2013

EIDSVOLD 

North Burnett Regional Council 

July 16, 2013 

StandingCommitteeMeetings–PolicyandPlanning

  

North Burnett Regional Council Policy and Planning Standing Committee – Eidsvold  – Agenda – 16 July 2013 

NORTH BURNETT REGIONAL COUNCIL POLICY AND PLANNING STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA – EIDSVOLD – 16 JULY 2013  

328

  Attendees     Agenda Item 1    Attendees        DOCUMENT ID 444395  Welcome     Agenda Item 2    Welcome / Housekeeping  Apologies     Agenda Item 3    Apologies    Declaration    Agenda Item 4    Declaration of Interest        Deputations    Agenda Item 5    Deputations  Governance    Agenda Item 6    Governance Report        6.1  ALGA 2013 National General Assembly of Local Government    004‐006        6.2  Councillor Conference Attendance 2013         007‐020        6.3  Statutory Policy 102 Review – Grants to Community Organisations  021‐037        6.4  Statutory Policy 106 – Debt            038‐042        6.5  Statutory Policy 108 – Investment          043‐046        6.6  Statutory Policy 111 – Revenue            047‐052        6.7  Cost Recovery & Non‐Regulatory Charges for 2013‐24      053‐054        6.8  Rates Rebate – New Residential Dwelling        055‐056        6.9  Confidential Report  Economic    Agenda Item 7    Economic Report        7.1   Development Statistics Report – May 2013        057‐061        7.2  Development Statistics Report – June 2013        062‐066        7.3  State Government Infrastructure Charges Discussion Paper    067‐161  Social      Agenda Item 8    Social Report        8.1  Regional Development Australia (RADF) Round 5      162‐204        8.2  Flood Mitigation and Resilience Funding         205‐269        8.3  Australian of the Year Awards            270‐273        8.4  Royalties for the Regions – Round 2 – EOI Applications       274‐299     

  

North Burnett Regional Council Policy and Planning Standing Committee – Eidsvold  – Agenda – 16 July 2013 

NORTH BURNETT REGIONAL COUNCIL POLICY AND PLANNING STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA – EIDSVOLD – 16 JULY 2013  

329

   Environmental     Agenda Item 9    Environment Report        9.1  State Assessment and Referral Agency –New IDAS Forms and Resources 300‐301   General Business  Agenda Item 10  General Business  Closure of Meeting   Agenda Item 11  Closure of Meeting   

GOV 1 ALGA 2013 NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

File: 14.7.01 Officer: Mark Pitt

The purpose of this report is to update Council on attendance at the 2013 ALGA National General Assembly of Local Government. The 2013 National General Assembly was held in Canberra from Sunday 16 June to Wednesday 19 June. The theme for the 2012 NGA was ‘Foundations for the Future’. Corporate Plan: 5.8 Regional Representation – Improved opportunities and quality of life; 5.8.2 Collaborate with corporate and key regional and community stakeholders to ensure a unified and strengthened approach to national, state and regional advocacy. The General Assembly: This was again a very successful General Assembly held with approximately over 1000 delegates attending and 116 delegates from Queensland. Regional Cooperation and Development Forum Attended and heard addresses from the Hon Catherine King MP Minister for Regional Services, Local Communities and Territories, Professor John Martin, the 2013State of the Regions Report launch and a panel discussion on managing natural disasters from a regional economic perspective. By attending Council obtained a hard and soft copy of the 2013 State of the Regions Report. LGAQ briefing

 

• Senator Joe Ludwig (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) • Jane Prentice Liberal/National Member for the Federal Seat of Ryan • Greg Hoffman - Briefing on the motions; 565 Councils in Australia –

51 Strategic motions council’s submitted motions + a number of associated and reserve motions; 9 Qld Councils submitted 23 motions.

Keynote Speakers: A number of the presentations have been posted on the ALGA website and are publically available on the link below: http://alga.asn.au/?ID=7525&Menu=36,303 Resolutions:

4

Council was extremely successful in the having resolutions place on this year’s agenda with three of four motions being lead motions and one reserve motion. All motions debated were adopted. The following are the final form of the motions and the outcome: Resolution Number:12 Council: Kyogle Council, NSW That the National General Assembly call on the Australian Government to ensure the Roads to Recovery funding program be expanded and made permanent to assist local Councils in long-term strategic planning and budgetary considerations. Carried 12.1 North Burnett Regional Council, QLD: The this National General Assembly calls upon the Federal Government to make funding for the Roads to Recovery Program permanent. As strategic motion no. 12 was adopted by the congress Council’s resolution was consolidated into that motion and was not debated. Resolution Number: 27 Council: North Burnett Regional Council, QLD That this National Assembly calls the Federal Government to expand current Flood mitigation programmes to include alternatives to flood levees to increase resilience of communities that suffer regular disaster events. Carried Resolution Number: 42 Council: North Burnett Regional Council, QLD That this National General Assembly call for a Senate enquiry into the WHS National Harmonisation Legislation with terms of reference that include compliance cost to Local Government and the effectiveness of the legislation. Carried Resolution Number: 51 Council: North Burnett Regional Council, QLD That this National General Assembly calls on the Australian Government to review the funding and support to Oral Health services with particular emphasis on rural and remote communities. Carried Reserve Resolution Number:60 Council: North Burnett Regional Council, QLD That this National Assembly calls on the Federal Government to call an enquiry into the Australian Dairy Industry and the impacts of recent

5

national reforms and to investigate the perceived or real market inequality between retailers and producers. Carried Trade Exhibition: A number of trade exhibits were again at the conference with a range of information gathered. RM Williams Deputation: An appointment was made with the CEO of the RM Williams clothing corporation in Sydney which was held on Wednesday 19 June. This was an extremely positive meeting and focused on future interaction between Council and the corporation. Finally, I would like to thank Council for the opportunity to attend this assembly. RECOMMENDATION That the CEO report on attendance at the 2013 ALGA National General Assembly of Local Government be received for information and the contents of the report noted.

6

GOV 2 COUNCILLOR CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2013

Responsible Officer: MJP Pitt – Chief Executive Officer Report prepared by: SE Aberdein – Administration Officer 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider and appoint delegates to attend Conference/Events which will be held throughout the remainder of 2013. A list of upcoming conferences is listed in point 9 of the report.

