RCC_Logo_BW

AGENDA

CORPORATE SERVICES AND GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE MEETING

Wednesday, 23 November 2011
commencing at
2:00 p.m.

Council Chambers

1st floor Administration Building

Bloomfield Street Cleveland.  Qld 4163

 

 


Table of Contents

Item                                                           Subject                                                    Page No

Declaration of Opening

Record of Attendance and Leave of Absence

Receipt and Confirmation Of Minutes

Public Participation at Meeting

MATERIAL PERSONAL INTEREST AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

MOTION TO ALTER THE ORDER OF BUSINESS

1......... Governance

1.1         WHOLE OF STATE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT SMBI 2030 COMMUNITY PLAN

1.2         QUARTERLY CORPORATE PERFORMANCE REPORT

1.3         AMENDMENTS TO SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAWS 19 (REGULATED PARKING), 21 (ROADS) AND 2 (ANIMAL MANAGEMENT)

1.4         PROPOSED REDLAND CITY COUNCIL LOCAL LAW 14 AND SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW NO. 14 (JETTIES, RAMPS & FERRIES) 2011

1.5         COMMUNITY SAFETY POLICY AND STRATEGY REVIEW

1.6         ADOPTION OF 2010-2011 ANNUAL REPORT

2......... corporate services

2.1         2011/2012 FIRST QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW

2.2         OCTOBER 2011 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS..

2.3         COMMUNITY FINANCIAL REPORT 2010/11

2.4         2010/11 RCC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

2.5         WATER REINTEGRATION CEO DELEGATIONS

2.6         WATER REFORM LEGISLATION DELAY

2.7         NATIONAL HARMONISATION OF THE WORKPLACE HEALTH & SAFETY LEGISLATION


 

3......... CITY SERVICES

3.1         FUNDING OPTIONS FOR PHASE 3 JUDY HOLT PARK EASTERN LANDFILL BATTER REMEDIATION AND ASSOCIATED WORKS PROJECT (2011-2012 & 2012/2013)

4......... closed session

4.1         REDLAND CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED AGREEMENTS

5......... Meeting Closure

 

 


Declaration of Opening

Quorum:

5 councillors, including Chairperson.

 

On establishing there is a quorum, within 30 minutes of the scheduled time, the Chairperson will declare the meeting open.

Record of Attendance and Leave of Absence

Motion is required to approve leave of absence for any Councillor absent from today’s meeting.

Receipt and Confirmation Of Minutes

Motion is required to confirm the minutes of the Corporate Services and Governance meeting of 19 October 2011.

Minutes October 19 2011 Corporate Services and Governance

Public Participation at Meeting

The meeting may be adjourned for a fifteen (15) minute segment to allow members of the public to address Committee on matters of public interest related to local government.

MATERIAL PERSONAL INTEREST AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Councillors are reminded of their responsibilities in relation to a Councillor’s material personal interest and conflict of interest at a meeting (for full details see sections 172, 173 and 174 of the Local Government Act 2009).  In summary:

If a Councillor has a material personal interest in a matter before the meeting:

The Councillor must—

·                     inform the meeting of the Councillor’s material personal interest in the matter; and

·                     leave the meeting room (including any area set aside for the public), and stay out of the meeting room while the matter is being discussed and voted on.

 

The following information must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting, and on the local government’s website—

·                     the name of the Councillor who has the material personal interest, or possible material personal interest, in a matter;

·                     the nature of the material personal interest, or possible material personal interest, as described by the Councillor.

 

A Councillor has a material personal interest in the matter if any of the following persons stands to gain a benefit, or suffer a loss, (either directly or indirectly) depending on the outcome of the consideration of the matter at the meeting—

(a)        the Councillor;

(b)        a spouse of the Councillor;

(c)        a parent, child or sibling of the Councillor;

(d)        a partner of the Councillor;

(e)        an employer (other than a government entity) of the Councillor;

(f)        an entity (other than a government entity) of which the Councillor is a member;

(g)        another person prescribed under a regulation.

If a Councillor has a conflict of interest (a real conflict of interest), or could reasonably be taken to have a conflict of interest (a perceived conflict of interest) in a matter before the meeting:

 

The Councillor must—

·                deal with the real conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest in a transparent and accountable way.

·                Inform the meeting of—

(a)     the Councillor’s personal interests in the matter; and

(b)     if the Councillor participates in the meeting in relation to the matter, how the Councillor intends to deal with the real or perceived conflict of interest.

The following must be recorded in the minutes of the meeting, and on the local government’s website—

(a)        the name of the Councillor who has the real or perceived conflict of interest;

(b)        the nature of the personal interest, as described by the Councillor;

(c)        how the Councillor dealt with the real or perceived conflict of interest;

(d)        if the Councillor voted on the matter—how the Councillor voted on the matter;

(e)        how the majority of persons who were entitled to vote at the meeting voted on the matter.

A conflict of interest is a conflict between—

(a)       a Councillor’s personal interests (including personal interests arising from the Councillor’s relationships or club memberships, for example); and

(b)       the public interest;

that might lead to a decision that is contrary to the public interest.

If a Councillor knows, or suspects on reasonable grounds, that another Councillor has a material personal interest, or conflict of interest, in a matter before the meetings—

 

The Councillor must—

·                as soon as is practicable, report to the person who is presiding over the meeting or the Chief Executive Officer.

MOTION TO ALTER THE ORDER OF BUSINESS

The order of business may be altered for a particular meeting where the councillors at that meeting pass a motion to that effect.  Any motion to alter the order of business may be moved without notice.


 

1             Governance

1.1         WHOLE OF STATE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT SMBI 2030 COMMUNITY PLAN

Dataworks Filename:                    GOV RCC State SMBI Senior Officers Working Group

Attachment:                                   RCC Review of Whole of State Government Response to Draft SMBI 2030 [PDF 100KB]

Responsible Officer:                     Nick Clarke
General Manager Governance

Author:                                           Mark Conlan
Principal Advisor SMBI Strategy

Executive Summary

This report outlines the whole of State Government response from nine agencies to the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan (see attachment 1). 

Departments have responded positively to many of the initiatives in SMBI 2030 however they have made no additional funding commitments outside existing programs.

Council needs to refine its lobbying campaign for the upcoming State election in light of the State government’s response.

Purpose

To note the whole of State Government response to the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan and to resolve to continue to engage with the State at officer and political levels.

Background

The Department of Local Government and Planning (DLGP) coordinated a whole of State Government response to the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan.  The response was received in draft form by Council’s CEO Gary Stevenson from the Director General of the Department of Local Government and Planning (DLGP) Jack Noye on the 27th of October 2011.  Council is awaiting the formal response from the State which is expected in the near future.

The response from the State included feedback from the following agencies:

·                Department of Education and Training (DET)

·                Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI)

·                Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR)

·                Office of State Revenue / Queensland Treasury (OSR)

·                Department of Environmental Resources and Mines (DERM)

·                Department of Local Government and Planning (DLGP)

·                Queensland Health (QH)

·                Department of Communities (DoC)

·                Department of Community Safety (DCS)

The agencies bolded above were part of the RCC State SMBI Senior Officers Working Group.  Some have made individual submissions as part of the SMBI 2030 community consultation process, prior to the whole of State response being drafted.  The responses from the agencies and the impacts on the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan are discussed below.

Issues

Attachment 1 is the draft copy of the whole of State government response to the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan.  The whole of government response identifies:

·      Key issues of interest for Council

·      Services already being delivered and those that are planned for delivery by the State

·      The opportunities that the State will investigate further

·      Initiatives that are unlikely to be funded in the near term and those that are not within the jurisdiction of the State.

The responses from the State Departments have been broken down into positive and negative effects on Council and are outlined below.

In short, unless specific initiatives are aligned to existing programs there is no additional funding available from the State for the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan initiatives.  The State is in a position to advocate and support initiatives where specific funding is not required, such as the use of education assets.

Positives

Department of Education and Training (DET)

·      Sharing resources with the community

·      Potential co-investment in community infrastructure (e.g. sport and recreation)

·      Support for outside of school hours delivery of community services through the schools

Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR)

·      Co-funding with Bay islands Transit Systems (BITS) to reduce the marine impacts of water ferry transport through the creation of four new vessels by 2015

·      Directed to web based guidelines and toolboxes for assistance with community based transport

·      $1 million fare top up paid to BITS in 2009-10 (subsidising passenger ferry costs)

·      Supports a review of local passenger ferry service timetabling in conjunction with Translink network timetabling

·      TMR invites RCC to discuss a funding partnership arrangement to increase passenger transport services in the SMBI

·      Translink has commenced a study in investigate the integration of Moreton Bay Islands (Coochie and NSI) and the SMBI ferry services into the Translink network

·      Translink is willing to provide assistance where necessary and review the results of any research undertaken on SMBI transport

·      Supports the outcomes of the SMBI Integrated Local transport Plan (ILTP), in particular

o    Providing bicycle lockers and racks at the Redland Bay Marina

o    Providing on-road cycle lanes both on the islands and mainland

·      Translink upgrade of the Redland Bay Marina Bus Station

·      TMR’s Taxi subsidy scheme open to elderly residents of the SMBI

Department of Environmental Resources and Mines (DERM)

·      Agreed to assist RCC with tenure transfer to facilitate the creation of the Southern Russell Island Conservation Park and to appoint RCC trustee

·      Will work with RCC to identify the most appropriate tenure for the proposed conservation area

·      Will discuss tenure arrangements that may reduce the requirement to pay stamp duty.

Department of Local Government and Planning (DLGP)

·      DLGP will work closely with RCC to facilitate the SMBI land exchange process and ease the administrative burden where possible

·      DLGP will work with RCC to introduce higher minimum standards for on-site wastewater systems and support the introduction of a monitoring program

·      DLGP will work with RCC to implement proposed amendments to the Redlands Planning Scheme

Queensland Health (QH)

·      Supportive of the proposed Redland Bay Health and Wellbeing Hub with a willingness to enter into a 20 year lease over 3,000 square metres (subject to endorsement by the Director General)

Department of Communities (DoC)

·      Working closely with RCC to assess and improve SMBI health and wellbeing (key regional priority)

·      Focussed on strengthening relationships and working with community service providers

·      Support for centralised community hub facilities on both Macleay and Russell Islands

·      Support for on-islands’ facilities that provide a base for government and NGO service delivery

·      Support for the Redland Bay Health and Wellbeing Hub (DoC would like an active role in supporting the planning and development of this facility as a multi-service hub)

·      Continues to work with Council to deliver on the above

·      Introduced a new grants program, particularly Active inclusion, that has prioritised funding to the SMBI

·      Jointly funds the SMBI local Sport and Recreation Jobs Plan officer for the SMBI

·      Runs forums and workshops on the SMBI with the intent to increase the capacity of volunteers to manage and run sport and recreation in clubs on the SMBI

·      Committed to safeguarding the rights of people with an intellectual or cognitive disability who are at risk of restrictive practices

·      Reviewing the Local Area Coordination model of service delivery in the SMBI

·      Delivery of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Services (ATSIS) Learning Earning Active Places (LEAP) strategy to work towards closing the gap on indigenous disadvantage

·      Support for planning and partnerships between the State and RCC for targeted service delivery to address social disadvantage on the SMBI

Department of Community Safety (DCS)

·      Queensland Fire and Rescue Service (QFRS) will continue to work with RCC to refine Bushfire Management Plans (BMPs) for key Council reserves on the SMBI

·      QFRS supports sound evidence based programs that: recognise the role of fire in maintaining biodiversity, reduce hazards and does not compromise community safety

·      QFRS provides councils with bushfire management mapping through the State Planning Policy 1/03: Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Flood, Bushfire and Landslide

·      QFRS will continue to advise and assist RCC in identifying and managing areas of bushfire hazard

·      Emergency Management Queensland (EMQ) is working with RCC and the Redland City SES to establish a new SES group on Russell Island (SES will also manage the new Community Education and Resilience Centre on Russell Island)

·      Shared Rural Fire Brigade and Ambulance Services are co-located on Macleay Island

·      Permanent Ambulance Officers are now stationed on both Russell and Macleay Islands

Negatives

Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI)

·      Council to undertake economic development study of the SMBI (no State assistance)

Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR)

·      SMBI population does not meet TMR’s criteria for subsidised scheduled bus servicing

·      Recommended Council seek third party funding opportunities

·      TMR has no plans to extend regulation to vehicular barge services and recommends Council collaborates with the barge operator on service pricing

·      Translink has no immediate plans to extend the Translink network over the Moreton Bay Island ferry services

·      TMR and Translink support RCC or a third party undertaking research into key mainland destinations for SMBI residents that seeks to improve the scheduling of Translink services

Office of State Revenue / Queensland Treasury (OSR)

·      Ex gratia relief from transfer duty for the land exchange program would generally not be considered appropriate in this case

Queensland Health (QH)

·      Unable to contribute capital to the proposed Redland Bay Health and Wellbeing Hub


 

Department of Communities (DoC)

·      Historically the SMBI received limited funding due to its population and the capacity of organisations funded

·      Not desirable to deliver some services on the islands (e.g. domestic violence) in the interests of individual and community safety and/or confidentiality

·      No funding for social housing on the SMBI at present (limited interest due to limited transport options, high cost of transfers between the islands and the mainland, and limited on-islands support services)

·      No additional funding for new initiatives

·      Worker safety and access to technology are inhibitors to on-islands service delivery

Whole of State response

Further to the information above, general feedback has been received that no additional funding is available for most SMBI 2030 actions required from the State that are not already aligned to existing programs.

