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

This proposal presents minimal risk to the Council. The supplier has maintained an ongoing engagement for the demographic information tool with Council since 2015. The supplier has previously implemented the pilot project in two other Local Government locations nationally. The risks associated with not approving the recommendation are that this service is unique, Council will be foregoing several benefits including regional liveability comparability and enhancement of the online community profile.id tools.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The original annual subscription cost for the provision of the 14797 Demographic Information Systems and the increase in subscription costs for the additional Living in Ipswich Cost are provided to Council commercial-in-confidence.

The total revised cost of the remaining engagement is $216,500 ex GST (CPI adjusted).

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The engagement of I.D. Consulting Pty Ltd for the provision of the demographic information tool and the liveability survey, is made at the request of the Performance Branch of Council’s Coordination and Performance Department.

The Executive Leadership Team has supported the engagement of I.D.Consulting Pty Ltd for the additional scope of work.

Conclusion

The acceptance of the proposed variation to the scope of works will result in this contract becoming a large-sized contractual arrangement requiring the adoption of a Tender Consideration Plan under s230 of the Local Government Regulation 2012, superseding the original Quote Consideration Plan for the provision of just the demographic information tool. Council is requested to review and adopt the Tender Consideration Plan with a variation of the original engagement of I.D. Consulting Pty Ltd for the increase in scope of service to include conducting community surveys relating to community values and perceptions relating to liveability in the City of Ipswich.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

	CONFIDENTIAL
1.	Tender Consideration Plan - 14597 Demographic Information Systems and “Living in Ipswich” Liveability Survey.

Stephen Bailey

Principal Officer (Procurement and Contract Operations)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Richard White

Manager, Procurement

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Sean Madigan

General Manager - Coordination and Performance

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Sonia Cooper

General Manager Corporate Services

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

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6281011

ITEM: 15

SUBJECT: Ipswich Waste Services January - March 2020 Quarterly Report

AUTHOR: Senior Business Advisor

DATE: 12 May 2020

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the Ipswich Waste Services January – March 2020 quarterly report.

Recommendation

That the Ipswich Waste Services January-March 2020 quarterly report be received and noted.

RELATED PARTIES

There was no declaration of conflicts of interest.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

Council’s waste services section (Ipswich Waste Services) is considered a commercial business unit under the provisions of the Local Government Regulation 2012. Section 175(1) of this Regulation specifies that Council’s Annual Operational plan must include an annual performance plan for each commercial business unit of the local government. The Regulation details the required content of the annual performance plan for a commercial business unit and includes the need to specify reporting requirements to Council.

The adopted 2019-2020 Ipswich Waste Services Annual Performance Plan (Attachment 1) notes that a report will be provided to Council on a quarterly basis detailing the following items:

· Major highlights of operational activities.

· Performance in relation to stated performance targets.

· Financial analysis of quarterly performance against budget.

· Waste and recycling volumes.

· Recycling and Refuse Centre data.

· Delegation Reporting.

· Asset Disposal.

This report is provided as an update on progress towards the annual KPI’s, and is not a legislative requirement in itself. The January to March quarterly report is delayed due to operational and resourcing needs to ensure continued waste collection priorities during COVID19 restrictions from March to June, and the inability to analysis financial and operational data in a timely manner. A final quarterly report for the 2019-2020 financial year will be presented to Council in August 2020. All future updates will be captured as part of the quarterly Operational Plan report.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009

Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Ipswich Waste Services is currently meeting a number of their year to date targets. However, there are some targets that have not been met, including waste diversion and employee targets. Further detail on these is provided below and in the Quarterly Report (Attachment 1).

An overview of some of the performance targets follow.

Financial Targets

BUDGET V ACTUAL
THIRD QUARTER	JANUARY to MARCH 2020
	Actual ($000’)	Budget ($000’)	Variance ($000’)
Operational Revenue	12,361	12,205	156
Operational Expenditure	9,889	10,930	1,041
Surplus/Deficit on Expenditure	2,472	1,275	1,197

Revenue

Revenue is above budget by $156,000, primarily related to the waste levy rebate and waste disposal revenue (fees and charges).

Expenses

The quarterly expenses are $1,041,000 below budget. This is primarily due reduced waste tonnages over this period.

Year to date expenses are $247,000 under budget. This includes Waste Services Employee Expenses below budget by $325,000, but with $669,000 over budget for Materials & Services. This is due to labour contracts being included in the Materials and Services budget. Contract labour hire has been higher due to a loss of a number of permanent drivers, increased run times, and increased waste collection demands. Other Expenses are $616,000 below budget and Internal Expense are $29,000 above budget.

Overall, the net result to date is favourable.

People and Systems Targets

Absenteeism: Performance target = <3.5%; Quarterly Performance = 4.05%

The level of absenteeism is significantly lower than previous quarters, with a decrease from 9.69% at the start of the financial year to 4.05% in the Jan-Mar quarter.

Annual leave balances: Performance target = >95%; Quarterly Performance = 83%

There has been an improvement in the number of staff with an annual leave balance of less than 6 weeks rising from 60.32% in Oct-Dec to 83% in Jan-Mar.