2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

Councillors are to consider the conferences/events that fall within the relevant individuals Council Portfolio and delegate attendees to the conferences listed. The following resolution was adopted at the General Council Meeting held 15 May 2012 in Gayndah:

Cr PW Francis moved and Cr JF Dowling seconded: That the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive Officer be

appointed as delegates to the LGAQ 2012 Civic Leaders Summit 5-6 July 2012, Novatel Twin Waters Resort, Ocean Drive, Twin Waters.

That the Mayor be appointed as a delegate to the Regional Organisation of Councils (ROC) Assembly 08-10 August 2012 at the Sofitel, Brisbane Central;

That Cr JF Dowling, Cr WJ Bowen and the Mayor be appointed as delegates to the LGAQ Local Disaster Management Conference 2012, 30 July- 2 August 2012, Ipswich Civic Centre, Ipswich; and

That the Mayor, Cr KS Wendt OAM BEM, Cr JF Dowling and Cr WJ Bowen be appointed as delegates to the LGAQ 116th Annual Conference 22-25 October 2012 Brisbane Convention and Exhibition Centre, with Council meeting the normal cost of attendance.

7

Conferences Attended by Councillors from May 2012:

Councillor Date Conference Attended

Cr Don Waugh 5-6 July 2012 LGAQ Civic Leaders Summit

4 July 2012 LGAQ Finance Summit

8-10 August 2012 Regional Organisation of Councils (ROC) Seminar

15-19 June 2012 ALGA Canberra 31 July 2012 – 2 August 2012

LGAQ Disaster Management Conference

16-17 August 2012 LGAQ Growing Queensland Summit

24 August 2012 Resourceful Communities Summit

22-25 October 2012 LGAQ Annual Conference

8-9 April 2013 LGAQ Finance Summit

10 April 2013 Regional Organisation of Councils (ROC) Seminar

15-19 June 2013 ALGA, Canberra

8-9 July 2013 LGAQ Disaster Management Conference

Cr Faye Whelan 5-6 July 2012 LGAQ Civic Leaders Summit

24-26 July 2013 ALGWA Conference Cr Paul Lobegeier 21-23 November

2012 Community Wellbeing Symposium

27 June 2012 – 1 July 2012

Landcare conference

Please advise date Regional Arts Conference

Please advise date Caravan and Camping Road show Sydney.

8

Cr Lofty Wendt 22-25 October 2012 LGAQ Annual Conference 2012

Cr John Bowen 22-25 October 2012 LGAQ Annual Conference 2012

Cr Paul Francis 8-9 July 2013 LGAQ Disaster Management Conference

Cr Jo Dowling 22-25 October 2012 LGAQ Annual Conference 2012

24-26 July 2013 ALGWA Conference

3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN 5.9. Elected Members

5.9.1 Provide Councillors with access to quality training, development and networking opportunities.

4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Policy 103 – Reimbursement and provision of facilities for Mayor and Councillors

Policy 114 – Councillor Code of Conduct Policy 307 – Training and Development Previous decisions of Council

5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS

Local Government Act 2009 Local Government Regulation 2012

6 RISK MANAGEMENT Maintaining up to date information on current legislation and Industry Standards

7 CONSULTATION N/A

9

8 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER

2013 Bush Councils Convention 31 July – 2 August, Longreach Civic Centre 2013 LGAQ Media and Communications Forum Date-claimer: 31 October 2013 2013 LGAQ Annual Conference 21-24 October 2013, Cairns Convention Centre

8 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION Information is provided for Council consideration.

9 ATTACHMENTS

2013 Bush Councils Convention brochure. 2013 LGAQ Media and Communications Forum, date claimer

brochure.

RECOMMENDATION

That Cr __________ and/or Cr _____________ be appointed as delegates to (conference/event) with Council meeting the normal cost of attendance.

10

SSSSSPPPPPOOOOONNNNNSSSSSOOOOORRRRREEEEEDDDDD BBBBBYYYYY

BUSH COUNCILS CONVENTION 2013

31 July – 1 August 2013Longreach Civic and Cultural Centre

96A Eagle Street, Longreach

This Convention is offset by green energy 11

2

Welcome to LGAQ’s Bush Councils Convention 2013

On behalf of LGAQ, I am delighted to welcome you to LGAQ’s inaugural Bush Councils Convention. Staged in the capital of the Queensland Outback, Longreach, this Convention is the first of its type focusing on issues specific to rural and remote councils.

Rural Queensland’s contribution to both the State and Australian economies is significant and diverse. Councils west of the Great Dividing Range fulfil important service and social roles in Queensland’s bush communities and often, due to climate and geography face unique operational challenges.

With a new political agenda in Queensland focussing on empowerment, partners in government, red tape reduction and regional responses, how can remote, regional and rural councils leverage the opportunities for their communities?

With this in mind and based on the Convention’s theme of ‘leveraging the new political landscape’, Ministers Crisafulli, McVeigh, Cripps and Emerson will address the Convention and participate in a dedicated Q&A session at the conclusion of day one.

In addition to this impressive line-up, delegates will also hear from senior State Government representatives, other industry associations and of course our colleagues in Local Government.

The Convention will provide delegates plenty of opportunity to discuss and debate specific issues and on-the-ground developments relating to natural resource management, regional and economic development, native title, as well as infrastructure planning, funding and delivery.

In the spirit of the bush, the Convention will also provide ample opportunity for delegates to enjoy country hospitality, including the Convention’s dinner at the iconic Stockman’s Hall of Fame, and for those who are able to stay over until Friday, breakfast at Longreach’s School of Distance Education, including a tour of their facilities.

Last but not least, there will be an opportunity to engage with our Trade Exhibitors and enjoy the usual catch ups with one another over morning tea and lunch breaks.

I hope you enjoy the Convention and I look forward to seeing as many of you as possible in Longreach.

Cr Margaret de Wit

PRESIDENT

12

3

Day 1: Wednesday 31st July 2013: Partners in Government Time Sessions

9:00am – 11:30am Registration - including a light morning tea

8:30am – 11:30am LGAQ Policy Executive Meeting (Policy Executive members only)

11:30am – 12:50pm Technical Tour - Let’s Go Look at…………Longreach’s State of the Art Water Treatment Plant & Street Scape Project(Please note delegates will be split into two groups to undertake this technical tour).

12:50pm – 1:30pm Lunch

1:30pm – 1:40pm How Good is the Longreach Region – Welcome!