Relationship to Corporate Plan

The State government’s response to the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan impact on a number of strategies under two Corporate Plan vision outcomes, namely: 8. Inclusive and ethical governance; and 9. An efficient and effective organisation.

8  Inclusive and ethical governance

Deep engagement, quality leadership at all levels, transparent and accountable democratic processes and a spirit of partnership between the community and Council will enrich residents’ participation in local decision making to achieve the community’s Redlands 2030 vision and goals.

8.1     Embed the visions and goals of the Redlands 2030 Community Plan into our planning, operations and culture and develop effective reporting and monitoring arrangements to show how we are progressing on implementation of the Community Plan and this Corporate Plan.

8.3     Establish and maintain effective partnerships with local, regional and national organisations and governments to deliver the visions and goals of the community.

8.5     Be transparent and consistent in the way we manage the organisation, its risks and obligations and ensure we are delivering against our priorities.

8.8     Provide clear information to citizens about how rates, fees and charges are set and how Council intends to finance the delivery of the Community Plan and Corporate Plan

9  An efficient and effective organisation

Council is well respected and seen as an excellent organisation which manages resources in an efficient and effective way.

9.5     Ensure robust long term financial planning is in place to protect the financial sustainability of Council.

9.6     Implement long term asset management planning that supports innovation and sustainability of service delivery, taking into account the community’s aspirations and capacity to pay for desired service levels.

9.8     Work ‘smarter’ across departments, in multi-disciplinary teams to achieve continuous improvement and effective co-ordination.

9.11   Develop and improve systems to support modern and flexible delivery of services.

 

Financial Implications

This recommendation does not require any change to the current year’s budget.

Cost to Council at present

Year

Revenue

Expense

Cross Subsidy

2009-10

$12,578,196.36

$22,896,692.20

$10,318,495.84

2010-11

$13,355,476.32

$22,190,448.19

$8,834,971.87

2011-12 *

$18,004,000.00

$27,792,000.00

$9,788,000.00

* Forecast costs

As the above figures highlight, Council is subsidising the funding shortfall to deliver SMBI operational and capital projects.  This is to the tune of approximately $10 million per annum.  This is not a sustainable practice.

Further to this Council has identified the infrastructure backlog of the SMBI that is beyond Council to address.  The estimated cost attached to this backlog is over $500 million.  With limited ongoing community capacity to pay, alternate sources of funding are required.  Council will continue to lobby the State for assistance in securing these alternate forms of funding.

Planning Scheme Implications

The City Planning and Environment Group were consulted and it is considered that the outcome of recommendations in this report will not require any amendments to the Redlands Planning Scheme at this point.  Amendments to the Redlands Planning Scheme will be put to Council during the implementation phase of the SMBI 2030.

Consultation

The whole of State government response includes responses from members of the RCC State SMBI Senior Officers Working Group.  Eight of the nine respondents to the State response were part of the Senior Officers Working Group.  The Working Group was in operation for 12 months as an election commitment of the Labour Party.  The Working Group is currently being review by the CEO and the Director General of the Department of Local Government and Planning (DLGP).

Council has received the attached whole of government response to the draft SMBI 2030Community Plan from the DLGP.  This report is in response to the whole of government response.  Since receiving the response, Council has also met with Minister Lucas (Minister of DLGP) to review the State’s response and to actively lobby for assistance in addressing specific SMBI issues.


 

Options

Preferred

That Council resolve to:

1.      Note the State whole of government response to the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan;

2.      Continue to work at officer level with the State for funding and resources to achieve the outcomes of the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan; and

3.      Engage with the State at a political level prior to and during the State election campaign in light of the State’s whole of government response to the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan.

Alternative

That Council revise the above recommendations and advise what specific course of action would be preferred.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve to:

1.    Note the State whole of government response to the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan;

2.    Continue to work at officer level with the State for funding and resources to achieve the outcomes of the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan; and

3.    Engage with the State at a political level prior to and during the State election campaign in light of the State’s whole of government response to the draft SMBI 2030 Community Plan.

 


 

1.2         QUARTERLY CORPORATE PERFORMANCE REPORT

Dataworks Filename:                    GOV Corporate Performance Reporting

Attachment:                                   September 2011 Quarterly Performance Report [PDF 880KB]

Responsible Officer:                     Nick Clarke
General Manager Governance

Author:                                           Luke Wallace
Manager Corporate Governance

Executive Summary

The Local Government Act 2009 requires the CEO to present a written assessment of the local government’s progress towards implementing the annual operational plan at meetings of council held at regular intervals of not more than 3 months.

Further, in June 2011, Council resolved to adopt a revised Corporate Performance Management Policy and Guideline to take effect from the beginning of the 2011/12 financial year.

This is the first quarterly report to Council under the revised Performance Management Policy and Guideline and provides a comprehensive summary of performance across the organisation for the year to date.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to present Council and the community with an update of performance across a range of organisational functions for the year to date. 

Background

The performance data attached to this report and the commentary in the report itself has been provided by all Council Departments. The aim of the report is to ensure that Council’s performance is transparently conveyed to the community in accordance with the principles of the Local Government Act 2009 and Council’s Corporate Plan and to ensure that areas of impaired performance are able to be explained and considered. This quarterly report contains 537 measures, in total, of Council’s performance for the financial year to date as follows:

·         Report against Council’s 2011/12 Operational Plan – 178 performance indicators in total

·         Report against 2010/11 Operational Plan projects that remained outstanding as at 30th June 2011 – 22 performance indicators in total

·         Report on Key Corporate Indicators (formerly referred to as Balanced Scorecard indicators) – 10 performance indicators in total

·         City Services 1st Quarter Report – 327 performance indicators in total

Where particular indicators of performance are not able to be found in this report, councillors or the community (via enquiries through the Chief Executive Officer) can raise the matter and every endeavour will be made to incorporate the indicator in future quarterly reporting.

Issues

Each area of the quarterly performance report is broken down and analysed for Council’s consideration.

1.         2011/12 Operational Plan Performance

There are 178 measures in the 2011/12 Operational Plan. A summary of the overall status of projects in the Operational Plan to this point of the year is as follows;

Project Status

Total Number

Percentage

Projects On Track

123

69.1%

Projects Completed

5

2.8%

Projects Not Commenced

23

12.9%

Projects Delayed

18

10.1%

Projects Cancelled

9

5.1%

 

It is pleasing to note that a total of 71.9% of projects are either “on track” or completed. A further 23 projects (12.9%) are due to commence later in the year so overall 84.8% of projects have progressed as expected to this point of the year. A further 18 projects are delayed and explanations for the delays are contained in the attached report.

Regrettably, Managers have recommended that nine projects should be cancelled and removed from the 2011/12 Operational Plan. In all cases these cancellations are a result of the removal of budget funds and/or a shortage of staff resources to complete the work.

Council will recall that the 2011/12 Operational Plan was adopted, as is customary, towards the end of the financial and prior to the adoption of Council’s 2011/12 budget. There was significant uncertainty around Council’s financial position at the time due to State Government decisions on water reform and infrastructure charges. On this basis some projects were left in the 2011/12 Operational Plan in the genuine expectation that they would be funded and resourced but developments subsequent to the adoption of the Plan mean they will have to be rescheduled to future years.

The projects recommended for removal from the 2011/12 Operational Plan are as follows;

Project

Lead Group

1.4.1 Implementation of the Environmental Education Policy and Strategy

City Spaces

1.5.2 Development of a Habitat Management and Protection Strategy

City Planning and Environment

2.2.1 Implement the Climate Change and Energy Action Plan

City Planning and Environment

2.3.1 Progress a corporate approach to “Go Local”

Community Futures

3.3.1 Undertake an educational program with property owners for onsite care and maintenance of waste water systems and their disposal areas 

Community Standards

3.4.3 Construct beach access stairs at Wilson Esplanade

City Infrastructure

5.5.1 Implement the Redland City Centres and Employment Strategy and principal regional activity centre master plans

City Planning and Environment

5.6.1 Finalise residential design guidelines, including sub-tropical design principles, for incorporation in the new planning scheme

City Planning and Environment

7.5.2 Support community organisations to undertake indoor facilities studies

City Spaces

 

2.         2010/11 Operational Plan Projects that were Incomplete at 30 June 2011

Projects from the 2010/11 Operational Plan that were incomplete as at 30 June 2011 are updated in the attachment to this report in the interests of transparency. In all there were 22 such projects. Three of these projects have since been completed, ten are on track for completion in the near future and nine remain delayed and/or no further work has commenced on the projects this financial year.

Reasons for the ongoing delays with these nine projects are outlined in the attachment but the most common reason is a lack of available funding. In all cases it is still intended that these projects will be progressed when funding becomes available.

3.         Key Corporate Indicators (Formerly Known as Balanced Scorecard Indicators)  

Ten “key corporate” indicators are listed in the attachment to this report. These were formerly referred to as Balanced Scorecard indicators in reporting to Council. Of the ten indicators, five have achieved a result of satisfactory or better and five are behind target. Explanations for the indicators that are behind target are provided in the attachment and a brief summary is provided in the table below;

Indicator Type

Reasons Behind Target

Asset Management Plans

Whilst Council still has a full suite of asset management plans and Managers are generally operating in accordance with those plans, the oversight and management functions relating to capturing and reporting asset management plan actions has not been maintained in recent months. This issue will be resolved when the Corporate Services restructure is completed in the next few months. At that point, precise milestones and timelines for the asset management plans will be agreed and reporting against achievement of the milestones will re-commence.

Internal Audit Plan

Internal Audit is still operating on reduced resources but advertising to fill the vacant auditor role is about to take place and this will assist greatly with getting the Internal Audit Plan back on track. All higher risk audit actions continue to be prioritised.


Workplace Health & Safety Indicators

·      Management Plan

·      Lost-Time Injuries

·      Total Hours Lost

Workplace Health and Safety traditionally set very high benchmarks as Council strives to ensure the highest possible standards. Workplace Health and Safety Management Plan actions were significantly improved in September with some key actions being closed off and we are now very close to achieving the target in this area. Only two relatively minor lost time injuries occurred during September and this also resulted in the overall target for lost time injuries only being marginally missed. Significant hours were lost in September due to some long-term rehabilitation injuries. It is noted that this figure reduced significantly in October and this will be reflected in the next quarterly report.

 

4.         City Services Quarterly Report

The attached reports provide a range of information on City Services activities for the three months to September 2011. Any abnormal or noteworthy results are explained in the management commentary of the attachments. The following activities are further highlighted for Council to note:

Group

Highlighted Activities

Community and Cultural Services

·      Overall strong growth in the Home Assist Secure Service compared with the same period last year (bulky waste collection increased by 174%, new registrations up over 25% and home modifications increased by 92%)

·      Record breaking number of library items (7996) ordered in July – more than 2000 items more than the previous record

·      Significant spike in Art Gallery attendees in September

·      Occupancy levels at NSI Holiday Parks were noticeably higher for the September quarter (23% above forecast)

City Spaces

·      Incidence of graffiti for the quarter;

Ø  Roads and Drainage 171 (51 street signs) at cost of $5,600

Ø  Parks and Conservation 250 at cost of $43,300

·      Incidence of vandalism for the quarter;

Ø  Roads and Drainage 206 at cost of $17,100

Ø  Parks and Conservation 24

·      Illegally dumped refuse for the quarter;

Ø  Roads and Drainage 32.8 tonnes at $4,000 to dispose

Ø  Parks and Conservation 19.1 tonnes at $1,000 to dispose

·      Streetscape and catch pit maintenance behind target due to staffing constraints. This will be rectified in Q2

·      Indigiscapes win eco-tourism category award at Moreton Bay and Island Tourism Awards for fourth successive year

·      Waterways Extension Program named best local government initiative at the QLD Healthy Waterways Awards

Project Delivery Group

·      Construction of part of the Moreton Bay Cycleway linking Station Street, Wellington Point to Hilliard Street, Ormiston was on hold awaiting client direction

·      All other projects progressing largely as anticipated

 

Relationship to Corporate Plan

8. Inclusive and ethical governance

Deep engagement, quality leadership at all levels, transparent and accountable democratic processes and a spirit of partnership between the community and Council will enrich residents’ participation in local decision making to achieve the community’s Redlands 2030 vision and goals

8.1     Embed the visions and goals of the Redlands 2030 Community Plan into our planning, operations and culture and develop effective reporting and monitoring arrangements to show how we are progressing on implementation of the Community Plan and Corporate Plan

Financial Implications

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

Options

Preferred

1.    That Council note the quarterly Corporate Performance Report; and

2.    That the projects listed below be removed from the 2011/12 Operational Plan:

a.       Implementation of the Environmental Education Policy and Strategy;

b.       Development of a Habitat Management and Protection Strategy;

c.       Implement the Climate Change and Energy Action Plan;

d.       Progress a corporate approach to “Go Local”;

e.       Undertake an educational program with property owners for onsite care and maintenance of waste water systems and their disposal areas;

f.        Construct beach access stairs at Wilson Esplanade;

g.       Implement the Redland City Centres and Employment Strategy and Principal Regional Activity Centre master plans;

h.       Finalise residential design guidelines, including sub-tropical design principles, for incorporation in the new planning scheme; and

i.         Support community organisations to undertake indoor facilities studies.