Processes Targets

% waste diverted from landfill

Service	Performance target	Quarterly performance
Recycling & Refuse Centres	>35%	23.9%
Domestic collection & disposal services	>25%	19.8%
Kerbside recycling	>15%	13.2%

Council currently has limited opportunity to increase diversion rates when limited recycling markets are available to process collected materials. Council’s adopted Materials Recovery Plan sets a domestic waste recycling target of 45% by 2024. Council is currently only diverting 24% of all its domestic waste from landfill and will need to continue to identify alternative solutions to meet the targets for waste management in Ipswich.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The annual Ipswich Waste Services budget is developed in order to align with the service and performance standards nominated within the Ipswich Waste Services Annual Performance Plan. Ipswich Waste Services is unlikely to meet overall budget targets for the 2019 -2020 financial year.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

There are no community or other consultation requirements specified under section 175 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 for the implementation of the Ipswich Waste Services Annual Performance Plan or its reporting requirements.

Conclusion

Council’s waste services section (Ipswich Waste Services) is considered a commercial business unit under the provisions of the Local Government Regulation 2012. Under this legislation, Council’s Annual Operational plan notes that a quarterly report will be provided to Council. This report provides the Ipswich Waste Services January – March 2020 quarterly report.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	January - March 2020 Quarterly Report ⇩

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”

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6338382

ITEM: 16

SUBJECT: Community Donation Requests Received in June 2020

AUTHOR: Community Grants Coordinator

DATE: 6 July 2020

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning community donation requests received in June 2020 for consideration by Council.

Recommendation/s

A. That Council approve a community donation of $6,064.00 to the City of Ipswich Pipe Band Inc towards the completion of building work at the pipe band premises.

B. That Council approve a community donation of $2,250.00 to the Rotary Club of Booval towards the cost of provisions for the Footprints in the Park project.

RELATED PARTIES

City of Ipswich Pipe Band Inc:

· Rod Smith – President

· Sheree Finney – Secretary

· Nicholas Tomkins – Treasurer

Rotary Club of Booval Inc

· Graham Keidge - President

· Bob Imhoff – Secretary

· Paul Humphreys - Treasurer

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the Community and Listening, Leading and Financial Management

Purpose of Report/Background

Community donation applications are independently assessed by officers against weighted criteria as described later in this report. Council’s Community Funding and Support Policy states that Councillors are responsible for approving discretionary funding expenditure. For transparency, each month a report of year-to-date approved community donations is also submitted to Council for noting.

Assessment Process

Community donation applications are assessed against weighted criteria including:

1. How the project/program aligns with Council’s Corporate Plan – weighting 15%

2. How the applicant determined the need for the project – weighting 35%

3. The expected outcomes of the proposed project – weighting 40%

4. The sustainability of the project beyond Council funding – weighting 10%

Scoring is outlined below:

Score	Explanation
1	Application is non-responsive to the question
2	Limited response to the question
3	Satisfactory response to the question
4	Strong response to the question
5	Outstanding response to the question

The score which an application receives out of 100 determines the amount of funding recommended as follows:

Score	Explanation
80-100	Recommended funding is 100% of the requested amount
60-79	Recommended funding is 75% of the requested amount
40-59	Recommended funding is 50% of the requested amount
Less than 40	Application is declined

Community Donation Requests Received in June 2020

City of Ipswich Pipe Band Inc:

Prior to COVID-19, the City of Ipswich Pipe Band Inc (the Band) commenced a building project at their premises which included disability access to the hall and a storage shed to allow the Band to reconfigure the hall and increase their teaching capacity.

Due to COVID-19, the City of Ipswich Pipe Band Inc has lost 100% of their income since March and have acquired a number of unexpected expenses as part of the building project which has left insufficient funds to complete the project.

A community donation has been sought to complete construction works including erection of a shed and retaining wall, finalising disability access to the hall and landscape work. A builder has been engaged to undertake the work and pipe band members will assist with volunteer labour.

The community donation application states that the project will commence on 13 July 2020, however a representative of the City of Ipswich Pipe Band has advised that the project will not begin until the outcome of their funding application has been determined.

Under different circumstances this application would not be eligible because the building work commenced prior to the application being received. However due to COVID-19, the building work ceased and the City of Ipswich Pipe Band Inc lost all income sources, and has advised that without funding assistance, they will be unable to complete the project.

The total cost of the project is $12,952.00 and City of Ipswich Pipe Band is seeking $6,064.00.

In line with the Administrative Guidelines for the Community Donations Program, the application from City of Ipswich Pipe Band has been independently assessed and scored by two council officers who have declared that they do not have a conflict of interest. The application scored 84, which relates to a recommendation of 100% of the eligible funding requested, to the amount of $6,064.00.

Rotary Club of Booval Inc

Rotary Club of Booval Inc (the Club) seeks funding towards providing evening meals to disadvantaged community members at Queens Park, Ipswich, in partnership with Footprints in the Park and Rosies. The Club has been providing this service for approximately 4 years and on average provide 40-50 meals per week.

Funding is sought towards purchasing food containers and cutlery, sanitising and cleaning equipment to meet COVID-19 requirements, and food items throughout the year.

The total cost of the items required is $4,000.00, and Rotary Club of Booval Inc has sought $3,000.00.