Cr Joe OwensMayor, Longreach Regional Council

1:40pm – 1:55pm The Policy Agenda for Bush Councils – LGAQ Presidential Address

Cr Margaret de WitPresident, LGAQ

1:55pm – 2:05pm Key Sponsor Presentation

2:05pm – 2:30pm Ministerial Address – The Hon David Crisafulli MP – Minister for Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience

2:30pm – 2:55pm Ministerial Address – The Hon John McVeigh MP – Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

2:55pm – 3:15pm Afternoon Tea

3:15pm – 3:40pm Ministerial Address – The Hon Andrew Cripps MP – Minister for Natural Resources and Mines

3:40pm – 4:05pm Ministerial Address – The Hon Scott Emerson MP – Minister for Transport and Main Roads

4:05pm – 4:10pm Sponsor Presentation

4:10pm – 4:45pm Q&A – Queensland StylePanel and Forum Discussion with Minister Crisafulli, Minister McVeigh, Minister Cripps and Minister Emerson.

4:45pm – 5:15pm Native Title - Current Issues for Local GovernmentNative title has implications for the daily operations of Local Government. Many councils have, at some point, participated in native title claim resolution processes. The last few years have seen significant changes to law, practice and policy in this field. New issues are now emerging for Local Government as increasing numbers of claims are successfully determined by the Federal Court of Australia. Native title outcomes are also being increasingly linked by various statutes to dealings involving other Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests in land.

Oliver Gilkerson, an expert in this field, will help demystify the recent changes, provide an update on the current position and outlook, explain what it means for your council and make some suggestions on how councils might respond.

Oliver Gilkerson Legal Practice Director, Gilkerson Legal

5:15pm Close of Day One

6:15pm Hotel Pick Ups and Buses to Show Ground Pavilion

6:30pm Beer O’Clock and BBQ Dinner (including the Kransky Sisters – courtesy of Saxton Speakers Bureau)

9:30pm Buses depart Show Ground Pavilion for Hotels

13

4

Day 2: Thursday 1st August 2013: The Practicalities of Doing BusinessTime Sessions

8:00am – 8:30am Registration

8:30am – 8:35am Sponsor Presentation

8:35am – 9:50am Panel Session – Building on the Benefits of the Bush

Domestic visitors to Queensland constitute 70 to 80 per cent of the market, with a growing Asian presence. With thirty very different ‘destinations’ across the State, how do we entice more visitors and get them to stay longer and spend more in our bush communities? The panel will explore practical ways that councils can leverage better local outcomes from the raft of new government policies and strategies underway – and how the tourism network can better align activities.

Cr Rob Chandler, Mayor, Barcaldine Regional CouncilNeal Muller, General Manager – Industry Development, Department of Tourism, Major Events, Small Business and the Commonwealth GamesLloyd Mills, General Manager - Outback Queensland Tourism Association

9:50am – 10:15am Short Stories #1: Leveraging Local Attractions for Tourism Gains – The Gulflander Experience

Hear how Croydon Shire Council has stepped in with a small investment which is now paying dividends – increasing visitors, spending and business stability. Linking in with the Gulflander weekly train service, Council worked to provide a return journey from Croydon to Normanton on Thursdays. Not only has the Council generated a new tourism product, but helped to deliver a better visitor experience and more widely distribute the financial gains.

Kim CampbellDeputy Chief Executive Officer, Croydon Shire Council

10:15am – 10:30am Maximising the benefits of Project Management Consultancy Services

Local Buy’s project management consultancy services contract was implemented in July 2012 after receiving stakeholder feedback that a standalone contract was required. Many councils have now used the contract for projects associated with NDRRA funding and other medium to large projects across different categories.

In this session, Rebecca will outline how councils can maximise benefits by using pre-qualified suppliers under Local Buy’s contract and at the same time reduce their direct risk and business liabilities.

Rebecca Hersant Business Development Consultant, Local Buy

10:30am – 11:00am Morning Tea

11:00am – 12:30pm Parallel Sessions (please choose one session for each time slot)

11:00am - 11:45am Roads and Transport (first session)

1. Managing Heavy Vehicles on the Local Road Network

Local governments face increasing pressure to provide access for heavy vehicles while also having to protect vulnerable local road infrastructure. This session will provide an overview of the current heavy vehicle permitting operations in Queensland, including access decisions by local governments. Future plans to align permitting operations with the functions of the newly established National Heavy Vehicle Regulator will also be discussed.

Warwick Williams Heavy Vehicle Road Operations Program Office Department of Transport and Main Roads

14

5

Time Sessions

11:00am – 11:45pm Natural Resource Management (first session)

1. Flying Fox Management and Code of Practice

The proper and humane management of problem flying fox colonies is a complex and contentious issue for local communities and councils.

The LGAQ has been working with councils and the State to achieve resolution of councils’ chief concerns including permitting requirements and timeframes and integrated management planning.

In this session, delegates will hear about the State’s proposed new flying fox management framework, including details of the ‘as of right’ authority for local governments and the proposed Code of Practice.

Tamara O’Shea (invited) Deputy Director General, Conservation and Sustainability Services Department of Environment and Heritage Protection

Glen Beckett General Manager – Assist, LGAQ

Ms Dorean Erhart Principal Advisor – Natural Assets, NRM & Climate Change, LGAQ

Emergency Management and Waste (first session)

1. Waste Not, Want Not – Capturing the Benefits of Waste

With higher energy costs predicted to be the norm, changing population densities, increasing logistical costs and changes to policy at the state and national levels, it will be important for councils to develop local and regional waste strategies that enhance waste recycling and utilisation.

As councils struggle to do more with less, consideration of waste to energy initiatives are likely to become a key component of councils’ waste minimisation strategies in the future.

Whilst the theory sounds good, how can councils practically implement such responses and capture the long term benefits for their communities? This session will explore the opportunities available and the critical factors required for success.

Umur Natus-Yildiz Senior Advisor, LGIS

11:45am – 12:30pm Roads and Transport (second session)

2. Valuing Council’s Road Assets – Help is on the Way!

Valuing council’s assets can, in some instances, be a costly and time consuming process. At the same time, research by the Queensland Audit Office has shown wide variations in the critical assumptions used by councils in their road valuation processes, which the Audit Office views as a “significant financial reporting issue for the sector” (Queensland Audit Office Report to Parliament 10-2012-13 :- Results of Audits: Local Government Entities 2011-12).

Sponsored by the Roads Alliance a project is currently underway which will promote a consistent and transparent valuation methodology for use by councils.

This session will highlight the key deliverables from the Road Asset Valuation Project and how they can be applied by councils to help improve the valuation process.