Alternative

That Council does not endorse the quarterly corporate performance report and seeks the provision of further information


 

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve to:

1.    Note the quarterly Corporate Performance Report; and

2.    Remove the projects listed below from the 2011/12 Operational Plan:

a.         Implementation of the Environmental Education Policy and Strategy;

b.         Development of a Habitat Management and Protection Strategy;

c.         Implement the Climate Change and Energy Action Plan;

d.         Progress a corporate approach to “Go Local”;

e.         Undertake an educational program with property owners for onsite care and maintenance of waste water systems and their disposal areas; 

f.          Construct beach access stairs at Wilson Esplanade;

g.         Implement the Redland City Centres and Employment Strategy and Principal Regional Activity Centre master plans;

h.         Finalise residential design guidelines, including sub-tropical design principles, for incorporation in the new planning scheme; and

i.          Support community organisations to undertake indoor facilities studies.

 


 

1.3         AMENDMENTS TO SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAWS 19 (REGULATED PARKING), 21 (ROADS) AND 2 (ANIMAL MANAGEMENT)

Dataworks Filename:                    L&E Local Law No. 21 – Roads
L&E Local Law No. 19 - Regulated Parking
L&E Local Law No. 02 – Keeping and Control of Animals

Attachments:                                 Proposed Amending Subordinate Local Law No. 21 – Roads [PDF 1.8MB]
Proposed Amending Subordinate Local Law No. 19 – Regulated Parking [PDF 1.1MB]
Proposed Amending Subordinate Local Law No. 02 – Animal Management [PDF 30KB]

Responsible Officer:                     Luke Wallace
Manager Corporate Governance

Author:                                           Trevor Green
Senior Advisor Environmental Health

Executive Summary

Council recently amended Local Law No. 21 (Roads). To implement the provisions relating to off-street regulated parking areas, these areas are to be listed in a schedule in the roads subordinate local law.

Schedule 1 of Subordinate Local Law No. 19 (Regulated Parking) currently lists off-street regulated parking areas. The review of the off-street regulated parking areas for inclusion in the roads subordinate local law identified a number of new off-street areas where Council has established a need for regulation of parking, which are not listed in the regulated parking subordinate local law. Therefore, it is considered timely to update the regulated parking subordinate local law to provide a matching schedule with the schedule to be listed in the roads subordinate local law.

There are currently 14 dog off-leash areas operating which are not listed in the schedule of off-leash areas in Subordinate Local Law No. 2 (Animal Management) 2007. It is also considered timely and prudent to update the off-leash area listings at this time, as part of the suite of subordinate local law schedule updates.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to amend subordinate local laws to:

1.    Add a schedule of off-street parking areas to Subordinate Local Law No. 21 (Roads);

2.    Update the schedule of off-street parking areas in Subordinate Local Law No. 19 (Regulated Parking); and

3.    Update the schedule of dog off-leash areas in Subordinate Local Law No. 2 (Animal Management) 2007.


 

Background

Subordinate Local Law No. 21 (Roads)

Council recently amended Local Law No. 21 (Roads). Section 33C of the local law was included to control the parking of unregistered vehicles on a road or an off-street regulated parking area. To implement the provisions relating to off-street regulated parking areas, these areas are to be listed in a schedule in the roads subordinate local law.

Subordinate Local Law No. 19 (Regulated Parking)

Off-street regulated parking areas are currently listed in Schedule 1 of Subordinate Local Law No. 19 (Regulated Parking). The review of the off-street regulated parking areas for inclusion in the roads subordinate local law identified a number of new areas where Council has established a need for regulation of parking, that are not listed in the regulated parking subordinate local law. As such, it is proposed to amend the Subordinate Local Law No. 19 (Regulated Parking) off-street regulated parking area schedule to include these areas. This will result in both roads and regulated parking local laws having matching schedules.

Subordinate Local Law No. 2 (Animal Management) 2007

Dog off leash areas are listed in Schedule 3 of Subordinate Local Law No. 2 (Animal Management) 2007. The listing is usually updated to include new off leash areas when the local law is amended. There are currently 14 off leash areas operating which are not listed in the schedule. It is considered prudent to update the schedule of off- leash area listings at this time, as part of the suite of subordinate local law schedule updates.

Issues

The amendment of a subordinate local law is less complex and quicker that the amendment of a local law, as the process does not require a State interest check of the proposed amendments. The amendment of a subordinate local law schedule can be regarded as less sensitive than an amendment of, or introduction of other law provisions, as it is essentially just the updating of the schedule listing. As such, the three subordinate local law schedules are put forward as part of the one report. As the proposed schedule amendments contain no anticompetitive provisions, public interest tests are not required.

The inclusion of the off-street regulated parking area schedule in the roads subordinate local law will facilitate the implementation of the recent amendments to the local law regarding the parking of unregistered vehicles in these areas.

The amendments to the off-street regulated parking area schedule in the regulated parking subordinate local law and the dog off leash areas in the animal management local law are considered to be timely in the circumstances.

At Council’s General Meeting 30th March 2011, Council adopted its local law making process under the Local Government Act 2009.

This report was previously presented to the Corporate Services and Governance Committee 26 October 2011, where it was decided to defer the item for further discussion at the Corporate Services and Governance Committee 23 November 2011.  The need to defer the matter related to issues regarding the schedule of parks and reserves that was included in the amending roads subordinate local law.  On further review, matters regarding unregistered cars in parks are appropriately covered in the parks and reserves local law and do not need to be addressed via the roads laws.  As such, all sections relating to the listing of parks and reserves in the amending roads subordinate local law presented to the Corporate Services and Governance Committee 26 October 2011, are now removed from the amending roads subordinate local law.

The next phase of the local law making process is to conduct appropriate community engagement for the three proposed amending subordinate local laws.

Relationship to Corporate Plan

8. Inclusive and ethical governance

Deep engagement, quality leadership at all levels, transparent and accountable democratic processes and a spirit of partnership between the community and Council will enrich residents’ participation in local decision making to achieve the community’s Redlands 2030 vision and goals

8.5     Be transparent and consistent in the way we manage the organisation, its risks and obligations and ensure we are delivering against our priorities.

Financial Implications

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

Planning Scheme Implications

There are no planning scheme implications associated with this report.

Consultation

Consultation has occurred with the Infrastructure Planning, Environmental Management, Community Standards and Legal Services groups and King and Company Solicitors.

Options

Preferred

That Council resolve to:

1.         Propose to make Redland City Council Roads (Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No. 1) 2011;

2.         Propose to make Redland City Council Regulated Parking (Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No. 1) 2011;

3.         Propose to make Redland City Council Animal Management (Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No. 1) 2011; and

4.         Conduct the consultation phase of the local law making process for the amendment subordinate local laws.

Alternative

Not to proceed with the local law making processes to amend the subordinate local laws.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve to:

1.    Propose to make Redland City Council Roads (Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No. 1) 2011;

2.    Propose to make Redland City Council Regulated Parking (Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No. 1) 2011;

3.    Propose to make Redland City Council Animal Management (Amendment) Subordinate Local Law (No. 1) 2011; and

4.    Conduct the consultation phase of the local law making process for the amendment subordinate local laws.

 

 


 

1.4         PROPOSED REDLAND CITY COUNCIL LOCAL LAW 14 AND SUBORDINATE LOCAL LAW NO. 14 (JETTIES, RAMPS & FERRIES) 2011

Dataworks Filename:                    L&E Local Law No. 14 - Jetties, Ramps and Ferries

Attachments:                                 Proposed Redland City Council Local Law 14 [PDF 160KB]
Proposed Redland City Council Subordinate Local Law 14 [PDF 70KB]

Responsible Officer:                     Luke Wallace
Manager Corporate Governance

Author:                                           Trevor Green
Senior Advisor Environmental Health

Executive Summary

As part of the local law making process for the new local law and subordinate local law 14 jetties, ramps and ferries, Council was required to conduct a second State interest check for the proposed local law.  The Minister has now advised that he is satisfied that the local law sufficiently deals with the State interests and accordingly, Council may proceed further in making the proposed local law.

The next step in the process is for Council to make the laws.

Purpose

For Council:

1.    To make Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2011 (formerly Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2010 as advertised, which repeals Local Law No. 14 (Jetties and Loading Ramps); and

2.    To make Subordinate Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2011 (formerly Subordinate Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2010 with amendments.

Background

Council is conducting the process to make a new local law and subordinate local law regulating jetties, ramps and ferries.

At Council’s General Meeting of 31 August 2011, (Item 15.2.6) Council resolved to:

1.    Note the results of the community engagement process;

2.    Implement the recommendations of the Public Interest Test Report about Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2011 (formerly Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2010) and Subordinate Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2011 (formerly Subordinate Local law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2010;

3.    Proceed with the making of Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2011 (formerly local law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2010), as advertised; and

4.    Pursuant to section 872 of the Local Government Act 1993, to refer Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2011 to the Minister for Local Government and Aboriginal and Special Minister of State for a second State interest check.

The proposed local law was referred to the Minister for Local Government for the second State interest check.

Issues

On the 17 October 2011, the Director General Department of Local Government and Planning advised in writing that pursuant to section 872 of the former Local Government Act 1993, following a review of Council’s proposed local law, the Minister for Local Government is satisfied that the local law sufficiently deals with the State interests and accordingly, Council may proceed further in making the proposed local law.

Council can now make the local law and subordinate local law.

Relationship to Corporate Plan

3. Embracing the bay

 

The benefits of the unique ecosystems, visual beauty, spiritual nourishment and coastal lifestyle provided by the islands, beaches, foreshores and water catchments of Moreton Bay will be valued, protected and celebrated.

3.4     Promote enjoyment of the bay by improving access for environmentally sensitive recreation activities, education, economic opportunities and ecotourism

5. Wise planning and design

 

We will carefully manage population pressures and use land sustainably while advocating and taking steps to determine limits of growth and carrying capacity on a local and national basis, recognising environmental sensitivities and the distinctive character, heritage and atmosphere of local communities. A well-planned network of urban, rural and bushland areas and responsive infrastructure and transport systems will support strong, healthy communities.

5.8     Plan and advocate to connect the city’s communities with improved public transport including a road, ferry, cycling and walking network that provides safe and efficient movement within the city and the region and supports physical activity; and promote efficient and environmentally responsible private transport

8. Inclusive and ethical governance

Deep engagement, quality leadership at all levels, transparent and accountable democratic processes and a spirit of partnership between the community and Council will enrich residents’ participation in local decision making to achieve the community’s Redlands 2030 vision and goals.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications associated with this report.  Matters dealing with the implementation of the new laws will be dealt with separately.

Planning Scheme Implications

There are no City Planning & Environment implications associated with this report.

Consultation

Consultation has occurred with King and Company Solicitors, Queensland Government and Council’s City Infrastructure and Legal Services groups, for the second State interest check of the local law and preparation of this report.  The local law making process for the local law and subordinate local law involves community engagement which was conducted earlier in the process.

Options

Preferred

1.            To make Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2011 (formerly Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2010 as advertised, which repeals Local Law No. 14 (Jetties and Loading Ramps); and

2.            To make Subordinate Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2011 (formerly Subordinate Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2010 with amendments as follows:-

(a)          section 6(2), paragraphs (b), (p) and (q)—

omit;

(b)          section 6(2), paragraphs (c) to (u)—

renumber as paragraphs (b) to (r);

(c)          after section 6(2)—

insert—

‘(3)    If the jetty or ramp, or a part of the jetty or ramp is not a public transport waiting point, the activities declared to be a prohibited activity include each of the following activities—

(a)     fishing in a manner that obstructs or interferes with the use of the jetty or ramp by a vessel, vehicle or another person;

(b)     using a cast net or other bait collecting device in a manner that obstructs or interferes with the use of the jetty or ramp by a vessel, vehicle or another person;

(c)     using a crab pot or other device for catching a crustacean in a manner that obstructs or interferes with the use of the jetty or ramp by a vessel, vehicle or another person.

                 (4)   If the jetty or ramp, or a part of the jetty or ramp is a public transport waiting point, the activities declared to be a prohibited activity include each of the following activities—

(a)      fishing;

(b)      using a cast net or other bait collecting device;

(c)      using a crab pot or other device for catching a crustacean.’.

Alternative

That Council not progress with the making of the laws.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve as follows:

1.            To make Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2011 (formerly Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2010 as advertised, which repeals Local Law No. 14 (Jetties and Loading Ramps); and

2.            To make Subordinate Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2011 (formerly Subordinate Local Law No. 14 (Jetties, Ramps and Ferries) 2010 with amendments as follows:-

(a)          section 6(2), paragraphs (b), (p) and (q)—

omit;

(b)       section 6(2), paragraphs (c) to (u)—

renumber as paragraphs (b) to (r);

(c)        after section 6(2)—

insert—

‘(3)        If the jetty or ramp, or a part of the jetty or ramp is not a public transport waiting point, the activities declared to be a prohibited activity include each of the following activities—

(a)     fishing in a manner that obstructs or interferes with the            use of the jetty or ramp by a vessel, vehicle or another          person;

(b)     using a cast net or other bait collecting device in a manner       that obstructs or interferes with the use of the jetty or          ramp by a vessel, vehicle or another person;

(c)     using a crab pot or other device for catching a crustacean        in a manner that obstructs or interferes with the use of the            jetty or ramp by a vessel, vehicle or another person.

(4)       If the jetty or ramp, or a part of the jetty or ramp is a public transport waiting point, the activities declared to be a prohibited activity include each of the following activities—

(a)      fishing;

(b)      using a cast net or other bait collecting device;

(c)     using a crab pot or other device for catching a    crustacean.’.