In line with the Administrative Guidelines for the Community Donations Program, the application from Rotary Club of Booval Inc has been independently assessed and scored by two council officers who have declared that they do not have a conflict of interest. The application scored 68, which relates to a recommendation of 75% of the eligible funding requested, to the amount of $2,250.00.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Act 2009 and Local Government Regulation 2012

Sections 201A, 201B, 202 and 202A of the Local Government Regulation 2012 prescribes a number of requirements for –

a) a local government for making discretionary funds available; and

b) a councillor for using discretionary funds.

Discretionary funds allocated are required to be publically reported under sections 202A of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

No risk management implications associated with this report have been identified.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Within the Community Development Section, the Community Grants Team is responsible for the management, coordination and acquittal of Council’s Community Donations Program. The Community Grants Team is a team of two (2) full-time staff.

Funding for the provision of community donations received in June 2020 is contained within the Community Development Section 2020-2021 financial year budget.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The contents of this report were not deemed to require further community consultation.

Conclusion

These will be the final community donation applications assessed by Council, as from 1 July 2020 the Community Donations Program is replaced by the Major and Minor Funding Program and Councillor Discretionary Funds.

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”

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6350158

ITEM: 18

SUBJECT: Extension to Contract with RSPCA for Pound Services

AUTHOR: Animal Management Operations Manager

DATE: 9 July 2020

Executive Summary

It is therefore considered appropriate for Council to grant a final year contract extension to the RSPCA to manage the pound.

RECOMMENDATION

That pursuant to section 257(1) of the Local Government Act 2009, Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the power (includes authority) to negotiate and finalise the terms for the exercise of a final option (1 year option) to extend the Animal Management Services Contract No. 15-16-226 with Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Queensland.

RELATED PARTIES

· The Royal Society of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Queensland) Limited ACN 166 777 591 (RSPCA).

There has been no conflicts of interest identified in this matter.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Listening, leading and financial management

Purpose of Report/Background

This report provides information in relation to the Animal Management Services Contract 15-16-226 for Council to decide on whether to exercise the option to extend the contract.

Background

In June 2016, Council advertised a Request for Tender (RFT) for Animal Management Services. Council was seeking to engage with a suitable organisation to responsibly manage the care of animals impounded by Ipswich City Council at the Hooper Street pound facility.

The provider was to be responsible for:

· Managing an effective re-homing service from the Ipswich City Council Pound;

· Assisting Council in caring for the city’s impounded, surrendered, and abandoned animals;

· Working with Council’s Planning & Regulatory Services department to develop and deliver effective community support programs;

· Support community access to desexing and microchipping through cost-effective and subsidised programs; and

· Provision of veterinary services to the Ipswich City Council Pound and Animal Management Centre.

After the RFT, a tender evaluation panel considered the submissions from two respondents and ultimately recommended the RSPCA as the preferred supplier. Council subsequently endorsed this recommendation at the City Management, Finance and Community Engagement Board meeting of 9 August 2016.

This contract provided a fixed term of three (3) years that commenced from 1 October 2016 and expired on 30 September 2019, with the option to extend for another two (2) years, issued in one (1) year increments.

At the Communities Committee Meeting of 5 August 2019, the Interim Administrator of Ipswich City Council authorised the Chief Executive Officer to offer the option to extend the Contract to the RSPCA for the first of the two available 12-month extensions.

The RSPCA accepted the extension option and the Contract’s expiry was subsequently extended to 30 September 2020.

Contract Performance

The 15-16-226 Animal Management Services contract provides positive outcomes for impounded, surrendered and unclaimed animals. The Ipswich Facility’s live release rate is in accordance with performance targets.

A breakdown of live release rates has been provided by the RSPCA (1 July 2019 to 15 June 2020):

Animal type:	Live release rate:
Dog	93%
Puppy	100%
Cat	90%
Kitten	95%

In addition to these outcomes, the contract provides Key Performance Indicators that are aligned to the service schedules outlined within the contract. The Principal Officer of Animal Management Operations has assessed RSPCA’s performance for the current period.

#	Objective	Outcome
1	Provide quality services	Expectations met
2	Services accessible to the public and Council employees.	Expectations met
3	The facilities are maintained to a high standard.	Expectations met
4	Care for impounded animals	Expectations met
5	Risk Management	Expectations met
6	Disaster Management	Expectations met
7	Transparent operations	Expectations met

Pound Redevelopment

Included within the outstanding items from the evaluation process, was an agreement between Council and the RSPCA to redevelop the Ipswich Pound.

The pound’s redevelopment has not progressed, and the facilities operations require short term investment to ensure the keeping conditions comply with animal welfare legislation.

The areas which need to be addressed are:

· Insulation of structures used to house animals; and

· The replacement of existing cat cages

These improvements are estimated to cost $200,000 and will require completion by summer 2020. The new cat cages represent the most substantial cost, although these will be transferable to any new facility, or a redeveloped facility.

Note that funding for improvements have not been budgeted for in the 2020-2021 financial year.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Local Government Regulation 2012

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

The RSPCA has met the performance criteria throughout the term of the contract.

If a further 12-month extension is not provided, there is a high likelihood that the delivery of Animal Management Services would be significantly impacted after 30 September 2020.

Should the contract with the RSPCA not be extended, Council would need to source another supplier to provide those services to manage the pound. Alternatively, Council would need to manage the facility using Council staff. Council currently does not have the resources to manage the pound with existing staff.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

See confidential attachment – Report on RSPCA Performance Assessment and Contract Extension.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

Consultation has been undertaken with the RSPCA in relation to their desire to continue providing Animal Management Services should an extension be forthcoming. That consultation has been positive, and RSPCA has indicated that they would accept the contract extension should.