Graham Jordan Director, Lemmah Pty Ltd & Technical Advisor to the Roads Alliance

15

6

Time Sessions

11:45am – 12:30pm Natural Resource Management (second session)

2. Invasive Plants and Animals Co-Investment Model Project

LGAQ and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) have commenced a Co-investment Model Project to improve and enhance current relationships, arrangements and outcomes for weed and pest animal management in Queensland.

Local Government currently invests around $20 million per annum in the management of invasive plants and animals, in addition to the $5.5 million annual payment contribution into the Land Protection Fund - demonstrating councils’ commitment to reducing the impacts of weeds and pest animals. DAFF also allocates significant resources for pest management research, strategic control operations and technical services.

Councils expressed a desire to move from the existing arrangements to a voluntary system allowing them greater control over the expenditure of their funds.

This session will outline the project’s scope, governance and communication arrangements and detailed information on the consultation model and key feedback received.

Dorean Erhart Principal Advisor – Natural Assets, NRM & Climate Change, LGAQ

Mr Salvo Vitelli (invited) Manager, Partnering and Engagement Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

Emergency Management and Waste (second session)

2. Emergency Management, Fire and Rescue Levy

From the first of January 2014, the State Government will broaden the coverage of the Urban Levy Scheme to ensure a sustainable funding base for emergency services. The levy will be extended to include Emergency Management Queensland, recognising that all Queenslanders are at risk from a wide range of emergencies including floods, cyclones, storms as well as fire and accidents. The Urban Levy Scheme is reformed to the Emergency Management, Fire and Rescue Levy and now applies to all prescribed properties within Queensland.

In this session delegates will have an opportunity to discuss the new levy (what and why); how it is to be applied on properties; rural fire funding; current issues with the application of the levy; and implementation processes and deadlines.

Philip Horn Executive Manager - Revenue, Information and Data Command Queensland Fire and Rescue Service

Jason Smith Levy Officer - Revenue, Information and Data Command Queensland Fire and Rescue Service

12:30pm – 1:10pm Lunch

16

7

Time Sessions

1:10pm – 1:35pm Short Stories #2: Collaborating in the Central West for the Delivery of Urban Water Supplies

Councils in regional Queensland are facing ever increasing challenges in delivering urban water supplies. Whether it is the ability to attract and retain skilled workers, responding to regulatory requirements or securing adequate water supplies in the face of drought, councils in regional Queensland often struggle to deliver adequate, safe and reliable urban water supplies to their disparate communities. As a response to these challenges, the Remote Area Planning and Development Board (RAPAD) was the first group of councils to participate in the Queensland Water Regional Alliance Program (Q-WRAP).

This session will provide an overview of Q-WRAP’s progress to-date as well as some insights into the recommendations resulting from stage one of the Program.

Scott Mason Chief Executive Officer, Diamantina Shire Council

1:35pm – 2:10pm Local Government’s Role in supporting the State’s 30 Year Strategy for Water

In its 30 Year Water Sector Strategy Discussion Paper, the State Government describes its vision to “create a Queensland water sector with the capability to deliver integrated catchment based recreation, water supply, sanitation, irrigation and environmental services at lowest cost”. Sounds easy – right? As a key asset owner and provider of water services in regional Queensland, what is expected of Local Government under the State’s proposed Strategy? Is Local Government well positioned to respond or is a re-think of current delivery arrangements required?

Jon Black Director-General, Department of Energy and Water Supply

2:10pm – 2:15pm Sponsor Presentation

2:15pm – 2:40pm Short Stories #3: Going Digital – Can the Bush Realistically Compete?

The digital economy has been here for some time – and affects everyone; it’s not just about getting online, but changing business models and how we deliver services to the community.

How can you make a big impact with your community with a tiny budget? What are the dangers of doing nothing for smaller and more remote communities? Join Alanna Edwards for a practical outline of what has been achieved by positioning the Isaac Region for business success and lifestyle gains. Now with Balonne Shire, Alanna has helped fourteen local businesses harness the opportunities of the digital economy from an annual budget of just $3000. The resources are there and waiting – hear what you can do today with your community.

Alanna Edwards Manager of Economic and Community Sustainability, Balonne Shire Council

17

8

Time Sessions

2:40pm – 3:10pm Responding to the Urban – Rural Telecommunications Divide

Bush communities often feel like second class citizens when it comes to telecommunications infrastructure. Inadequate services relating to fixed line, wireless broadband and mobile services restrict business opportunities, impact community safety and in the case of Local Government make service delivery more difficult and costly.

The Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency (TUSMA) has recently been established to manage contracts and grants with service providers that ensure all Australians continue to have reasonable access to universal telecommunications services.

This session will provide delegates an opportunity to learn more about TUSMA’s role and provide feedback about the key issues and priorities for telecommunications in the bush.

Mr Robert Lomdahl Chief Executive Officer, Telecommunications Universal Service Management Agency

3:10pm – 3:40pm Afternoon Tea

3:40pm – 4:10pm Improving Queensland’s Rural Fire Service – Outcomes of the Malone Review

Concluded in April this year, the Malone Review has proposed a new direction for rural fire services in Queensland. Making 91 recommendations in total, the Assistant Minister will discuss the key changes to the structure, function, leadership and funding of the Service.

Ted Malone MP Assistant Minister for Emergency Volunteers

4:10pm – 5:15pm Panel Session – The Four Pillars and Queensland Plan: Future Challenges and Opportunities for Regional & Remote Queensland

The LNP Government was elected on the platform of growing a four pillar economy based on the State’s agricultural, resources, tourism and construction industries. In February this year, Premier Campbell Newman announced “The Queensland Plan” and encouraged all Queenslanders to contribute to a shared vision for the future of the State.

This panel session will prompt debate, ask questions and provide an opportunity for dialogue between delegates and the panellist focusing on issues such as infrastructure planning, funding and delivery for economic development, co-existence of the agricultural and resources sector, tourism trends and changing patterns of development and growth in Queensland.

Cr Stuart MacKenzie, Mayor – Quilpie Shire Council Cr Belinda Murphy, Mayor – McKinlay Shire Council David Edwards – Director-General, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning Ian Burnett – President Agforce (Qld)

5:15pm Convention Close

6:45pm Hotel Pick Ups and Buses to Stockman’s Hall of Fame

7:00pm Convention Dinner – Cattlemen’s Bar and Grill

10:00pm Buses depart Stockman’s Hall of Fame for Hotels

18

9

Day 3: Friday 2nd August 2013: Breakfast TreatTime Sessions8:30am – 10:00am Breakfast and Tour …

Longreach School of Distance Education

10:00am Breakfast Conclusion and Buses to Airport

Venue: Longreach Civic and Cultural Centre96A Eagle Street, Longreach

Date: 31 July – 1 August 2013

Accommodation: (GST Inclusive)Accommodation for this Convention is being organised by Corporate Traveller. Please click link below to organise your accommodation needs.