 

1.5         COMMUNITY SAFETY POLICY AND STRATEGY REVIEW

Dataworks Filename:                    Redlands Community Safety Strategy

Attachments:                                 Community Safety Policy POL-3034 [PDF 50KB]
Community Safety Strategy 2011 Review [PDF 1.2MB]
Community Safety Strategy 2011 [PDF 310KB]

Responsible Officer:                     Roberta Bonnin
Manager Community Futures

Author:                                           Frank Pearce
Senior Adviser Community Development

Executive Summary

The current Community Safety Strategy was endorsed by Council in 2003 and the Community Safety Policy POL-3034 in 2006. Together they provide an integrated framework of Council objectives, policy and actions that aims to enhance safety and perceptions of safety.

Based on an audit of the existing strategy, a literature review and input from community and stakeholders, the Community Safety Strategy 2003 has been redrafted and revised to respond to relevant contemporary safety issues and trends. Council endorsed the release of the Draft Community Safety Strategy for public consultation in June 2011.

The feedback generated from the community safety consultation process indicated general support for the revised strategy. Recommendations to further improve the strategy included:

·                Identifying opportunities to educate the community on their role in reducing violence and crime

·                Enhancing partnerships and communication particularly with community residents, schools, organisations

·                Specifying actions, timeline and budget for implementation of the strategy.

The Community Safety Policy has also been reviewed as part of this process. The commitments and principles contained in the policy still reflect sound practice and no change is recommended to the policy.

Purpose

The purpose of this report is to:

·                Provide an update on the results of the public consultation on the revised Community Safety Strategy

·                Seek endorsement of the Community Safety Strategy 2011

Background

The Draft Community Safety Strategy was endorsed for public consultation by Council in June 2011. Following the endorsement feedback was sort through a variety of channels:

·                Direct mail to stakeholders

·                Media release

·                Newspaper advertising

·                Council website

·                Facebook

·                Targeted workshop (22 August 2011).

Issues

Feedback on the strategy focused on:

·                The need to provide more details of actions flowing from the strategy including timelines and budget

·                Establishing partnerships with community residents, organisations and schools

·                Identifying opportunities for Council to influence community well being through development assessment approvals and building and public space design

·                Improving communication about Council community safety initiatives and education for the community in their role in reducing violence and crime

·                Strengthening the emphasis on monitoring and evaluation.

As a result of the comments a number of changes have been incorporated into the strategy including:

·                An increased level of detail has been incorporated into the strategy implementation plan, which details actions and timelines for a number of Council’s community safety initiatives. While budget is not identified in the strategy there is commitment to deliver this strategy within Council’s existing budget

·                The need for Council to effectively communicate key safety messages and initiatives to the community has been highlighted in the strategy. Council’s Community Safety Officer will work with community groups to develop and implement a Community Safety Communication Strategy

·                A new goal, ‘Effective Communication and Accountability’ was incorporated into the strategy to ensure evaluation and monitoring was accorded appropriate priority.

The Child and Youth Friendly Redlands Policy was developed and adopted during the course of the Community Safety Policy and Strategy review. This policy states “Children and young people are able to live well, feel safe and are protected from abuse, neglect and violence.” References to this new policy work have been incorporated into the latest version of the Community Safety Strategy.

As discussed at the 29 June 2011 General meeting, the principles articulated in the existing Community Safety Policy have been assessed to reflect sound contemporary practice and no change is recommended to the policy.

Relationship to Corporate Plan

7. Strong and connected communities

Our health, wellbeing and strong community spirit will be supported by a full range of services, programs, organisations and facilities, and our values of caring and respect will extend to people of all ages, cultures, abilities and needs

7.3     Increase community safety, health and wellbeing by planning and delivering programs, services, partnerships, regulations and education

Financial Implications

This recommendation does not require any change to the current year’s budget as funds have already been allocated. The majority of future actions identified in the strategy will also be covered within Council’s existing budget. Projects requiring additional budget such as the Young People’s Policy and Strategy will be subject to Council’s normal budgetary approval processes. Officers will also continue to seek additional revenue for Community Safety activities through available grants programs.

Planning Scheme Implications

The City Planning & Environment Group was consulted and it is considered that the outcome of recommendations in this report will not require any amendments to the Redlands Planning Scheme.

Consultation

During the course of the Strategy review and the development of a revised strategy consultations have been undertaken with:

Internal

·                Strengthening Communities (formerly Human Services) Unit

·                Facilities Services Unit

·                Roads Drainage and Quarries Unit

·                Compliance Services Unit

·                Councillors and ELG (workshop on 10 March 2011)

External

·                Queensland Police Service

·                Not for profit Community Safety organisations

·                Community (via survey and workshop on 22 August 2011)

Options

Preferred

That Council resolve to endorse the Community Safety Strategy 2011.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve to endorse the Community Safety Strategy 2011.

 


 

1.6         ADOPTION OF 2010-2011 ANNUAL REPORT

Dataworks Filename:                    GOV Reporting - Annual Report

Responsible Officer:                     Nick Clarke
General Manager Governance

Author:                                           Sarah Koch
Senior Adviser, Communications

Executive Summary

Redland City Council is required to adopt its annual report for 2010-11 by 30 November 2011.

An annual report must contain information on the local government’s financial position, an assessment of its performance in implementing its corporate and operational plans, as well as other issues of public interest as specified in legislation. A copy of the annual report is presented to Council before being printed for distribution.

It is recommended that Council resolve to adopt the 2010-11 Redland City Council Annual Report.  

Due to the size of the document, it has not been included as an attachment to the agenda for this meeting in the normal way.  A copy will be provided to each councillor at the same time as the agenda is distributed.

Purpose

This report is presented to Council for approval to meet our legislative requirements under Section 108 Local Government (Finance, Plans and Reporting) Regulation 2010, which requires Council’s annual report to be adopted by 30 November. This timing requirement is essentially unchanged from that which applied previously under section 531 Local Government Act 1993 (now repealed).

Background

Redland City Council has prepared a draft 2010-11 annual report for Council adoption.  This annual report reviews in detail Council’s financial and operational performance for the year against the goals of the Redland City Council Corporate Plan 2010-2015.

The report includes Council’s audited financial statements and the status of projects budgeted for the 2010-11 financial year, directly reflecting Council’s Operational Plan. The 2010-11 annual report includes additional reporting following the introduction of the Local Government Act 2009 and associated regulations on July 1, 2010. 

Once adopted, printed copies of the annual report will be made available to the public and contents will be uploaded to Council’s website. In addition, a summary document will be produced that includes a CD containing the annual report text and images.

Issues

The preparation of this annual report involved meeting the reporting requirements of the Local Government Act 1999, which was introduced at the start of the financial year upon which this annual report is based (July 1, 2010).  

This annual report is the first to contain information about progressing the actions in the Corporate Plan 2010-15 and the 2030 Community Plan, both of which were adopted toward the end of the 2009-10 financial year.

Relationship to Corporate Plan

9. An efficient and effective organisation

Council is well respected and seen as an excellent organisation which manages resources in an efficient and effective way

9.5     Ensure robust long term financial planning is in place to protect the financial sustainability of Council

Financial Implications

Funds for printing the annual report and summary brochure have been allocated in the current budget.

 

Consultation

Consultation has been undertaken across the organisation to ensure the accuracy and content of the annual report.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve to adopt the 2010-11 Redland City Council Annual Report.

 


 

2             corporate services

2.1         2011/2012 FIRST QUARTER BUDGET REVIEW

Dataworks Filename:                    FM Budget Review Committee Reports

Responsible Officer:                     Martin Drydale
General Manager Corporate Services

Author:                                           Deborah Corbett-Hall
Service Manager Commercial Finance

Executive Summary

Report being finalised.


 

2.2         OCTOBER 2011 MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORTS

Dataworks Filename:                    FM Monthly Financial Reports to Committee

Attachment:                                   October 2011-Monthly Financial Performance Report [PDF 1.1MB]

Responsible Officer:                     Martin Drydale
General Manager Corporate Services

Author:                                           Gavin Holdway
Manager Financial Control

Executive Summary

Section 152(2) of the Local Government (Finance Plans & Reporting) Regulation 2010 requires the Chief Executive Officer to present the financial report to a monthly meeting.

The financial statements for October 2011 demonstrate that Council exceeded targets set in the 2011-2012 budget for six of the seven Financial Stability Key Financial Performance Indicators.  These are:

·                ability to pay our bills – current ratio;

·                ability to repay our debt – debt servicing ratio;

·                cash balance;

·                cash balances – cash capacity in months;

·                long term financial stability – debt to assets ratio; and

·                operating performance

The following Financial Stability Ratio Key Financial Performance Indicator is outside of Council’s target range:

·                level of dependence on general rate revenue

With respect to the five measures of sustainability adopted as part of the 2011-2012 budget, Council is currently meeting three of the five targets.  These are:

·                net financial liabilities ratio;

·                interest cover ratio; and

·                asset consumption ratio

Council’s operating surplus ratio is outside of Council’s target range and Council’s system is currently being structured to measure its’ asset sustainability ratio.

Purpose

The purpose is to present the October 2011 financial report to Council and explain the content and analysis of the report.  Section 152(2) of the Local Government (Finance, Plans & Reporting) Regulation 2010 requires the Chief Executive Officer of a local government to present statements of its accounts to the local government.

Background

The Corporate Plan contains a strategic priority to support the organisation’s capacity to deliver services to the community by building a skilled, motivated and continually learning workforce, ensuring assets and finances are well managed, corporate knowledge is captured and used to best advantage, and that services are marketed and communicated effectively.

Issues

Please refer to the attached Monthly Financial Performance Report.

Relationship to Corporate Plan

8. Inclusive and ethical governance

Deep engagement, quality leadership at all levels, transparent and accountable democratic processes and a spirit of partnership between the community and Council will enrich residents’ participation in local decision making to achieve the community’s Redlands 2030 vision and goals

8.7     Ensure Council resource allocation is sustainable and delivers on Council and community priorities

8.8     Provide clear information to citizens about how rates, fees and charges are set and how Council intends to finance the delivery of the Community Plan and Corporate Plan

Financial Implications

Please refer to the attached Monthly Financial Performance Report.

Planning Scheme Implications

The City Planning & Environment Group was consulted and it is considered that the outcome of recommendations in this report will not require any amendments to the Redlands Planning Scheme.

Consultation

Consultation has taken place amongst the Executive Leadership Group.

Options

Preferred

That Council resolve to note the End of Month Financial Reports for October 2011 and explanations as presented in the Monthly Financial Performance Report.

Alternative

That Council requests additional information.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve to note the End of Month Financial Reports for October 2011 and explanations as presented in the attached Monthly Financial Performance Report.

 

2.3         COMMUNITY FINANCIAL REPORT 2010/11

Dataworks Filename:                    Community Financial Report 2010/11

Responsible Officer:                     Gary Stevenson
Chief Executive Officer

Author:                                           Gavin Holdway
Manager Financial Control

Executive Summary

Report being finalised.


 

2.4         2010/11 RCC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Dataworks Filename:                    2010/11 RCC Financial Statement

Responsible Officer:                     Gary Stevenson
Chief Executive Officer

Author:                                           Gavin Holdway
Manager Financial Control

Executive Summary

Report being finalised.


 

2.5         WATER REINTEGRATION CEO DELEGATIONS

Dataworks Filename:                    GOV WRAD – RCC Steering Group
FM Delegations – Redland Water

Responsible Officer:                     Martin Drydale
General Manager Corporate Services

Author:                                           Kate Giese
Water Programme Manager

Executive Summary

As part of the reintegration of Redland Water into Council and the disestablishment of Allconnex Water, a number of policy and operational decisions will be required to be made on an expeditious basis to ensure compliance with State imposed timetables.

Additionally, Council will enter caretaker mode early in 2012 as a result of the upcoming elections and it is likely that a number of such decisions will need to be made during this period.

This report therefore recommends that decision making authority for urgent water reintegration issues are delegated to the CEO until reintegration is finalised on 1 July 2012.

Purpose

To seek approval for the CEO to be delegated authority for urgent water reintegration decision making until reintegration is finalised on 1 July 2012.

Background

The South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 (the Bill) requires that Council resolves to undertake a number of activities and decisions as part of the transition period, prior to the re-establishment of Redland Water on 1 July 2012.

An example of this is the approval of the Retransfer Schedules to transfer the assets, employees, instruments and liabilities from Allconnex Water to Council which are required to be authorised by Council in March / April. As a result of the local government elections, Council will be in caretaker mode when some of these important decisions are required.

This issue of caretaker periods was raised with the State government during the consultation of the Bill, and discussion took place as to whether it would be preferable to legislate for a delegation to council CEO’s in the bill. The State government concluded that this was not necessary given the long lead time in which council could prepare the necessary delegations.

Issues

Council decisions regarding water reintegration are likely to be required during caretaker period and are subject to limited State imposed timeframes.

To enable Council to effectively reintegrate Redland Water it is recommended that Council delegates the following authority to the CEO:

(a)        to approve the Retransfer Scheme;

(b)        to submit a Retransfer Scheme certification statement to the Minister;

(c)        to enter joint usage / access agreements;

(d)        to authorise public advertisement of the proposed Retransfer Scheme;

(e)        to appoint an arbiter for withdrawal cost disputes;

(f)        to make claims against and submit invoices to Gold Coast City Council for withdrawal costs;

(g)        where not expressly covered above:

(i)      make or otherwise give effect to any agreement that may be necessary for or incidental to the implementation of the retransfer scheme, relating to the dissolution of the Southern SEQ Distributor- Retailer Authority (Allconnex Water), including any agreement under which the transfer to the Council of all or part of the assets, employees, instruments and liabilities of Allconnex Water is given effect; and

(ii)      any statement (for example statements to a Minister) certifying the assets and liabilities that are to be received by the Council under a retransfer scheme, relating to the dissolution of Allconnex Water (but excluding statements to the communications media);

Relationship to Corporate Plan

9. An efficient and effective organisation

This report relates directly and indirectly to a number of objectives in the “Efficient and Effective Organisation” section of the Corporate Plan.