Conclusion

The RSPCA has been providing services to the standard agreed to under the contract. The relationship between the RSPCA and Council provides positive outcomes to the City’s impounded animals. An extension of the contract will allow for the provision of quality animal management services at the pound to continue.

As this is the final year of this contract, Council will need to consider sometime in 20/21 a further report concerning the operations of the pound, following expiration of this contract and the bringing online a new pound facility in 23/24. It is generally not possible to extend this contract further without going back to market, unless circumstances exist at the time that would meet the exemption requirements under Chapter 6, Part 3, Division 3 of the Local Government Regulation 2012.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

	CONFIDENTIAL
1.	RSPCA Performance Assessment and Contract Extension

John Pukallus

Animal Management Operations Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Graeme Kane

Manager, Regulatory Services

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Peter Tabulo

General Manager (Planning and Regulatory Services)

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

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6350411

ITEM: 19

SUBJECT: Community Cat Program Proposal

AUTHOR: Animal Management Operations Manager

DATE: 9 July 2020

Executive Summary

An initial evaluation of the proposal has identified several risks that must be mitigated against should this program be endorsed.

This request has come post-delivery of the 2020-2021 budget and Council would need to make an amendment to the budget if it was to favourably consider the program.

Recommendation/s

A. That Council decline the request from the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) to participate in a trial cat reduction program as part of the 2020-2021 operational plan.

B. That Council request the officers to reconsider the proposal as part of Council’s budget discussion for 2021-2022.

RELATED PARTIES

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the community

Purpose of Report/Background

The Regulatory Services Branch has responsibility for Council’s animal management program, being the regulating and the keeping and control of animals, including cats. The Branch functions also include the management of the pound facility, which is run in partnership with a contract provider, the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Queensland (RSPCA).

Domestic cats are a common pet in Ipswich, and they are regulated under the provisions of Local Law No. 6 (Animal Management) 2013 and the Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008. The local law prescribes minimum standards for the keeping of cats and places obligations on cat owners or keepers. Owners or keepers of cats must ensure that they are kept under control and are not wandering from their property. The local laws also provide powers for Council officers to seize and impound cats in circumstances where they are causing a nuisance to the community.

Council currently has several options available to members of the community who have an issue with a roaming cat as outlined below.

Letter to Neighbour

Customers may have an issue with a particular roaming cat and may be able to identify the property where it is kept. The customer can complete a templated letter which is available on Council's website. The letter notifies the offending cat owner of the nuisance being caused. The customer can drop the letter in the letterbox and avoid any confrontation with the neighbour. If the matter is resolved, then there is no involvement of Council.

Complaint to Council

Customers can make a complaint directly to Council if they have a problem with a roaming cat. If the owner of the cat is identified, then compliance officers will take appropriate action. Compliance action includes officers communicating to the cat owner the requirement to prevent the cat from roaming. Officers can also issue advice notices, compliance notices and fines.

Cat Traps

Council have cat traps which are loaned to customers free of charge. Customers with a cat problem can attend the Ipswich pound and borrow a trap. They are provided instructions on how to use the trap and then take it home. They set the trap and notify Council once they have caught the offending cat. The trap is returned to the pound with the cat. If an owner is identified, they are contacted to come and collect their cat. Compliance action may also follow.

If the owner of the cat cannot be identified after three days, it becomes the property of Council. The cat is then transferred over to the RSPCA.

Previous Cat Management Programs

In 2018 Council endorsed a Cat Management Strategy. The strategy focused on the following key recommendations to assist with the management of cats in Ipswich.

1. Council fund desexing programs to increase the number of desexed owned cats

2. Council trial participation in a community cat desexing program and consider the impacts

3. Council continue to fund cat microchipping through events and partnerships to increase the number of microchipped (identified) cats;

4. Council commits to a marketing campaign dedicated to the following deliverables: - Cat containment responsibilities, obligations, and methodologies; - Humane feral cat management; - Neighbourhood responses and attitudes; - Lost and found for cats.

5. Council investigates and test feasibility of an incentivised program for cat owners.

6. Council commits to the improvement of holding facilities for cats.

The strategy has facilitated the operation of several programs which have been run over the previous two years.

Subsidised Desexing Programs

Council provided funding to the RSPCA and Animal Welfare League of Queensland (AWL) who ran desexing programs at subsidised costs to members of the community. The programs resulted in 1,842 animals across Ipswich being desexed.

Community Cat Program

Council also provided in-principal support for funding the Community Cat Program as one of the recommendations under the strategy. The provision of Council funding was subject to the program receiving funding from other sources including the Commonwealth. The support was also contingent on the program obtaining the necessary permits under the Biosecurity Act. At the time, the program was not able to secure the required funding nor the necessary permits therefor Council did not progress the proposal.

Free Microchipping Events

Council, in association with the RSPCA, conducted several microchipping events where 113 animals were microchipped.

Marketing on Responsible Cat Ownership

Council produced or obtained a variety of educational material to further the message of responsible pet ownership. The material included video and printed materials focusing on constructing cat enclosures and methods to prevent cats from climbing and digging out of enclosures. Examples of types of enclosures were constructed and placed on public display at the pound.