Accommodation Click here

Registration: (GST Inclusive)Full Registration $935.00Corporate Registration $1500.00Includes: Conference Program, Technical Tour, Satchel, Presentations, BBQ and Breakfast.

Functions:Dinner Registration 1 August 2013 $80.00 Please refer to the LGAQ’s registration cancellation policies on www.lgaq.asn.au via the Events tab on the home page when making your registration.

Single registration please click hereMultiple registration please click here

Or register online at www.lgaq.asn.au via the Events tab on the home page.

Convention Enquiries: Members Hotline – 1300 542 700 or email ask@lgaq.asn.au

19

2013 LGAQ MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS FORUM LOCAL MESSAGE, GLOBAL METHODS

Cairns Convention Centre, Cairns Monday 21 October 2013, 9am – 4.30pm

As the 24 hour news cycle grows ever-more ferocious, it’s no secret that the way that we consume news is changing rapidly. Attention spans are shortening, as the list of council responsibilities grow longer. In this climate, clarity of message and communication is one of the important aspects of governance at all levels. Large amounts of background information can be shared with your community with the inclusion of a single hyperlink.

How does your council use social media like Facebook and Twitter in order to directly communicate with and receive feedback from your community? What is the difference in approach when working with print, radio or online media? How does your council mitigate a bad news story, or navigate its way through a crisis or disaster situation?

At this one day intensive Forum, attending media and communications officers and nominated council representatives will advance their skills in communication and media liaison and hear from professional leaders in the field. This is an unmissable opportunity to ensure your council is equipped with the tools it needs to present your councils message with confidence.

Cost to attend this event will be as follows: Council Registration $550.00 Corporate Registration $660.00

Full program details for the Forum will be available in the coming weeks!

FURTHER INFORMATION ON EVENTSBron Browning LGAQ CONFERENCE COORDINATORPhone: 07 3000 2220Email: bron_browning@lgaq.asn.au

Visit LGAQ Events on the LGAQ websitewww.lgaq.asn.au

For further details please call 1300 542 700 or email ask@lgaq.asn.au

20

GOV 03 07.2013

STATUTORY POLICY 102 REVIEW GRANTS TO COMMUNITY ORGANISATIONS Responsible Officer: Andrew Jackson – Director Community / Cultural Services

Report by: Pascal Kellenberg – Community Development Project Officer

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

Presentation and adoption of Changes to Policy 102 Grants to Community Organisations. 1.1. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Out of the current budget deliberations comes the approach to introduce a user pays approach to both Hall Waivers and waivers on photocopy charges. Following here the recommended fees for review by Council: Halls – Hire Charges for Not For Profit Organisations listed in Policy 113 3 hours per room including kitchen (regular charge is $58) $5* Per room per day including kitchen (regular charge is $116) $15* Entire Complex per day (regular charge is $263) $30* * These Charges exclude any cleaning fees which Council may have to charge the hiring party if the premises are not returned in clean conditions.

Photocopy Charges for Not For Profit Organisations listed in Policy 113 A4 single, black and white (regular charge is $0.95) $0.10 A4 both sides, black and white (regular charge is $1.20) $0.15 A3 single, black and white (regular charge is $1.20) $0.20 A3 both sides, black and white (regular charge is $1.75) $0.30 A4 single, colour (regular charge is $1.35) $0.20 A4 both sides, colour (regular charge is $2.40) $0.30 A3 single, black and white (regular charge is $2.40) $0.40 A3 both sides, colour (regular charge is $4.40) $0.60

2. CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN

In accordance with Outcome 6 – Community Services & Health, Section: 6.3 Community Group Support

3. POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Statutory Policy 113 Not-For-Profit Community Organisations Statutory Policy 102 Grants to Community Organisations

21

4. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Part 5, Section 194 and 195 of the 2012 Local Government Regulations

2005 require Council to develop a Statutory Policy to administer these funds.

5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Allocation of funds has been made in the 2012/2013 budget.

6. RISK MANAGEMENT NIL

7. CONSULTATION

Budget deliberations

8. OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER

Consider this report and accept recommendations Consider this report and reject recommendations

9. OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION

The presented Policy change aims to introduce a user pays policy introducing nominal fees which will both contribute towards Council expenditures and reduce time and processes applied administrating the current waiver policy structure.

10. ATTACHMENTS

Draft Policy 102 Grants to Community Organisations (see amendments on page 10 and page 14).

RECOMMENDATION

That Council adopts the amended Policy 102 Grants to Community Organisations introducing subsidised photocopy and hall hire for Not For Profit Organisations listed in Statutory Council Policy 113. That Council adopts the following fees and charges to be included in the General Cost Recovery & Non-Regulatory Charges for 2013-14 in a separate GL section.

22

Halls – Hire Charges for Not For Profit Organisations listed in Policy 113 3 hours per room including kitchen (regular charge is $58) $5* Per room per day including kitchen (regular charge is $116) $15* Entire Complex per day (regular charge is $263) $30* * These Charges exclude any cleaning fees which Council may have to charge the hiring party if the premises are not returned in clean conditions.

Photocopy Charges for Not For Profit Organisations listed in Policy 113 A4 single, black and white (regular charge is $0.95) $0.10 A4 both sides, black and white (regular charge is $1.20) $0.15 A3 single, black and white (regular charge is $1.20) $0.20 A3 both sides, black and white (regular charge is $1.75) $0.30 A4 single, colour (regular charge is $1.35) $0.20 A4 both sides, colour (regular charge is $2.40) $0.30 A3 single, black and white (regular charge is $2.40) $0.40 A3 both sides, colour (regular charge is $4.40) $0.60

23

1 of 14

Policy Title:  Grants to Community Organisations

Policy No:  102 Policy Subject:   Grants  Directorate:  Community & Cultural Services Department:   Community Services  Responsible Officer:   Director of Community & Cultural Services Authorised by:   North Burnett Regional Council  Adopted Date:  Policy & Planning Committee Meeting – 05/12/2012 Review Date:  05/12/2014  Authorities:  Part 5, Section 194 and 195 of the 2012 Local Government 

Regulations  

 NBRC Grant Programme Principles  The  intention of  the North Burnett Regional Council  (NBRC) Grant Programme  is  to enable clubs, organisations, groups and families to:   o Provide events,  services, activities and opportunities  that would not otherwise 

be available, and  o Access events, services, activities and opportunities that would not otherwise be 

available.   NBRC Grant Policy Aims and Objectives  The Grants  Programme  aims  to  assist North  Burnett  communities  to make  positive contributions to cultural, sporting, community, educational or recreational needs – and opportunities.  The  Programme  aims  to  generate  widespread  and  inclusive  community  benefit  ‐ throughout each town and district, and through diverse groups and families.   NBRC Grant Programme Policy Conditions  Applicants  must  agree  to  acquit  the  grant  funds  in  accordance  with  agreed  and approved purpose of the grant.  Further, they must agree to report on the expenditure and  the outcomes of  the  approved  activity;  and  to  co‐operate  in  activities entailing media coverage and public acknowledgement.  