Financial Implications

There are no financial implications within this report.

Planning Scheme Implications

There are no implications to the planning scheme within this report.

Consultation

Consultation occurred with the General Manager Corporate Services, the Chief Executive Officer and the Queensland Water Commission.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve that from the commencement of caretaker period, Council delegate to the Chief Executive Officer under s.257(1)(b) of the Local Government Act 2009 all of the functions of the Council to be performed in order to:

(a)       approve the Retransfer Scheme;

(b)       submit a Retransfer Scheme certification statement to the Minister;

(c)       enter joint usage / access agreements;

(d)       authorise public advertisement of the proposed Retransfer Scheme;

(e)       appoint an arbiter for withdrawal cost disputes;

(f)        make claims against and submit invoices to Gold Coast City Council for withdrawal costs; and

(g)       where not expressly covered above:

i.      make or otherwise give effect to any agreement that may be necessary for or incidental to the implementation of the retransfer scheme, relating to the dissolution of the Southern SEQ Distributor- Retailer Authority (Allconnex Water), including any agreement under which the transfer to the Council of all or part of the assets, employees, instruments and liabilities of Allconnex Water is given effect; and

ii.    any statement (for example statements to a Minister) certifying the assets and liabilities that are to be received by the Council under a retransfer scheme, relating to the dissolution of Allconnex Water (but excluding statements to the communications media).

 

 

 

 

2.6         WATER REFORM LEGISLATION DELAY

Dataworks Filename:                    GOV – WRAD - RCC Business Readiness

Responsible Officer:                     Martin Drydale
General Manager Corporate Services

Author:                                           Martin Drydale
General Manager Corporate Services

Executive Summary

The Draft Bill before the Queensland Parliament to amend legislation to enable Council’s opt out decision is designed to provide certainty to Councils in undertaking the necessary actions and incurring expenditure to reintegrate Redland Water back into Council.

In accordance with the timing specified by the State government, and now proposed in the draft legislation, RCC will resume operation of water and wastewater services by 1 July 2012. However, the legislation is not scheduled to be reviewed by a Parliamentary Committee until April 2012 and represents a significant risk to the enactment of the legislation prior to a State government election.

Continued action and incurring of expenses by Council without the certainty of legislation is considered a considerable risk which is required to be addressed through the proposed course of action outlined in this report.

Purpose

To advise Council on a number of developments impacting upon the implementation of Council’s decision to ‘opt out’ of Allconnex Water and re-establish Redland Water, in particular a potential delay and consequential risk to the passage of legislation enabling Council’s decision.

Background

Passage of the Bill at the earliest possible time is considered paramount to provide certainty to Councils in undertaking disestablishment and re-establishment activities. Council is requested to authorise and lend its full support to the making of a submission to the Parliamentary Committee as part of the public submissions process calling for the urgent consideration of the Bill and the referral back to the Parliament at its earliest convenience.

The grounds for this representation are:

·         The significant financial risk to the Councils associated with the uncertainty created by the proposed timelines for the Portfolio Committee process.

·         The potential risk to the orderly provision of an essential service created by the passage of the legislation at a date so close to the proposed implementation date.

·         The need to provide certainty for employees of Allconnex Water.

 


 

Issues

1.    Passage of Legislation

A Bill has been introduced to the Queensland Parliament to give effect to the decision of Redland City (and consequently Gold Coast and Logan Councils) to opt out of Allconnex Water and re-establish its water distribution and retail businesses. The Bill enables the following:

·         Transfers responsibility for the provision of water and wastewater distribution and retail services from Allconnex Water to the Councils from 1 July 2012.

·         Establishes the mechanism for the re-transfer of Allconnex Water’s assets and liabilities to the Councils.

·         Provides for the making of a Workforce Framework to protect employee entitlements.

·         Defines withdrawal costs and the requirement for Gold Coast City Council to pay the withdrawal costs of Redland and Logan Councils and Allconnex Water.

·         A range of ancillary amendments.

In accordance with new processes implemented by the Queensland Parliament, once a Bill has been introduced and passed its First Reading, it is referred to a bi-partisan Parliamentary Committee. The role of the Committee is to consult publicly on the content of the Bill and to report back any findings to the Parliament before the Bill receives its second reading. This process has recently been introduced with a view to improving the accountability of the legislative process and has bi-partisan support.

On 11 October 2011, the Bill was introduced by the Minister for Energy and Water Utilities, the Hon Stephen Robertson MP, and referred to the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee. The Committee will now examine the policies to be enacted by the Bill and the application of fundamental legislative principles, as set out in s.4 of the Legislative Standards Act 1992. Public submissions close on 2 December 2011 with the Committee required to report to the Parliament by 5 April 2012 (it can report earlier).

The three Council CEO’s have discussed this situation and have raised their considerable concern with the timing of this process, which may not see the Bill considered again by the Parliament until as late as April 2012, just three months prior to the proposed disestablishment date. A significant risk associated with this is the potential timing of a State election which is required to be held before June 2012. The calling of an election could coincide with the return of the Bill to Parliament and thus may even impact the ability of the current government to pass it (if the State government were in caretaker mode).

The potential delay (and possible risk to the passage to the legislation) poses a serious and unacceptable risk to the Councils and Allconnex Water. Achievement of the proposed disestablishment of Allconnex Water/re-establishment of Council water businesses on 1 July 2012 requires considerable expenditure and has a significant impact on employees. It will require the Councils and Allconnex Water to make decisions and commit public funds to disestablishment and re-establishment activities without the certainty of legislation having been passed.

The Queensland Parliament has a provision that allows the Minister to declare an ‘Urgent Bill’. If so declared a Bill can by-pass the Committee process and be immediately set down for its Second Reading. It is understood that the state Government considered this provision in relation to this Bill and determined not to invoke it on the grounds that it has supported the introduction of the new procedure and does not want to be seen to circumvent it.

As part of the public submissions process conducted by the Committee, it is proposed, as a minimum, that each of the three Councils resolves to make a submission calling for the urgent consideration of the Bill and the referral back to the Parliament at its earliest convenience.

The grounds for this representation are:

·         The significant risk to the Councils associated with the uncertainty created by the proposed timelines for the Portfolio Committee  process.

·         The potential risk to the orderly provision of an essential service created by the passage of the legislation at a date so close to the proposed implementation date.

·         The need to provide certainty for employees of Allconnex Water.

A resolution has been drafted which will be presented to each of the three Councils for consideration. If adopted, it is considered that the representation made to the Minister by all three Councils will lend considerable weight to the request.

It is not proposed that representations other than related to the need for the timely passage of the Bill be made to the Committee. Council officers were involved in consultation on the contents of the Bill which represents the state Government’s declared policy intent. Representations on matters such as the requirement for Gold Coast to meet the costs of the ‘opt out’ decision have already been made (and rejected) and further representation is not considered of practicable benefit.

2.    Withdrawal Costs

A key aspect of the legislation are the provisions related to costs, and the responsibility for costs. The Bill provides further definition of the concept of what is now described as Withdrawal Costs, which are described as costs incurred by Allconnex Water or a withdrawing Council because of:

·         it becoming, or ceasing to become a water and wastewater service provider

·         the creation of a commercial business unit

·         the re-transfer scheme which gives effect to the re-transfer of the assets and liabilities of Allconnex Water to the three Councils

·         Allconnex’s dissolution

·         any matter consequential or incidental to the above

However, withdrawal costs do not include costs:

·         for anticipated or actual revenue or profits

·         failure to realise savings

·         that a withdrawn Council would ordinarily incur as a service provider or local government

The legislation specifies that Gold Coast City Council must pay its own withdrawal costs and those of Allconnex Water, Redland and Logan Councils. There are provisions that provide for dispute resolution and arbitration in the event that withdrawal costs cannot be agreed between the parties.

The Queensland Water Commission has indicated that further definition of withdrawal costs are likely to be included in a regulation. A workshop for the Councils and Allconnex Water has been scheduled to discuss the contents of such a regulation.

3.    Stamp Duty Exemption

The Bill provides certainty that the transaction will be exempt from charges under the Duties Act, as well as charges and fees under the Land Act, Land Titles Act, Transport Operations Act and the Water Act. This will mean that Stamp Duty will not apply to any transfers of land and vehicles occurring as a result of the ‘opt out’ decision.

4.    Pricing

Previous provisions relating to the ‘price cap’ applied by the state Government (limiting price increases for water and wastewater services to CPI for 2011-12 and 2012-13) are maintained and applicable to the new Council water businesses. Further, Redland City Council will be subject to ongoing price monitoring by the Queensland Competition Authority. This price monitoring involves the obligation to collect and provide significant information and justification for expenditure (including capital expenditure) to the QCA.

Of interest, if not of direct application to RCC in the post Allconnex Water environment, the Bill gives effect to the stated policy intent to enable individual Council’s the ability to give a direction to a distributor-retailer (including a direction on pricing). The previous reserve powers (as enacted through the Participation Agreement) required the unanimous agreement of the three participating Councils in order to give a direction to the Board. If a direction (e.g. on pricing) results in a loss of revenue for the distributor-retailer, the Council responsible for that direction is required to compensate the distributor-retailer and its participating Councils for that loss.

5.    Re-transfer Scheme

There are extensive provisions in the Bill to enable the re-transfer of assets and liabilities from Allconnex Water to the participating Councils. As a general rule, assets are re-transferred to the Council that asset was originally transferred from, and geographically based assets transfer to the local government in which geographic area the asset is based. There will be a need to identify, value and agree on the transfer of so-called ‘comingled’ or corporate assets (e.g. furniture and fittings in the corporate HQ at the Rocket, IT infrastructure), and liabilities.

6.    Workforce Framework

The Bill identifies that a workforce framework will be made (under regulation) which will provide protections to employees of Allconnex Water (and potentially Councils) affected by the water reform. A key claim by the Unions that these protections extend until 2015 has been accepted by the State Government.

Relationship to Corporate Plan

9. An efficient and effective organisation

This report relates directly and indirectly to a number of objectives in the “Efficient and Effective Organisation” section of the Corporate Plan.

Financial Implications

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

Planning Scheme Implications

There are no implications to the planning scheme within this report.

Consultation

Consultation occurred between the three Chief Executive Officers of the participating Councils.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve as follows:

1.    That Council notes with concern the potential delay of passage of the South East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011 and for the potential delay to impact upon necessary disestablishment/re-establishment activities required to comply with the proposed legislation; and

2.    That Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to write to the Chair of the Environment, Agriculture, Resources and Energy Committee to advocate that the Bill to be considered urgently by the Committee and for its report to be referred back to the Queensland Parliament at its earliest possible convenience.

 

 


 

2.7         NATIONAL HARMONISATION OF THE WORKPLACE HEALTH & SAFETY LEGISLATION

Dataworks Filename:                    HRM - WHS Operations

Responsible Officer:                     Amanda Daly
Manager People & Change

Author:                                           Peter Gould
Service Manager Workplace Health & Safety and Wellbeing

Executive Summary

The new Workplace Health and Safety legislation effective 1 January 2012 (Harmonisation) has impacts to RCC and requires a revision of the safety management system.

It is vital Councillors are aware of the Executive Leadership Group’s (ELG) “officer” status under the new legislation and the impacts on decision making.

Purpose

To provide an overview of the new Workplace Health and Safety legislation effective 1 January 2012 (Harmonisation).

Background

Currently all states, territories and the Commonwealth are responsible for making and enforcing their own health and safety laws. Although these laws draw on a similar approach for regulating workplaces, there are differences in the application and detail of the laws.

Inconsistent laws:

·         cause confusion for businesses and inequitable safety standards across jurisdictions and industry sectors

·         lead to duplication and inefficiencies for governments when providing policy, regulatory and support services.

In response to industry calls for greater national consistency, the Commonwealth, states and territories have agreed to implement nationally harmonised WHS legislation to commence on 1 January 2012. The harmonisation model will be one where the Commonwealth and all states and territories will be responsible for making and enforcing the model laws.

Harmonisation aims to:

·         develop uniform, equitable and effective safety standards and protections for all Australian workers

·         address the compliance and regulatory burdens for employers with operations in more than one jurisdiction

·         create efficiencies for governments in the provision of OHS regulatory and support services

·         achieve significant and continual reductions in the incidence of death, injury and disease in the workplace.

A national model Act has been developed and includes the following key elements:

·         a primary duty of care requiring persons conducting a business or undertaking to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and others who may be affected by the carrying out of work

·         duties of care for upstream parties such as designers, manufacturers, importers, suppliers and installers

·         a requirement that officers of corporations and unincorporated bodies exercise due diligence to ensure compliance

·         reporting requirements for notifiable incidents such as the serious illness, injury or death of persons and dangerous incidents arising out of the business or undertaking authorisations such as licences, permits and registrations (e.g. for persons engaged in high risk work or users of certain plant or substances)

·         provision for worker consultation, participation and representation at the workplace

·         provision for the resolution of health and safety issues

·         protection against discrimination for those who exercise or perform, or seek to exercise    or perform, powers, functions or rights under the Act

·         an entry permit scheme that allows union officials to inquire into suspected contraventions affecting workers who are members, or eligible to be members, of the relevant union and to consult and advise such workers about health and safety matters

·         compliance and enforcement measures and sanctions, including enforceable undertakings

·         regulation-making powers and administrative processes, such as the review of decisions.