Reduction in Impound Fees for Cats

Council reduced the fee for releasing impounded cats with the aim of increasing the collection rate. The reduction only saw a 0.7% reduction in unclaimed cats during the period. However, it was not clear if the changes to the fees caused that minor reduction or some other factor was at play.

Improvements to Holding Facilities for Cats

The construction of a new pound is in the early consideration phase, and improvements to cat holding facilities at the current pond have not progressed. This pound construction is a separate matter which is currently under consideration before the Executive Leadership Team.

Other Programs

Council has conducted or jointly funded several such programs over the years, but nothing similar to the proposed Community Cat Program.

Statistics on Impounded Cats

The following table shows the number of cats impounded at Ipswich over the past five years.

Year	Number of cats	Number returned to owner	Return rate in per cent
2019	1801	195	10.8%
2018	2355	208	8.8%
2017	2051	167	8.1%
2016	2161	163	7.5%
2015	1078	78	7.2%

The RSPCA assess cats that are unclaimed and determine if they are suitable or not for rehoming.

Resourcing

The specific cost of managing cats in the local government area has not been assessed. The management of impounded cats forms part of the overall pound operations which the RSPCA are contracted to manage. The resources required to manage cats is also provided by way of compliance officer wages, vehicles, maintaining the pound facility and other expenses. A detailed analysis would be required to obtain an estimate of the total cost of managing cats component of the entire program and that would be an extensive exercise to undertake.

PROPOSAL

The Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) is seeking funding and support from Ipswich City Council for a local Community Cat Program. The program aims to reduce the costs to Council associated with cat management by reducing the number of cats impounded and the euthanasia rates of those cats. The program will result in fewer resources of Council to respond to complaints about cats and to care for impounded cats at the Council pound facilities.

The program works by catching roaming cats and desexing them if they do not have an owner. The desexed cats are released back into the community and can no longer breed. The expectation is that this program will lead to a decrease in the population of stray cats over time.

The proposal claims that there will be significant community and financial benefits to Ipswich as a result of running this program. However, it must be noted that the program is a trial research program to be run over five years. The program benefits are theoretical and will not be accurately assessed until after the program has concluded

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008

Local Law 6 (Animal Management)

Animal Management Policy

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Upon reviewing the program, the following risks have been identified.

Civil Liability

Council may carry liability in circumstances where a privately owned cat was captured and desexed by mistake. Currently, Council is protected by the local laws with regards to impounded cats because ownership of the cat becomes vested in Council if the cat is not claimed within three days. The Community Cat Program is not afforded any such protection.

Lawfulness of Program

Both Council and APWF will need to comply with both State and local laws for the duration of the program. Council will need to carefully consider how the program is operated and what processes Council staff will follow to ensure that no breach of the law occurs. For example, if a compliance officer seizes a cat, the officer is obligated under the local laws to return it to the owner or impound it. Once impounded, Council must wait three days for it to be claimed. The officer cannot seize the cat and immediately hand it over to APWF as part of the program.

Council can determine how the cat is disposed of after the three days. However, all unclaimed animals are currently provided to the RSPCA. Council can decide to allow for cats seized in those circumstances to be transferred to APWF. This would allow for unclaimed cats to be lawfully given to the APWF.

The APWF may then meet the definition under the local laws as the "keeper" of the cat. If so, they will then have an obligation to ensure that that cat is not in a public place unless it is under effective control. They may also need to maintain a proper enclosure to ensure the cat is not wandering. This would be problematic as the intention of the program would be to release the cats back into the community, which may be in breach of the local laws. This problem could be overcome by an amendment to the local law to provide an exemption for the program.

Council Reputation – Community Dissatisfaction

Council generally receives complaints from members of the community when roaming cats are causing them a nuisance. If the cats have an owner, then the problem can be resolved using compliance strategies that are underpinned by requirements of Council's local laws. For unowned cats, they are impounded and removed from the community. Some of those are rehomed and go to a new owner, and the others are euthanised. Either way, the nuisance that the cat was causing is remedied.

With the Community Cat Program, the unowned cats are temporarily removed from the community and desexed. But after a few days, they will be released back into the community in the same location where the customer may have complained about the nuisance. There will be no immediate resolution to the customer's complaint if the cat is returned to the same location where it was caught.

Members of the community may not be pleased with this type of response to a roaming cat complaint, and this may harm Council's reputation. Council would need to actively communicate the long term value of this program as individual customers may not get a satisfactory outcome to the complaint. Council will need to consider whether the long term merits of the program are sufficient and whether the potential level of dissatisfaction is acceptable.

Biosecurity Restrictions

The program cannot lawfully operate without a permit issued under the Biosecurity Act 2014. On 28 May 2020, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries issued a Restricted Matter Permit (Scientific Research) for the program to operate. The permit contains conditions that must be complied with by those involved in the program

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

The program is to run for five years, and the APWF is seeking both financial and in-kind assistance from Council. The following resources have been requested for the program:

· $30,000 for each year of the program.

· Secondment of an officer from ICC on a part-time basis to assist with the program delivery (or $40,000 per annum of additional funding)

· Use of Council animal traps (APWF will contribute 22 traps for the project with Council to make up the shortfall)

· Council officers and vehicles to transport cats to participating veterinary practices and return them to the point of origin

· Community information messaging through Councils communication platforms

· Supply of 2000 microchips by Council (valued at $10,000)

The total cash component of the funding request is $360,000 over five years.