StatutoryPolicy

24

2 of 14

NBRC Grant Programme Policy Conditions (continued)  The Applicant shall have no outstanding debt to Council at the time of assessment.  The Applicant should be able to explain why they are not in a position to fully fund the proposal without Council’s assistance.  If the Applicant is applying for a Community or Regional Event project over $1000, they should be  incorporated.   They need to provide a copy of the  incorporated certificate, and a copy of the Treasurer’s most recent report with the application.   They may be asked to supply copies of the organisation, group or club’s audited financial statements for the past financial year.  If  the Applicant  is  applying  for  a  Community  or  Regional  Event  project,  and  is NOT incorporated,  they are welcome  to  join  forces with a group  that  is, e.g. an  informal group of citizens could approach the P&C or Lions or any other  incorporated body to partner  with  them.      The  partner  must  supply  their  incorporated  certificate  and Treasurer’s  report.    As  the  incorporated  body,  the  partner  is  accountable  for  the correct  acquittal of  the  funds  (i.e.  that  the money  is  spent  as  agreed)  and  that  the project or event is completed successfully (Elite Performance family applicants do not need to provide Incorporation certificates or financial reports).  Council’s grant contribution will be appropriately acknowledged  ‐ as per the  letter of approval provided by Council (unless otherwise negotiated).  Applicants should seek independent, expert advice regarding the impact of Goods and Services  Tax  (GST)  or  income  tax  that may  result  from  any  potential  funding  from Council.  (This includes Elite Performance family applicants).  The  Applicant  must  complete  a  “Statement  by  Supplier”  form  OR  submit  their Australian Business Number (ABN).  Applicants must not use the Grant Programme to promote any political agenda; or any divisive creed or activity.   

25

3 of 14

NBRC Grants Eligibility Criterion  Strengthening Communities or Regional Events applicants must be:  

Incorporated, (if applying for more than $1000).   Applicants, applying for grants under  $1000,  need  not  be  incorporated  but  should  be  auspiced  by  an incorporated partner, (see policy conditions above),  

Holders of an ABN; OR auspiced by a patron organisation that holds an ABN; OR able to submit a ‘Statement by Supplier’ form,  

Not‐for‐profit (as opposed to being a commercial or government entity),  

Located in, and focused on service to, the North Burnett, 

Able  to demonstrate benefits  to North Burnett  communities, or  sectors of  the community, as a direct result of the proposed project, event or activity,   

Clearly able to deliver the proposed project, service or event, i.e. able to achieve a successful outcome,  

Clearly able to administer the proposed project, service or event, e.g. ability to expend  the  funds  correctly;  and willingness  to provide  financial  acquittals  and outcome reports to Council at the completion of the project,  

Clearly  able  to  gather  sufficient  community  support  and  additional  resources (such  as  volunteer  support,  and/or  necessary  equipment,  venues,  partners, further  sponsorship,  etc)  such  that  the  project,  service  or  event  will  be successful,  

Clearly  able  to maintain  the  service,  project  or  event  in  future  (if  required), without continuing reliance on Council grants.  

Elite Performance applicants must be:  

Residents of the North Burnett, and under 18yrs of age,  

Engaged in elite sporting performance at a state or national level,  

Clearly able  to raise any additional  funds required  (over and above  the Council contribution),  

Prepared to match contributions over $500 and up to $1000 dollar for dollar.   NBRC Funding Guidelines               

The North Burnett Regional Council Grant Programme is designed to support activities that are difficult to fund through other sources.  

Applicants should not apply to Council for grants that are generally funded through an applicant’s core funding source, e.g. Dept of Education or Emergency Services core funding – or through dedicated funding sources, e.g. cultural activities suited to RADF.  

All reasonable requests will be considered providing they demonstrate community benefit, and are within the guidelines. 

Applicants should read the Conditions, Guidelines and the Eligibility Criteria before preparing an application OR talk to a Grants Officer. 

26

4 of 14

Who can apply for a NBR Council grant?  1. The  following categories of  individual and organisations  can apply  for an NBRC 

grant:  

Individual  sports people, under 18yrs of age, who participate at  the elite level  in  any  sport,  i.e.  state  or  national  level,  are  eligible  for  the  Elite Performance Grant. 

Community groups, clubs, service organisations, and event committees can apply for the community and event grants.  Organisations applying for less than$1000 do not need to be  incorporated.    It  is recommended that they form  a  partnership  with  an  incorporated  organisation  /  group.  Organisations applying for more than $1000 do need to be incorporated. 

 Where do I get the forms and guidelines?  2. Application  forms  are  available online on  the Council website, or  in hard  copy 

from local Council offices.  

Where do I hand in the completed, signed application?  3. Applications (including the application form, budget template and any supporting 

documents) can be  lodged by email,  fax, mail or  in person  in any  local Council office on 1300 696 272.  

Is there someone who can help me to complete the form, and/or with advice?  4. If you need help to complete the form, or if you’re not sure what to do, contact 

Council on 1300 696 272.   What supporting material must I hand in with the application?  5. If  the  Applicant  is  an  incorporated  entity,  they  should  provide  copies  of  the 

Certificate of  Incorporation.   They should also provide a copy of the Treasurer’s most recent report, with the application. 

6. If  the  Applicant  is  not  incorporated,  it  is  recommended  that  they  form  a partnership  with  an  incorporated  patron  that  can  supply  an  Incorporation Certificate. 

7. Elite Performance applicants do not need incorporation, or financial statements.  They will, however, need  to provide  information about  the event  they wish  to participate  in.    They  will  also  need  to  show  evidence  confirming  their participation  in  the  event,  i.e.  a  letter  or  form  showing  that  they  have  been selected, nominated or accepted for the sporting event.  