While the Act is largely similar to the current Queensland Workplace Health and Safety Act 1995, there are a number of important differences:

·         Business operators must do what is reasonably practicable to eliminate or minimise risk to health and safety.

·         Company directors will have a positive and proactive duty to exercise due diligence. This represents a shift away from attributed liability (i.e. being held liable for contraventions by the company) and requires directors to:

o    acquire and keep up-to-date knowledge of health and safety matters

o    gain an understanding of hazards and risks associated with the company’s operations

o    ensure appropriate resources are available for use to eliminate or minimise risks from work carried out

o    ensure appropriate processes for obtaining information about incidents, hazards and risks, and responding to them

o    ensure processes for complying with duties are implemented, e.g. reporting, consultation arrangements, training and instruction

o    verify the provision and use of resources for the matters listed above.

·         Workers must exercise reasonable care that their acts or omissions do not adversely affect the health and safety of all persons at a workplace.

·         There will be no requirement for business operators to appoint workplace health and safety officers (WHSOs). However, as it is a requirement for business operators, including company directors, to be familiar with the risks and hazards associated with their operations, and to provide appropriate control measures to ensure a safe working environment, businesses are encouraged to have access to trained safety personnel.

·         Health and safety representatives HSRs) will represent defined work groups at a workplace. These will need to be negotiated with the business operator.

·         Health and safety issues are to be resolved in accordance with an agreed procedure. Where there is no agreed procedure at a workplace, the national model laws set out a default procedure.

·         HSRs will be able to issue provisional improvement notices and can direct workers to cease work after consultation and an attempt to resolve an issue, or without consultation, if there is an immediate and imminent threat to health and safety.

National model regulations and priority codes of practice are currently being developed. While these are largely consistent with Queensland provisions, there are some additional areas of regulation, such as fatigue, emergency procedures, work at heights, surfaces and floors, movement around workplaces, and remote and isolated work. While most of the remaining regulations are essentially similar to current Queensland regulations, there will be some altered provisions for construction work.

Issues

The changes to Workplace Health & Safety Legislation brought about by Harmonisation required Redland City Council to review and update all of the Procedures in the Councils Safety Management System which falls out under RCC POL-3040.

The Executive Leadership Group needs to prepare to take on their Officer roles under the new legislation.

The Organisational Leadership Group needs to prepare to take on their Persons in Control of Business Undertaking role under the new legislation.

All Health and Safety Representatives in RCC need to have awareness of the changes in the new legislation that affect them in their voluntary role.

All Workplace Health and Safety Officers need to be transitioned to their new roles as RCC Health and Safety Advisors due to the removal of the WHSO role within the legislation.

All employees will need to be orientated to the new definition of a Worker under the new legislation.

Redland City Council will need to review contractor safety management arrangements to ensure our due diligence responsibilities under the new legislation are met.

Redland City Council will need to review its volunteer management arrangements to ensure our due diligence responsibilities under the new legislation are met.

It is vital Councillors are aware of ELG’s “Officer” status under the new legislation. Councillors under the new legislation are seen as “Workers” by definition and must abide by the “reasonably practical” definition in the Act. As such a process to support the RCC “Officers” in their due diligence will need to be developed in situations where a health and safety matter is discussed at a General Council Meeting.

Relationship to Corporate Plan

9. An efficient and effective organisation

Council is well respected and seen as an excellent organisation which manages resources in an efficient and effective way

9.4     Provide a safe place for staff to work in and support the health and wellbeing of our people.

Financial Implications

·         This recommendation requires a change to the current year’s budget.  The Finance One account number and budget phasing details are held within Statutory Workplace Health and Safety Obligation job number for consultants, contractors and external training.

·         A Q1 ask has been submitted for an officer to undertake the changes and education required to ensure RCC compliance in the new legislation.

Planning Scheme Implications

The City Planning & Environment Group was consulted and it is considered that the outcome of recommendations in this report will not require any amendments to the Redlands Planning Scheme.

Consultation

The Workplace Health and Safety team have rolled out initial overviews of the implications of the new legislation to all managers and supervisors.  The education program will continue over the next six months.

Options

Preferred

That Council resolve to note and support the implementation of the new WH&S Harmonisation Legislation

Alternative

The mandatory legislation is not implemented and Redland City Council accepts the risk of prosecution.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve to note and support the implementation of the new WH&S Harmonisation Legislation

 


 

3             CITY SERVICES

3.1         FUNDING OPTIONS FOR PHASE 3 JUDY HOLT PARK EASTERN LANDFILL BATTER REMEDIATION AND ASSOCIATED WORKS PROJECT (2011-2012 & 2012/2013)

Dataworks Filename:                    EM Landfill Remediation Separate Charge (Brown Levy)
CLR Site 01 Judy Holt Park Birkdale

Attachment:                                   Attachment 1 - JH EB Project Remediation Phases [PDF 190KB]

Responsible Officer:                     Elisa Underhill
Manager City Enterprises

Author:                                           Deluna Lawrence
Remediation Advisor

Executive Summary

This report is submitted in response to a Council request made during the 2011/2012 Landfill Remediation Separate Charge budget workshop to brief Council on the total project costs for further funding consideration to deliver the “Phase 3 Judy Holt Park Birkdale - Eastern Landfill Batter Remediation and Associated Works Project” (Phase 3 JH EB Project).

The total cost of Phase 3 JH EB Project is $7,385,600 inclusive of $345,000 of “improvement works” to progress cycleway, open space and recreation outcomes currently earmarked in the 10 Year Capex Programme. Direct costs associated with delivering closed landfill remediation outcomes total $7,040,600, and includes costs for an engineered landfill cap, landfill gas collection and venting system, leachate management system, site revegetation and major drainage upgrades. “Improvement works” include the completion of the missing link to the regional bike path connecting Alexandra Hills and Birkdale parallel to Tarradarrapin Creek and the toe of the eastern landfill batter at Judy Holt Park.

This report informs Council on project reasoning and benefits, risks, construction costs and recommends the approval of capital borrowings from the Queensland Treasury Corporation of $5.5 million. Given approval, project savings can be realised in 2011/2012 due to the immediate purchase of project resources subject to cost variations surrounding expected construction index increases in 2012/2013. Borrowing costs are to be serviced through the ongoing levying of the LR Separate Charge over the next 20 year period with no change to the projected separate charge rate in 2012/2013 currently modelled at $50.00 per rateable lot.

As predicted during rate modelling for the 2011/2012 budget, the Landfill Remediation Separate Charge Reserve cannot accommodate this level of immediate expenditure. Income received through the levying of the charge is not enough to deliver this project through the rate alone. This has triggered the development of an improved financial planning approach to the total Closed Landfill Remediation Programme (CLR Programme). Although full details of the amended financial approach to the total programme will not be finalised until the next budget development period the funding of the Phase 3 JH EB Project and CLR Programme is being modelled around a primary capital borrowing capability to provide a more rapid and cost effective major works delivery plan. The Phase 3 JH EB Project forms the first project to be brought under this improved financial strategy.

This integrated construction project is considered a high priority by the CLR Programme delivering significant environmental and community space outcomes. Confirmation of project costs and delivery commitments have been made by the Project Delivery Group (PDG) with actual site mobilisation/construction commencement projected in Q1-Q2 2012/2013.

Closed landfill areas throughout the City provide essential and valuable land assets and source of wider community enjoyment and well being for Redlands and the region. Strong Council and community commitment is needed over a long period to fix the arbitrary waste filling of the past and ensure the future viability and increasing safe use of these areas.

The scope of closed landfill management is expanding and fast becoming a financial, safety and environmental priority for the Redlands. This includes Judy Holt Park Birkdale being both a regional sporting park and a high risk closed landfill site.

Purpose

The purpose of this report to respond to the Council request for further project briefing and construction cost information, during 2011/2012 Landfill Remediation Separate Charge budget workshop deliberations.

This report seeks approval for a $5.5 million capital borrowing loan from the Queensland Treasury Corporation to be drawn down in 2012/2013 confirming the full delivery of the Phase 3 Judy Holt Park Birkdale – Eastern Landfill Batter Remediation and Associated Works Project (2011/2012 & 2012/2013).

Background

Landfilling History

·         Judy Holt Park Birkdale was used as an unsupervised landfill site for approximately 20 years ceasing waste disposal activities in 1993. Detailed filling records are not available and the site was intermittently supervised. The site accepted all waste types including farming, domestic, industrial, regulated and hazardous waste.

·         Upon closure, the site was not closed with the extensive uniform engineered capping gas or leachate systems that are stipulated in more modern landfilling activities. In addition, when the site was cleared for filling it was not established with an engineered lining system placed at the bottom of the filling area to assist with the separation of the waste from the underlying environment, drainage and leachate management.

·         Upon landfill closure, the parkland was formed into three (3) distinct plateau areas supporting various activities through the years including horse adjustment fields, cricket, rugby, dog obedience, special events including regional and national tournaments.

Master Plan

·         The original Judy Holt Master Plan was adopted by Council in 2004 securing the site as a Regional Sports Park and Reserve under a lease arrangement from the State Government.

·         In 2011, Council approved the amended Judy Holt Park Master Plan. This greatly improved the level of landuse planning detail required to drive the finalisation operational works across the site and deliver the final look and feel of the landform.

Closed Landfill Performance and Site Remediation History

·         The park and the landfill area has experienced severe weathering, saturation, numerous fires, localised flooding, extensive surface water infiltration, vegetation loss, unapproved excavations and is consistently subject to competing community use and development pressures.

·         Since the site was closed and sports fields were arranged along the plateau areas numerous small maintenance projects have been carried out in an effort to manage immediate risk and safety management issues to keep the regional sporting venue open and safe to support the increasing public use.

·         A number of planting projects have been instigated across the site using both introduced and native species of trees and small shrubs in an effort to uptake high nutrients carried by landfill leachate. Although some plant and tree species have taken up in planting areas in the north of the site planting aims have proven unsuccessful and leachate continues to pose a significant environmental and financial concern.

·         Judy Holt Park has a history of leachate outbreak incidents primarily through the north end of the eastern landfill batter with reports recommending the installation of leachate collection trenching systems and extensive landfill capping works to be planned. Due to the limited revenue received by Council during 2005-2008 through the levying of the Landfill Remediation Separate Charge (brown levy) Council has not in a position to fund such large operational works. Further financial planning was prepared to ‘ramp up’ the charge income in an effort to plan for major remediation works in the future.

·         In 2008 a detailed environmental investigation and remediation planning project into the total closed landfill area was commenced. Investigation results provided vital information on the functionality and condition of the site as both a major sporting venue and a closed landfill area culminating in a high level staged closed landfill remediation plan. This high level plan is in effect today and is used to prioritise works across the site and initiate integrated construction projects to deliver landfill remediation and improvement works simultaneously. An overview of the major remediation works plan can be viewed in Attachment 1.

·         Between 2006 and 2009 two (2) closed landfill capping projects have rebuilt the cricket fields (second plateau) costing in the vicinity of $2.56 million. These remediation projects delivered engineered capping systems, subsurface drainage and rebuilt high quality cricket fields across large sections of the landfill surface in response to the non compliant cover over waste and risks poses to continuing sporting field use. These works effectively sealed off large areas of previously subject to surface water infiltration, surface ponding and resolved numerous safety risks associated with landfill subsidence including the elimination of deep trip hazards.

Leachate Management and Site Maintenance

·         Ongoing maintenance works have been completed across the site continually acting to reform damaged and eroding landfill batters and drainage lines and install three (3) leachate collection ponds and two (2) leachate collection sump systems. These collection systems although highly effective were to only be temporary containment solutions until larger closed landfill remediation works could be financially supported and designed appropriately. Currently landfill leachate collected at the site is extracted via liquid waste truck and disposed of outside Redland City to an appropriate waste water treatment facility further increasing costs and operational management at the site.

·         In 2009, Redland Water (continuing Allconnex) ceased the approval of the disposal of trucked landfill leachate to the sewer network.

·         During 2010/2011 maintenance costs peaked with leachate collection, sediment control, operational works, path maintenance and drainage maintenance costing close to $1 million. Although this cost is not expected to continue it shows how expensive and damaging a wet season is to an area already requiring significant reconstruction works.

Landfill Gas

·         Ambient landfill gas testing completed in 2011 has confirmed that the closed landfill area is still producing landfill gas. Although the park is now at the tail end of its full gas production life the use of the site as a regional sporting venue coupled with the supporting infrastructure and services poses risks to the Council, the community and site assets. This further supports the need to commit to works that act to improve the management and safe collection and venting of landfill gas.

Phase 3 Project Funding

·         Council indicated at the 2011/2012 budget workshop that although immediate budget increases to specifically support the Judy Holt Park project were not supported at the time of tabling the abovementioned report, clear acknowledgement was made by members of the Council and Mayor that there will be an anticipated increase in total project budget requested and should be supplied when reliable construction estimates have been received.

o  During 2011/2012 Council budgeting workshops the following extract was provided to Council as a notification to expect increases in the Judy Holt Park Eastern Landfill Remediation Project:

§    Complete two (2) priority remediation construction projects - Judy Holt Park Birkdale and Redland Bay Transfer Facility/Closed Landfill, both of which have been spread across numerous years to keep income requirements achievable. Judy Holt Park Eastern Landfill Batter and Associated Works Project will be commenced in 2011/2012 with finalisation in 2012/2013, subject to revised budget modelling once construction costs are known.