Council has only just handed down its 2020-2021 Budget. A proposal such as this would have both a financial and operational impact on the adopted budget. Council would have to make a budget adjustment at the first budget review if it was to consider the proposal favorably.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

- Only internal consultation has been undertaken as part of the preparation of this report.

- If Council was inclined to support the proposal it would be necessary to undertake external community consultation about the proposal as avwhole and then possibly further consultation based on an area or areas where the trial was going to be undertaken.

Conclusion

It is considered that at this time point to support the proposal would have an impact on the 2020-2021 operations and budget of the animal management function and therefore cannot be supported. If Council was inclined to support the proposal that such should be conditional upon consideration in the 2021-2022 Budget process. This would allow officers more time to prepare and program for its possible implementation.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	APWF Proposal for Community Cat Program ⇩
2.	Biosecurity Letter ⇩
3.	Biosecurity Permit ⇩
4.	CCP SOPs Protocols and Guidelines ⇩

John Pukallus

Animal Management Operations Manager

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Graeme Kane

Manager, Regulatory Services

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Peter Tabulo

General Manager (Planning and Regulatory Services)

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

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Item 19 / Attachment 4.

PDF Creator

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A5761703

ITEM: 22

SUBJECT: Business Transformational Project #9 Policies - Infrastructure and Environment Department

AUTHOR: Natural Environment and Land Manager

DATE: 30 October 2019

Executive Summary

RecommendationS

A. That the policy titled ‘Street Lighting’ as adopted by Council on 30 June 2015, be repealed.

B. That the policy titled ‘Disposal of Non-Reusable Spoil’ as adopted by Council on 17 September 2014, be repealed.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no related parties associated with this report.

There are no declarations of conflict of interest by an officer.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Listening, leading and financial management

Purpose of Report/Background

Transformational Project #9 (TP9) involved a review and update of Council’s policies, procedures and local laws to provide direction to the current and future strategic and daily operational requirements of Council.

The objectives and benefits to be achieved by this project are:

· To provide Council appropriate and leading practice policies, procedures, local laws and subordinate local laws that meet current and future, legislative, strategic and operational requirements

· To ensure a high level of staff awareness in the use and application of policies and procedures

· To identify policy and procedure gaps and identify local law and subordinate local law gaps

· To implement an ongoing review process to ensure Council’s policies, procedures and local laws and subordinate local laws remain up to date and guide better practice

The Infrastructure and Environment Department has recently undertaken a review of policies in accordance with the adopted Policy and Procedure Management Framework. As a consequence of changes made through this process, the two following policies are now no longer required. These being:

Policy	Rational for Decision	Decision Sought
Street Lighting Policy	As part of a systematic review of council policy following an organisational restructure, the content, intent and relevance of the policy was reviewed to ensure its validity. It was concluded through stakeholder consultation that the Street Lighting Policy is redundant as the standards and processes detailed in the document are covered entirely within the Planning Scheme Policy 3 (PSP 3). Rate 3 street lights are identified and transferred to Council as assets to manage and maintain through the development process.	Repeal
Disposal of Non-Reusable Spoil Policy	The Policy is no longer required as Council has recently adopted the Asset Accounting Policy and Disposal of Council Goods (including assets) Procedure, superseding the requirement for this as a separate policy.	Repeal

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

The review of these policies has been undertaken in accordance with Council’s adopted Policy and Procedure Management Framework. The intent and content of these policies has now been superseded with the adoption of more contemporary policies, and there is a risk of Council having these policies still in effect.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are no financial or resource implications with the recommendations of this report.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION Consultation has been undertaken with all relevant Branches and Departments of Council to determine the intent of the current policies and what definition they satisfy under the new framework. From this consultation these policies are proposed to be repealed.

Conclusion

In accordance with Council’s adopted Policy and Procedure Management Framework, the Infrastructure and Environment Department has undertaken a review of policies relating to asset management. As a result the Street Lighting Policy and the Disposal of Non-Reusable Spoil Policy have been superseded and are no longer required.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Street Lighting Policy ⇩
2.	Disposal of Non-Reusable Spoil Policy ⇩

Phil Smith

Natural Environment and Land Manager

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”

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6302070

ITEM: 23

SUBJECT: Conflicts of Interest Policy

AUTHOR: Program Manager (Business Improvement)

DATE: 17 June 2020

Executive Summary

This is a report concerning the endorsement of a Conflicts of Interest Policy for Employees.

Recommendation/s

That the policy titled ‘Conflicts of Interest for Employees’ as detailed in Attachment 1 (to be provided), be adopted.

RELATED PARTIES

There are no identified related parties or potential conflicts of interest identified related to this report.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Listening, leading and financial management

Purpose of Report/Background

Under the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994, conflicts of interest are required to be resolved in the public interest, which has been embedded into Council’s Employee Code of Conduct, and within 16 policies and procedures. Currently, there is no overarching policy that provides a clear statement about managing employee conflicts of interest or the impact on their roles and responsibilities.