8. All Applicants should include their ABN.  If they don’t have an ABN, they need to include a completed ‘Statement by Supplier’ form, (which can be picked up from your local newsagent). 

9. Applicants  should  provide  copies  of  existing  insurance  or  licences  (where relevant) e.g. public liability insurance for an event, or liquor licences, etc. 

 

27

5 of 14

What supporting material must I hand in with the application (continued)?  10. Applicants may also need to show other evidence, such as a copy of a  lease, or 

proof  of  ownership  for  project  that  entails  building  or  changes  to  community structures,  etc.    Applicants  should  check with  Council  if  complex  changes  are being made, e.g. to plumbing & drainage. 

11. For more  complex  projects,  such  as  a  regional  event,  applicants may  need  to provide  additional  information  showing  that  they  have  thought  through  key activities  such  as  event  management,  risk  management  and  marketing  / promotion.  Ask a grants officer with Council on 1300 696 272 if you will need to provide  additional  information  before  you  hand  in  the  application.    Allow yourself enough time to prepare these plans, i.e. don’t leave it until a two month turn  around  time  is  not  a  feasible  timeframe.  They  need  not  be  complex; generally a one page summary in dot points or a table is fine.  

What do I need to check before I hand the application in?  12. Applicants should complete all questions in the application forms. 13. The  application  forms  need  to  be  signed  by  the  appropriate  person,  e.g.  the 

president of  the community organisation or event committee; or  the parent or guardian of the sports person. 

14. Applications should be completed electronically or neatly completed by hand on the forms provided.   We strongly recommend that you find someone with neat, clear writing if the forms are completed by hand.  If this is a problem, talk to the Grants Officer and they can help to fill in the forms.  

Can I make more than one application?  15. Applicants may make as many applications as they choose throughout the year. 

However, each applicant will be permitted one successful grant allocation only, from Council, per year.  

Can I alter my application after it has been submitted?  16. Sometimes circumstances change, e.g. the committee members change, contact 

or banking details change – or even parts of your project or event may change.   When this happens, you MUST:  

17. Let Council know immediately.  You can phone, but please do put the change in writing, e.g. email, letter or fax,  

18. Negotiate  any major  changes  to  the  project  before  you  implement  them,  e.g. new starting or finishing dates; or different expenditure.  

What could make me ineligible for a Council grant?  19. Applicants who have not completed previous grant projects successfully may be 

ineligible for grants, e.g. they failed to acquit or report on a previous grant; they failed to complete the project; they failed to spend the grant in the agreed way; they did not appropriately acknowledge the Council grant in accordance with the original grant agreement.  

20. Applicants who have outstanding debts to Council. 

28

6 of 14

What could make me ineligible for a Council grant (continued)?  21. Requests for recurrent, operational funding, e.g. wages, annual or monthly bills, 

etc that are part of the general operations or your group, club or committee, are not eligible.  You should contact Council directly to discuss exemptions or rebates on items such as rates.  

22. Applications  requesting  100%  of  the  costs  of  a  project  or  activity.    Applicants should  show  that  the  group,  community  or  family  is  prepared  to  support  the proposed activity by: o their time and effort, OR  o use of vehicles, equipment, venues, or other  resources already owned or 

accessible by the community, group or family OR  o cash already held by the community, group or family, OR  o donations, fund raising, sponsorship or other grants.  

23. Applicants applying for over $1000  in the community or events sector, who are not incorporated, and who do not provide an incorporated patron.  

24. Applicants who  do  not  complete  the  application  forms  fully  AND  provide  the required supporting material, may not be eligible.  This includes the budget! 

25. Applications that are not signed (by the appropriate person).  26. Applications  that  provide  insufficient  information,  incorrect  information, 

misleading information, or that cannot be read easily, may be ineligible.  27. Activities that commence expenditure before Council approval  is given may not 

be eligible.  You need to contact Council to discuss this if action or expenditure is vital  before  the  assessment  and  approval  round  (i.e.  because  of  an  event deadline, etc).  

28. Applications  that  request  funds  for  activities  that  are  not within Council  grant aims may not be eligible, e.g. where the request is well outside the guidelines or objectives of the grant.  

Are there ‘exceptional cases’?  29. Council will  consider  all  reasonable  requests,  subject  to  availability of  funding, 

the merits  of  the  application,  and  whether  the  request  ‘fits’  with  the  Grant Guidelines, Conditions and Eligibility Criteria.      

30. Applicants  can  request  consideration  of  ‘exceptional  cases’,  e.g.  where  the project or the applicant may not meet all of the eligibility criteria or the proposal may be innovative, unusual or indicative of exceptional hardship.   

     

Grant Schedule Guidelines:  31. Grants are assessed at every General Council Meeting usually held on a monthly 

basis. From the day of submission, allow for a 2 month turn around period to see your application processed. Exceptional cases may see Council refer the decision to the next Council meeting in order to collect further information. 

32. Grant monies will be released when the approved recipient signs and returns the designated area on the letter of approval.  

If assistance or advice is required, applicants can contact the Local Office Supervisor  

29

7 of 14

Budget Guidelines:  

33. The Council Grant Programme offers one‐off grant allocations to projects, service improvements, events or activities.   

34. For applications over $1000, applicants must provide a realistic budget (using the templates provided), including any known cash or inkind commitments from non‐Council sources, any potential income, and all known costs. 

35. Eligible costs are those directly related to the proposed project, event or activity, e.g.  volunteers  involved  in  the  activity, project  co‐ordinators or workers  costs, purchase of  equipment,  refurbishment or maintenance of  an  existing building, purchase of a new building (such as a storage shed). advertising and promotion, event or activity‐specific insurances or licences, travel, access to expertise, etc. 

36. Ineligible costs are operational or recurrent costs, such as wages, rates, day‐to‐day or annual running costs, utilities (electricity, water, etc), or an organisation’s general  insurance  or  incorporation  fees.    Ineligible  costs  also  include:  debts, litigation,  retrospective  funding,  private  /  commercial  ventures,  or  projects located outside the North Burnett,  

37. Applicants can  request support  from Council  in cash and/or  inkind  terms,  i.e. a community may  desire  inkind  contributions  such  as  access  to  Council  halls  or equipment, assistance from Council staff, etc,   

38. The value of the application will calculated on the total, combined value of the cash  and  inkind  contributions  requested  from  Council  (not  just  the  requested cash contributions),  

39. Applications,  where  Council  is  expected  to  fund  100%  of  costs,  may  be considered  less eligible.   Applicants should try to demonstrate that their group, family, partners or community are making a significant contribution, i.e. they may offer  cash  and/or  inkind  contributions  such  as  volunteers,  time,  equipment, venues, vehicles, etc,   

40. When applying  for grants over $1000, applicants  should be prepared  to match Council  funding,  dollar  for  dollar.    (Dollar  for  dollar  refers  to  the  value  of  the contribution, i.e. an applicant can match Council funds with inkind contributions and/or cash),  

41. Applications should not exceed the grant  ‘ceilings’,  i.e. the highest amount that can be applied for in each grant.  Ceilings are listed in the Grant Outlines.  