·         In early November 2011, the construction estimation for Phase 3 remediation elements was received from the Project Delivery Group (PDG) totalling $7,040,604 for the closed landfill remediation component. As expected, this cost is well outside the current financial allocation in the CLR Expenditure Plan totalling $2,298,200.

·         Refer to the “Financial Implications” section of this report to view full project financials

Issues

The following discussion of issues highlights strategic programme and specific project issues to be considered in the context of this report and the report recommending the approval of capital borrowings to commence major remediation works at a high priority closed landfill area.

Closed Landfill Areas - Delivering Major Community, Sporting Hubs and Open Space

When assessing the scope and expense related to closed landfill remediation delivery it is important to understand that Council, the Redland’s and regional community depend heavily on the sustained performance of closed landfill areas in the Redland City.

These areas are subject to continual development pressures and are expected to provide significant foreshore parklands, major local and regional sporting venues and sites for the conduct of waste transfer businesses well into the future.

The Redland City is facing significant future costs associated with managing numerous landuse pressures on closed landfill areas, of specific mention are foreshore landfill areas which are and will be subject to tidal inundation and erosion, safety management and environmental emissions. In some instances, costly engineered barriers between Moreton Bay and the landfill extent will be required to ensure the protection of the landfill component from sea level rise and storm surge impacts. Other solutions may require total removal of the waste posing significant costs for transport and disposal outside the Redland City.

Due to the historical closure standard of most landfill areas, recent site audits have revealed that some sites require major surface water drainage works, car park formalisation, planning for significant landfill capping, gas management and stability issues have now become medium to high risk situations requiring substantial remedial works. The highest priority of the public use closed landfill sites is the Judy Holt Park Birkdale Regional Sports Park.

Judy Holt Park Site Risks and Management Issues

The following points highlight specific site management issues to be addressed through the delivery of Phase 3 Judy Holt Park Birkdale – Eastern Landfill Batter and Associated Works Project.

 

·           High minor works and leachate management costs;

·           Non-compliant uniform engineered capping system;

·           High generation and expected continuation of landfill leachate;

·           Shallow soil cover posing safety risks to park users;

·           Permeable and unsealed major drainage lines;

·           Erosion and loss of cover soils and accessibility;

·           Incomplete connections of clean surface water;

·           Water quality impacts from high nutrients and other contaminants;

·           Exposure to potentially dangerous waste;

·           Detection of landfill gas generation;

·           Unsealed and eroding high use pathways/walkways;

·           Dangerous slopes and inaccessible batter areas;

·           High operational supervision required.

 


 

Project Benefits

The Phase 3 JH EB Project is one of the largest integrated closed landfill remediation projects to be planned through the CLR Programme. This project has been in the planning stage for approximately 24 months and has been scoped to provide value for money and quality landfill closure coupled with site improvement works required to be realised through the newly approved Master Plan 2011.

The Phase 3 Project Scope is expected to result in and contribute to the following environmental improvement and community benefits:

 

·           Improve local water quality and provide increased protection to the downstream RAMSAR wetland;

·           Improve site safety and the engineered barrier between human interaction and subsurface waste environment;

·           Open new land and recreational spaces for safe public access and use;

·           Deliver the missing link in both the local and trunk cycling and pedestrian path network identified in the Redland Cycling and Pedestrian Strategy; Provision of valuable open space showcasing panoramic views to Moreton Bay;

·           Provide connected pathways and access through the site;

·           Promote a healthier lifestyle and appreciation of the environment;

·           Complete the final landform required through the approved Master Plan 2011 for the future build of the youth hub, fitness area and playground;

·           Re-establish viable vegetation cover for local native bird life;

·           Reduce increasing site management costs and site supervision.

 

Construction Project Scope

 

Landfill Capping

·           Placement of a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) engineered landfill cap/cover over waste in compliance with current guidelines and industry practice;

·           Improved protection against potential slope failure through the placement of a geogrid within the capping profile;

·           Installation of a new section of retaining wall in the mid southern section required to provide stability and make room for the Tarradarrapin Creek pathway.

Surface Water Management

·           Formalisation and sealing of surface water flows including clean water connection to the creek and treatment of velocity entering the upper reaches of Tarradarrapin Creek;

Leachate Management

·           Leachate trench and collection system including underground holding capacity to provide a closed leachate capture system with leachate disposed of via pumping truck to an approved treatment facility;

Landfill Gas Management

·           Landfill gas management system to collect and passively vent landfill gas;

·           Low maintenance final vegetation cover with no deep rooting trees or shrubs to reduce increasing maintenance costs and workplace health and safety risks surrounding works on steep slopes;

Improvement Works (10 Yr Capex)

·           Construction of the Judy Holt Sportsfield – Tarradarrapin Creek Trail forming part of Redland City Council’s Cycleway Trunk Network and complete a missing link in both the local and trunk cycling and pedestrian path network identified in the Redland Cycling and Pedestrian Strategy;

·           Construction of shade shelter and connecting pathway to Cleary’s Hill to provide immediate access and vantage point to the high point in the park.

Car Park Sealing

·           Car park sealing does not form part of the delivery of this project.

·           Car park 1, immediately in front of the rugby fields, is being sealed and marked through a separate capital project in late 2011.

·           Future car park sealing is a programme managed and delivered through City Services.

 

Project Implications

 

Tree and Vegetation Loss

·           The construction method of the capping system requires sealing from the top of the landfill batter to the toe (bottom) to be effective. This requires the denuding (stripping) of landfill batters within the project area to ensure the capping system is uniform and applied to the necessary area.

·           The construction of the trail linkage will be carried out to minimise tree loss where possible, especially large tree loss that can be accommodated through minor design amendments.

·           Confirmed costs for potential vegetation off-set approvals is not currently know, however has coverage of $250,000 through the current project estimate.

·           Council will be finalising approvals within the coming months and will be sure to negotiate the best environmental and financial outcome with the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) where possible.

 

Public Access

·           Public access that currently remains along the eastern landfill batter will be restricted for the duration of the construction. When possible it may be viable to allow fenced access however at this point Council will take a position of no-public access along the Tarradarrapin Creek linkage trail until such times as it is both safe and viable.

·           The construction project will involve the management of contaminated soils and contaminated water. Deposited waste at the site is likely to contain hazardous materials and therefore will be strictly managed to keep public and worker safety a priority.

 

Interference with Eastern Cricket Field

·           To sufficiently install the engineered capping layer required for this project Council will require trucking access along the topside of the eastern cricket field. This will cause the area to be damaged and remain inaccessible for a currently unknown period of time.

·           Consultation has not progressed with the cricket club and will only be commencing upon the successful outcome of the report recommendation.

·           Full rectification costs for any impacts to the eastern cricket field have been costed into the project.

 

Project Communications

·           The project will be supported by a communications plan and related activities to ensure signage, newspaper advertisements, consultation activities and letter box drops are scheduled and completed.

 


 

Figure 1 Overview of the total project area during Phase 3 JH EB Project.

Construction Timing and Delivery

The Project Delivery Group (PDG) is currently finalising project approvals and detailed design and specification of the project. The PDG have indicated intentions to construct the job using internal construction crews and additional staffing resources. Soil stockpiling has been progressing for the past 12 months in anticipation of the project going ahead to reduce resource costs.

The project is planned to be constructed over a two (2) year period (2011/2012 and 2012/2013) is to be executed in the following general stages (indicative planning only).

Project
Plan

Scope of
Works

Predicted Timing (indicative only)

Final Design Approval

PDG to approve final set of design and specification

Nov 2011/Dec 2011

Project Financing

Council Approval QTC Loan Borrowings (full project support/funding)

Nov 2011-Dec 2011

Pre-Purchases / Project Resources

Construction Resource Tenders and Project Staffing Plan

Dec 2011-Feb 2012

Environmental Approvals

Vegetation Clearing Approvals / Veg Offset

Dec 2011-Mar 2012

Site Establishment/ Construction Notification

Construction site establishment, public and club notification

April 2012-May 2012

Stage 1

Remediation - Northern Entry Batter to Main Drainage Line 1

June 2012
- July 2012

Stage 2

Remediation - Mid Eastern Batter to Main Drainage Line 2

July 2012
 - Sep 2012

Stage 3

Remediation - South Eastern Batter Section to Cleary’s Hill

Sep 2012
 –Dec 2012

Stage 4

Remediation - Western Section of Cleary’s Hill and MP Improvements

Dec 2012
 – Mar 2013

Stage 5

Construction Review and Site Finalisation

Mar 2013
 – June 2013

 

Landfill Leachate Management

Since 2007, Council has significantly increased site works to improve the capture and transport landfill leachate from this site to approved treatment facilities throughout South East Queensland. This has in turn increased the total management cost, collection and disposal of landfill leachate from Judy Holt Park Birkdale to peak in 2010/2011 at $932,000.

Previous to the 2010/2011 financial year the region was in a drought however with significant rain periods during the subsequent floods, poor landfill capping systems, and unformed/unsealed surface water management systems have all contributed to extensive leachate generation within the waste mass.

Operational works across the site has been initiated prior to the forthcoming wet season to temporarily redirect and seal major surface water flows away from the landfill area to reduce the amount of surface water infiltration into waste. Additional works have been completed to rebuild sections of the entry road/trail linkage to keep community and truck access open to extensive erosion damage caused by uncontrolled surface water.

The CLR Programme is working on numerous projects that make up a long term leachate management strategy for the three (3) main landfill sites generating leachate. In brief, this involves:

·           staged (targeted) landfill capping projects at high priority sites;

·           redesign and sealing of surface water management systems;

·           scoping of leachate pre-treatment technologies available, specific to the site/environment, to provide the highest level of protection for the environment and waste water treatment systems.

This strategy is expected to bring about a changed landfill leachate environment for the three main sites involved which is expected to include the overall reduction and increasing concentration of landfill leachate.

Due to the current regulatory environment and limited capacity of Allconnex waste water treatment systems Council must move towards the identification of the most cost and environmental beneficial means to manage and treat landfill leachate. This technology is relatively new to local governments with the CLR Programme is planning to release requests to the waste water treatment market to identify viable pre-treatment solutions for the Redland City landfill leachate scenario.

Additionally, given the expected total cost of a site specific pre-treatment system RedWaste will also be looking into other sewerage system upgrades and risk reduction planning that would possibly provide larger and more cost effective environmental benefits for total outputs from waste water plants within the Redland City.

This project is expected to reduce overall leachate collection total over the next two (2) year period. It is important to note that this improvement is not expected to be achieved immediately after landfill capping works. Large amounts of leachate are expected to be produced within the landfill mass which will require purging during and after construction has been completed.

The current Closed Landfill Remediation Programme has set aside the following funds to manage landfill leachate transport and disposal from Judy Holt Park over the next three (3) years.

 

2010/2011

2011/2012

2012/2013

2013/14

*Landfill leachate management

$932,000 (actual)

$850,000

$700,000

$300,000

*Note: this operational budget allocation is in addition to the construction project estimates provided in this report

Landfill Gas Management

·           Judy Holt Park Birkdale has been subject to a number of landfill gas investigations and gas modelling exercises since its closure in to landfilling operations in 1993. All of which have identified insufficient gas levels for active landfill gas flaring to generate energy and is more suited to passive venting situation.

·           Ambient landfill gas testing carried out in March 2011 confirmed that landfill gas is currently being generated at the site through the soil profile and was concentrating in underground service pits surrounding the rugby field area. Works are currently underway to remove and reduce potential risks to safety supported by increased landfill gas monitoring at the site.

·           Based on recent draft landfill gas modelling, methane emissions calculated by Hyder Consulting Pty Ltd, the Judy Holt Park closed landfill is estimated to have peaked in 1993 at around 70,000 tonnes CO2-e. Current emissions are estimated to be approximately 8,500 tonnes CO2-e. This emissions level does not trigger the potential National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act thresholds for landfills. As such, the landfill will not be subject to carbon tax for legacy emissions as the legislative environment currently implies.

·           Recent site visit and discussions with LMS gas contractors has confirmed that Judy Holt Park is not a viable site to introduce active gas extraction nor is the site in a position to viably connect to the Birkdale Landfill gas flare for the conversion of methane.

·           This project incorporates the construction of a passive landfill gas venting system throughout the eastern landfill batter area which will vent to a number of standing pipes across the project site. This system is similar to that employed at the Redland Bay Closed Landfill area and is releases gas that may collect under a landfill cover/capping system.

 

Increasing Costs for Major Landfill Remediation Works

·           The total scope of Council’s responsibility to manage emissions, safety and major upgrades is extensive and expensive. It involves detailed and specialist investigations, planning, construction works and ongoing monitoring. Large integrated planning and design projects on these sites take a minimum of 12-16 months to purchase and deliver.

·           Closed landfill management functions have only one funding source through the levying of the Landfill Remediation Separate Charge (LR Separate Charge) via rates collection. The total cost of future major landfill remediation works can be difficult to estimate as each site has wide ranging site specific concerns and unless environmental and geotechnical investigations coupled with detailed design is completed total costs can only be roughly estimated. Future construction and material costs are expected to increase significantly therefore a current pricing path needs to consider future construction market index demands.

·           Construction costs for major landfill remediation projects increase annually by approximately 8-11%. This is significantly higher than the general Council CPI index of 4.5% putting substantial pressure on priority planning, budget development and approval deliberations.