An Audit on Council’s approach to managing conflicts of interest has been undertaken recently, which identified a critical need for Council to develop an overarching framework relating to employee conflicts of interest, including a policy and procedure. The need to address conflicts of interest was also recognised as part of the Business Transformation Program, and was incorporated into the Risk Management Project.

A significant amount of work was undertaken to draft a conflicts of interest policy, however the policy was not finalised prior to the closure of the Business Transformation Program. The development of the policy and associated components that make up an overall framework for conflicts of interest for employees is the result of that work, which has now been refined.

The principles that underpin the development of a framework for employee conflicts of interest are included in the Public Sector Ethics Act 1994 and the Local Government Act 2009 including:

· Ensuring decision-making is carried out in the public interest;

· Good governance of and by the local government; and

· Integrity and impartiality.

The overall framework for managing conflicts of interest for employees includes:

· A ‘Conflicts of Interest for Employees’ policy, which outlines:

- a clear direction for employees with regard to conflicts of interest

- a clear direction on how the organisation will manage conflicts of interest for employees

- roles and responsibilities

· A supporting procedure (currently drafted) to be approved by the General Manager (Corporate Services) following adoption of the policy

· An online form for staff to disclose and update conflicts of interest

· A centralised register of conflicts of interest for employees

· A communication plan (currently drafted) to ensure effective messaging for employees.

Further opportunities exist to increase maturity within the organisation regarding conflicts of interest, and have been included in the scope of the Strategic Maturity of Corporate Governance Project (“project”) which is currently under development. The project addresses a number of important governance related outcomes, still to be finalised following the closure of the Business Transformation Program.

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Public Sector Ethics Act 1994

Local Government Act 2009

A review and update of current policies, procedures and processes that reference conflicts of interest will be undertaken to ensure consistency with the new policy and procedure. A gap analysis of where the new policy and procedure should be embedded into any existing policy and procedures will also be undertaken.

The components of the framework are compatible with Human Rights Act 2019 requirements and obligations.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

Immature governance practices remain a corporate risk. Additionally, conflicts of interest pose a potential reputational and corruption risk to Council. A recent Internal Audit Report identified that the lack of an overarching ‘Conflict of Interest’ framework places Council and its employees at risk of not being able to identify, manage and monitor actual, potential and perceived conflicts of interest.

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

There are minimal financial implications of the proposed components of the framework to be embedded into the organisation, which will be absorbed internally through existing resourcing.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

The draft Conflicts of Interest for Employees Policy and supporting draft procedure have been reviewed internally by key stakeholders from the following areas within Council:

· Corporate Services: Procurement, Risk Management, Corporate Governance, People and Culture, Finance, Legal Services;

· Coordination and Performance: Internal Audit, Performance, Business Transformation Program Risk Management Team members;

· Planning and Regulatory Services;

· Infrastructure and Environment; and

· Community, Cultural and Economic Development.

Feedback received internally has been incorporated into the policy and associated components of the overall framework for conflicts of interest for employees.

Conclusion

Conflicts of interest are required to be resolved in the public interest. A recent internal audit has highlighted that Council lacks an overarching framework, supported by a policy and procedure for the management of conflicts of interest for employees. The policy for ‘Conflicts of Interest for Employees’ has been proposed for adoption, to provide the first part of an overall framework, which ensures Council has the appropriate level of rigour around the management of conflicts of interest for employees.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Conflict of Interest for Employees Policy (to be provided) ⇩

Miranda Reis

Program Manager (Business Improvement)

I concur with the recommendations contained in this report.

Angela Harms

Governance Manager

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.

Sonia Cooper

General Manager Corporate Services

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

General Purposes Committee

Meeting Agenda

21 July

2020

Doc ID No: A6233121

ITEM: 25

SUBJECT: Garage Sale Trail 2020

AUTHOR: Accounts Coordinator

DATE: 13 May 2020

Executive Summary

Recommendation

That Council endorse the partnership between Council and the Garage Trail initiative and promote the initiative to the community, for a three year period.

RELATED PARTIES

There was no declaration of conflicts of interest.

Advance Ipswich Theme

Caring for the environment

Purpose of Report/Background

Garage Sale Trail started at Bondi Beach in 2010 with 30 residents registering to hold a garage sale over one weekend in October. It has now grown to having the support of over 146 councils across Australia. In 2019 over 15,000 garage sales were held over the weekend with more than 400,000 Australians hitting the streets to browse over 2 million second-hand items.

Currently all five councils surrounding Ipswich are participating in the program and are achieving great results, with an increase in participation year on year.

Despite no active promotion within Ipswich, Garage Sale Trail were contacted by 23 residents in Ipswich in 2019 asking if they could participate in the event. As Council does not currently participate in this program, only 10 residents could be involved. The residents were from Bundamba, Brookwater, Churchill, Raceview, Redbank Plains and Springfield.

This program aligns directly with the goals and targets within the Materials Recovery Plan 2017-2031. There are two main goals from the Plan in which this program supports, being:

· A sense of pride in Ipswich – by engaging and working with the community to facilitate behaviour change towards positive materials recovery action

· Managing waste as a resource – by shifting the perception of waste as an unwanted commodity to one of a valuable resource by enabling a circular economy approach.

In addition, the program supports the waste management hierarchy which is a core principle in the Materials Recovery Plan which promotes waste avoidance and minimisation (no need to buy new things), reuse (upcycle and repurpose of things) and recycling (one person’s trash is another person’s treasure).

Garage Sale Trail provides an avenue for Council to educate and engage with residents around the importance of treating waste as a resource. Educating residents can help them become empowered to make responsible, conscious decisions about waste, recycling and sustainability. There have also been links between Garage Sale Trail and a reduction in illegal dumping with research showing that around 10% of the items sold over the weekend would otherwise have been illegally dumped on the kerbside.

It is not only households that can sign up to take part in Garage Sale Trail. The program is also utilised by unit complexes, community groups, sporting groups, schools and charities. It is therefore a program that has the ability to benefit our entire community.

The program also assists Council in reducing waste to landfill which will help us to align better with the State Government’s waste diversion targets. The waste diversion targets for municipal solid waste (MSW) over the next 10 years (recovery rate as a percentage of total waste generated) are; 55% by 2025 and 70% by 2030. The diversion target by 2050 is 95%.

The program may also help to minimise the impacts of the State Government’s waste levy when Council may not receive an advanced payment from July 2022 to cover the costs of the levy for municipal solid waste.

COVID19 and Garage Sale Trail

The Garage Sale team has been working extensively with state, territory and local governments to ensure this year’s event complies with legislation. A four-point plan has been developed to incorporate additional elements to ensure the program can continue whatever restrictions are, or aren’t in place.

· Point 1 – Date Change from October to 21 and 22 November 2020

· Point 2 – Socially distant and contactless garage sales

· Point 3 – Online workshops and virtual garage sales

· Point 4 – Economic development

Full details of the COVID-proofing plan have been attached to this report (Attachment 3).

Legal/Policy Basis

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

Not Applicable

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS

There are limited risks in participating in Garage Sale Trail; however the following have been identified with mitigating actions:

· Public health and safety are maintained by utilising the support and communications assets provided by the toolkits;

· Illegal dumping is monitored and reported with the expected outcome of participating in the Garage Sale Trail being a reduction in illegal dumping activities

Financial/RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

Membership fees are based on the population size of the council.

For Ipswich City Council (population: 200,000) fees for 2020 are as follows:

· Four year term: $7,037 per annum + GST

· Three year term: $7,819 per annum + GST

· Two year term: $8,600 per annum + GST

For Council’s financial investment we are provided with the following:

· Starter kit to announce our involvement in the program locally

· Free unlimited access for member council residents to the Garage Sale Trail website

· Three month national communications campaign to promote the weekend of garage sales covering TV, radio, print, social media and other digital channels

· Ready-made council branded communication assets, including print and digital material to help up promote the program and engage the local community

· PR assets including rights cleared images and media releases to undertake local media activity

· Project management tools including best practise council case studies, How to guides and ready-made Campaign and Communications Planner

· Council Account Manager to support us in delivering the program locally

· Council promotion through Garage Sale Trail communication channels including logo placement on the Garage Sale Trail website and mentions in social media

· Real-time data on registrations and impacts in your area delivered via a bespoke digital dashboard

· Reports to help evaluate the outcomes of the program

· Full management of the seller and shopper community by Garage Sale Trail via an email helpdesk and chat box

· Access to the database of sellers participating in our local area, available in real-time via a digital dashboard

· Use of the Garage Sale Trail brand and trademark

Garage Sale Trail has a relatively small financial outlay for Council. It is a program that has the ability to continue to grow each year and help create positive change within the community. Funding for the 2020-2021 membership will be accommodated with the Resource Recovery marketing and promotions budget.

The estimated time required for council staff to implement and promote the program each year is around 1-2 hours per week throughout the 12 week lead up time to the event. Garage Sale Trail handle all residential enquiries about the program via their website and provide us with all of the marketing and campaign material required for us to liaise with Council’s marketing section to promote the event.

COMMUNITY and OTHER CONSULTATION

This program does not require community consultation to implement. It will however require communication and consultation between council’s marketing team and the staff within the Resource Recovery Branch.

As mentioned in this report, despite no active promotion within Ipswich, Garage Sale Trail were contacted by 23 residents in Ipswich in 2019 asking if they could participate in the event.

Conclusion

It is proposed that Council undertake a three year membership as this allow us to gauge effectively the growth and success of the program. A full evaluation of the program at the end of the three year term can then be undertaken to consider its success and viability for a potential subsequent three year term.

Attachments and Confidential Background Papers

1.	Garage Sale Trail's Information to Council 2020 ⇩
2.	Garage Sale Trail's Membership Guidelines ⇩
3.	COVID-proofing Garage Sale Trail 2020 ⇩

Mel Jensen

Accounts Coordinator

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”

Program	Amount	Source
Local Roads & Community Infrastructure Program	$2,237,860	Federal Government
COVID Works for Queensland	$4,440,444	State Government
Unite and Recover Community Stimulus Package	$2,000,000	State Government
Unite and Recover Arts & Culture Package	$18,332	State Government

Funding Program	Source
Growing Tourism Infrastructure Fund 2020	State Government
Arts and Cultural Recovery Package	State Government

1.	2020 City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Plan with track changes (under separate cover)
2.	2020 City of Ipswich Local Disaster Management Plan - final (under separate cover)

1.	Environment Committee - Urban Heat Island Project Proposal Report ⇩

	CONFIDENTIAL
2.	Confidential - Project Proposal