·           It is important to understand that remediation works affect the total site and all infrastructure requirements needed to manage the site including roadways, stormwater infrastructure works and the replacement of all sporting facilities and assets affected by major works. This is extremely expensive and cannot be avoided if capping and landfill remediation works are to be effective, however the LR Separate Charge remains the only dedicated funding source.

·           In the future, Council can expect significant and ongoing planning and operational management costs associated with closed landfill areas located along the Moreton Bay foreshore including some Southern Moreton Bay Islands, North Stradbroke Island and Coochiemudlo Island. Land management and master planning of these areas must consider tidal and storm inundation effects on the closed landfill area and plan to construct protection measures of which will require substantial funding support.

 

Reduced External Funding Opportunities

·           State and Federal Government funding initiative are shifting away from dedicating funds to fixing past waste filling practices to support wider global emissions management and resource recovery improvements. Council’s ability to be considered for external grant funding is very limited with the remaining State Government further limiting funding application criteria to exclude works of this nature due to regional and flood recovery priorities.

·           It is considered unlikely that Council will benefit from funding opportunities for closed landfill remediation works in the near future, this includes funds to be allocated to Council associated with the new Waste Levy.

 

Relationship to Corporate Plan

1. Healthy natural environment

A diverse and healthy natural environment, with an abundance of native flora and fauna and rich ecosystems will thrive through our awareness, commitment and action in caring for the environment.

1.3     Protect our natural environment by restoring degraded landscapes, contaminated land and managing fire, pests and other hazards

1.6     Address the decline in the health of Redlands waterways and improve water quality, aquatic populations and their biodiversity

3. Embracing the bay

The benefits of the unique ecosystems, visual beauty, spiritual nourishment and coastal lifestyle provided by the islands, beaches, foreshores and water catchments of Moreton Bay will be valued, protected and celebrated.

3.3     Ensure the ongoing health of the bay by managing creeks, wetlands and stormwater and by protecting natural areas surrounding the bay

8. Inclusive and ethical governance

Deep engagement, quality leadership at all levels, transparent and accountable democratic processes and a spirit of partnership between the community and Council will enrich residents’ participation in local decision making to achieve the community’s Redlands 2030 vision and goals

8.5     Be transparent and consistent in the way we manage the organisation, its risks and obligations and ensure we are delivering against our priorities

8.7     Ensure Council resource allocation is sustainable and delivers on Council and community priorities

8.6     Implement a comprehensive enterprise approach to risk management across the organisation

Financial Implications

The following points provide information and discussion on the total project cost and financial implications surrounding the financing of the Phase 3 JH EB Project. It also discusses the wider financial management strategy being applied to the future delivery of major remediation projects delivered through the Closed Landfill Remediation Programme.

To clarify the purchasing context of this project, the following points are made.

·         Project expenditure complies with the requirements of the “Landfill Remediation Separate Charge” Expenditure Policy (Corporate Pol-3091) and the requirements of the capital definition contained in the Draft “Capital Vs Operational” Guidelines.

·         Minor changes to Corporate Policy POL-3091 will be recommended in future reports to Council. Policy changes are not required to be made prior to the approval of this specific project funding approach.

o   Future expenditure policy (Pol-3091) amendments are expected to include an agreed Council position on the LR Reserve expenditure scope aimed at reducing the financial burden of infrastructure replacement for major remediation projects and to incorporate policy position on capital works funding and the access and management of capital borrowing.

Phase 3 JH EB Project Costs and Funding

·         Currently this project has a $2,285,200 budget allocation within the CLR Programme Expenditure Plan across 2 years (2011/2012 & 2012/2013).

·         Council was briefed that as the project design and construction estimate was not yet completed at the time of the LR Separate Charge modelling for 2011/2012, that the project estimate was expected to be over $5 million.

·         Total construction cost estimate received in early November 2011 (closed landfill remediation only) is $7,040,604. This estimate includes:

o   20% Contingency totalling $1,019,096

o   Operational Value of $770,000

o   Capital Value of $6,270,604

·         Income received through the levying of the Landfill Remediation Separate Charge (LR Separate Charge) is not sufficient to fund the $4,742,404 million capital shortfall involved in delivering this project in 2012/2013.

·         This report recommends the approval of a $5.5 million capital loan (borrowings) through the Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC) over a 20 year term to sufficiently financially support the delivery of this project.

·         The immediate increase to the LR Separate Charge required to cover the shortfall is not acceptable or viable in any way. However, through the approval of the $5.5m QTC loan Council can remain on the current pricing path, as presented at the 2011/2012 budget workshop, at $50.00 per rateable lot for 2012/2013.

·         This preferred recommendation of this report does not require any addition to the current year’s budget as funds have already been allocated. However, it is noted that given approval to proceed with the report recommendation will trigger a Q2 submission to move current operational allocation of $648,200 into a capital account. The total 2011/2012 budget allocation of $1,048,200 is proposed to be expended on securing material resources in anticipation of major works commencing in 2012/2013.

The following tables provide an overview of project costs, current budget and projected capital borrowings.

Table 1 Phase 3 Judy Holt Park Eastern Landfill Batter Remediation and Associated Works Project - Cost breakdown

Project
Element

Estimation

Cost
Responsibility

Preliminaries

$170,500

Landfill Remediation Reserve

Site Preparation

$300,000

Landfill Remediation Reserve

Earthworks

$679,500

Landfill Remediation Reserve

Landscaping (including Veg Offset)

$755,000

Landfill Remediation Reserve

Capping

$2,669,700

Landfill Remediation Reserve

Landfill Gas Management

$148,185

Landfill Remediation Reserve

Leachate Management (system construction only)

$77,840

Landfill Remediation Reserve

Surface Water Management

$75,355

Landfill Remediation Reserve

Retaining Wall

$85,400

Landfill Remediation Reserve

Reinstatement Works

$134,000

Landfill Remediation Reserve

Construction On-Costs (inc. contingencies, PDG recovery)

$1,945,124

Landfill Remediation Reserve

Total Project Costs
(remedial components only)

$7,040,604

Landfill Remediation Reserve

 

Table 2 Current Project Budget Allocation

Current Project Budget Allocation

2011/2012

2012/2013

Totals

Capital

$400,000

$0

$400,000

Operational

$648,200

$1,250,000

$1,898,200

Total

$0

$0

$2,298,200

 

Table 3 Project Capital Borrowings - QTC Loan (20 yr)

QTC Loan - 5.25% for 20 yrs

2011/2012

2012/2013

Totals

Capital (loan amount)

$0

$5,500,000

$5,500,000

Principal

$0

$161,988

$161,988

Interest

$0

$288,750

$288,750

Depreciation

$0

$0

$0 – future years only

 

Table 4 Total Project Costs and Proposed Amendment to Future Budget Splits if Report Recommendation is Approved

Total Project Costs/Amended Budget Splits

2011/2012

2012/2013

Totals

Capital

$1,048,200

$5,222,404

$6,270,604

Operational

$0

$770,000

$770,000

Total

$0

$0

$7,040,604

 

Funding Options

 

Option 1 - Preferred

 

Fully fund the Phase 3 Judy Holt Park Birkdale Eastern Landfill Batter Remediation and Associated Works Project through the levying of the Landfill Remediation Charge Reserve, incorporating capital borrowings of $5.5 million from the Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC) over a 20 year loan life to be drawn down during the 2012/2013 financial year.

 

This option will:

 

1.    Retain the current Landfill Remediation Separate Charge pricing path at $50.00 per rateable lot in 2012/2013 and include all costs associated with the closed landfill remediation components of the project.

2.    Provide positive effects to Council’s operational works programme through an improved financial management strategy for the closed landfill programme, moving predominant major works expenditure from operational to capital.

3.    Provide the necessary confirmation to initiate the immediate purchase of project materials in 2011/2012.

4.    Provide increased protection for localised water quality through improved surface water, leachate management and landfill capping systems.

5.    Be serviced by the levying of the Landfill Remediation Charge into the 20yr payback period.

Option 2 – Not Preferred

 

Fund the Phase 3 Judy Holt Park Birkdale Eastern Landfill Batter Remediation and Associated Works Project through a negotiated split between General Revenue and the Landfill Remediation Separate Charge Revenue.

 

This option will:

·         Retain the current Landfill Remediation Separate Charge pricing path at $50.00 per rateable lot in 2012/2013 and include all costs associated with the closed landfill remediation components of the project.

·         Trigger the movement or possible movement of a number of other capital projects currently sitting for delivery in the 10 yr Capex Programme.

·         Alternatively trigger QTC loan requirements for general revenue environment.

·         Provide increased protection for localised water quality through improved surface water, leachate management and landfill capping systems.

 

Option 3 – Not Preferred

Scale back the total scope of works associated with the Phase 3 Judy Holt Park Birkdale Eastern Landfill Batter Remediation and Associated Works Project to provide basic landfill remediation works where possible including surface water management systems, some soil capping works and continue to collect and transport leachate as is in place currently.

This option will:

·         Retain the current Landfill Remediation Separate Charge pricing path at $50.00 per rateable lot in 2012/2013.

·         Deliver basic limited but acceptable environmental outcomes to improve surface water quality in targeted areas in the short term.

·         Require the continuation of basic leachate collection and current transport requirements.

·         Fail to deliver improved capping over waste and retain the current non-uniform soil cover promoting surface water infiltration and generation of landfill leachate.

·         Leave the project area subject to erosion and waste exposure.

·         Not deliver landfill gas management system.

·         Not deliver landfill leachate collection system.

Consultation

Corporate and Financial Services

·         General Manager Corporate Services

·         Service Manager, Strategic Finance

 

City Services

·         General Manager City Services

·         Manager Project Delivery

·         PDG Construction Projects Services Manager

·         PDG Design Services Management

·         Senior Waste Planner, Infrastructure Planning

·         Acting Service Manager RedWaste

·         Closed Landfill Remediation Operations Coordinator

 

ELG/Councillor Workshop

A project funding workshop was carried out on Wednesday 16th November 2011 in Redland City Council Chambers with the Executive Leadership Group (ELG) and Councillors as invited attendees. The workshop did not attract a quorum however did have the following noted attendees:

Elected Members

·         Mayor Melva Hobson

·         Cr Wendy Boglary, Councillor Division 1

·         Cr Kathy Reimers, Councillor Division 8

·         Cr Helen Murray, Division 10

·         Cr Toni Bowler, Division 6

 

Executive Leadership Group

·         Chief Executive Officer

·         General Manager City Services

·         General Manager Environment Planning & Development

·         General Manager Corporate Services

 

Overview of Workshop Consultation Discussion

Discussion at the workshop centred on the environmental implications of the project including the effect of landfill leachate in the upper reaches of Tarradarrapin Creek, tree loss, funding options and Councils need to reduce offset costs through the overall planting volume carried out by Council with the general feeling that this project be funded as proposed.

The workshop discussion highlighted that the community would expect that public access along the toe of the eastern batter would remain, however it was noted that this request may not be able to be accommodated due to site restrictions and significant safety management issues. When clear funding direction is known a possible solution to this issue will be explored however at this point, public access will be denied with the public to be directed to access the site through existing pathways towards the west of the site, off William Street and Randall Road.

Councillors inquired as to the ability for external grant funding to support the project however it was confirmed that there are no current options for this project to obtain external funding, as noted in the “Issues” section of this report.

Planning Scheme Implications

The City Planning & Environment Group was consulted and it is considered that the outcome of recommendations in this report will not result in amendments to the Redlands Planning Scheme.

Options

Preferred

Fully fund the Phase 3 Judy Holt Park Birkdale Eastern Landfill Batter Remediation and Associated Works Project through the levying of the Landfill Remediation Charge Reserve, incorporating capital borrowings of $5.5 million from the Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC) over a 20 year period to be drawn down during the 2012/2013 financial year.

 

Alternatives

Alternative 1

Fund the Phase 3 Judy Holt Park Birkdale Eastern Landfill Batter Remediation and Associated Works Project to be delivered in stages across three financial years through the levying of the Landfill Remediation Charge Reserve incorporating capital borrowings calculated and approved annually, subject to the construction pricing index and other design amendment costs.

 

Alternative 2

Fund the Phase 3 Judy Holt Park Birkdale Eastern Landfill Batter Remediation and Associated Works Project through a negotiated split between General Revenue and the Landfill Remediation Separate Charge Revenue.

 

Alternative 3

Scale back the total scope of works to be within the current budget allocation and provide basic landfill remediation works where possible including surface water management and continue to collect and transport leachate as is in place currently.

Officer’s Recommendation

That Council resolve to fully fund the Phase 3 Judy Holt Park Birkdale Eastern Landfill Batter Remediation and Associated Works Project through the levying of the Landfill Remediation Charge Reserve, incorporating capital borrowings of $5.5 million from the Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC) over a 20 year period to be drawn down during the 2012/2013 financial year.


 

4             closed session

4.1         REDLAND CITY COUNCIL CERTIFIED AGREEMENTS

Dataworks Filename:                    HRM Industrial Agreements - RCC Enterprise Bargaining Agreement

Responsible Officer:                     Martin Drydale
General Manager Corporate Services

Author:                                           Amanda Daly
Manager People & Change

Executive Summary

Council or Committee has a broad power under Section 72 (1) of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010 to close a meeting to the public where there are genuine reasons why the discussion on a matter should be kept confidential.

Officer’s Recommendation

That the meeting be closed to the public to discuss this matter pursuant to Section 72 (1) of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010.

The reason that is applicable in this instance is as follows:

“(b)   industrial matters affecting employees;”

 

 

 

 

 

 

5             Meeting Closure