42. An  allocation of  funding does not  guarantee  funding  in  subsequent  years,  e.g. one successful grant is not a guarantee of continual annual funding for an event, or continued rate rebates, etc.  

 How are the applications assessed?  43. The  grant  process  is  competitive,  i.e.  your  request  may  be  considered  in 

comparison  with  the  merits  of  other  applications.    Further,  submitting  an application does not automatically entitle a group or individual to an allocation of funds.  

30

8 of 14

How are the applications assessed (continued)?  44. The number and type of applications selected will depend on:  

o Their quality,  o Whether applicants meet the eligibility criteria,  o The  nature  and  scope  of  community  benefit  that  the  project,  event  or 

activity  delivers.    Preference  will  be  given  to  proposals  with  greatest potential benefit, and/or a clear value for money proposition,   

o The  scale  of matching  contributions  from  applicants.    Preference will be given  to  applications  that  are  partially  funded  or  resourced  from  other sources, 

o Consistency with the aims and conditions of NBRC Grants, o The individual merits of the application,  o The number and value of applications  

45. Council allocate funding for each financial year.   Once this ceiling  is reached, no further allocations will be made.   

46. Grants will be assessed by the CEO or delegated Council Officer after consultation with  the  relevant  Councillors,  Council  staff  and/or  other  pertinent  advisors.  Grants  over  $500  will  also  be  approved  by  Council  resolution,  as  per  NBRC financial delegations and policies,   

47. Any  applicant  that  defaults  on  grant  responsibilities,  such  as  the  financial acquittal or outcomes report (written or verbal) can not re‐apply.  

48. Council’s decision is final, and no correspondence will be entered into.  

How will I know if the application is successful?   49. Successful applicants will receive a letter of approval, in the month following the 

assessment.  

What happens next?  50. Successful applicants need  to complete, sign and  return  the designated section 

on the letter of approval before any funding will be released.  51. One signed copy needs to be returned to Council; you need to keep one copy for 

your records.  52. Council will pay the grant according to the method of payment you indicated on 

your application form.  Make sure banking details and mailing details are correct.  If those details change after you have submitted your application form, it is your responsibility to let Council know and provide new details.  

53. The  Council  may  ask  for  special  conditions  for  the  funding,  e.g.  public acknowledgement, media activity,  completion dates, etc.   You need  to  contact Council if the conditions are unclear or unsuitable.  

54. Successful applicants have 12mths, from the time of notification, to complete the project and acquit the funding, unless otherwise negotiated. 

     

No funds will be released until you sign and return the letter of approval to Council.  

31

9 of 14

What are my options if the application is not successful?  55. Failure to receive funding may not be due to any  lack  in the application;  it may 

result  from  the  large number of applications and  the  limited  funds available  in any round.  If an applicant intends re‐submitting, they should seek feedback from the  Council  Community  Grants  Officer  on  1300  696  272.  Any  recommended improvements should be made prior to re‐submitting.  

56. Council  may  be  interested  in  your  proposal,  but  may  require  additional information.    They will  contact  you.    Requests  for  additional  information  are (generally)  a  positive  sign,  so  please  provide  the  information  as  quickly  and completely as possible.  

57. While  you  are welcome  to  resubmit,  please  do  take  note  of  Council  feedback regarding your eligibility, and the eligibility of the proposal.  Council decisions are final and no correspondence will be entered into.  

Do I have to acknowledge Council’s contribution in public?  58. All grant recipients should acknowledge NBRC’s contribution via: media coverage, 

banners,  Council  logo  on  a  website,  brochures,  letters  or  signs,  public acknowledgement at an opening or launch, etc.   

59. All  projects will  be  eligible  for media  coverage  (in  local  or  regional  papers  or radio)  and/or  public  acknowledgement.    Participation  in  the  grant  process automatically grants  ‘permission’  for media  coverage and public  recognition of approved projects, events or activities. Successful applicants may negotiate when the media  coverage occurs,  i.e. before, during or after  the project.   Applicants should  indicate media  timelines or any media or public knowledge  sensitivities surrounding the project on the application form.  

60. Applications are confidential until the approval process is complete.   Do I have to make a report to Council?            61. Successful applicants are expected to fill in the template report to Council within 

2mths  of  the  completion  of  the  activity,  project  or  event.    Templates  are provided.    Council  may  invite  grant  recipients  to  make  a  verbal  report  to  a Council meeting. 

 What do I do if the approved project has a problem?  62. Grant  recipients  should  contact Council  at  the  earliest  opportunity  to  flag  any 

difficulties  with  project  completion,  expenditure  or  reporting  requirements.  Early notice can result in negotiation of new timelines or arrangements,  

Council grants are funded from ‘public money’, i.e. rates and Local Government funds.  For this reason, it is important that the grant process be accountable and transparent, and that each project clearly benefits North Burnett communities and families.   

To ensure transparency, and clarity regarding the benefits, Council requires recipients of grant money to provide a brief update or report outlining the results, achievements and outcomes.  

32

10 of 14

What do I do if the approved project has a problem (continued)?  

63. Failure  to  comply with  reporting  or  expenditure  requirements may  result  in  a demand  for  the  return of  the granted  funds.   No  further applications  from  the defaulting  individual or group will be  considered until  the  required  reports are made.  So, it’s very important that you contact Council at the earliest opportunity to negotiate if any changes are required, e.g. an extension to the project time, or a change in the project or event.   

64. Any  organisation  or  individual  that  cannot  demonstrate  that  funds  have  been expended  in  accordance with  the  purpose  for which  the  funds were  granted, within  12mths  of  receiving  the  funds, will  be  required  to  return  the  funds  to Council.    

 Funding Subsidy / In‐kind support to Not‐For‐Profit Organisations  Besides being able to participate in the Council Grants Programme as described above Not‐For‐Profit  Organisations  listed  in  Policy  113  –  Not  For  Profit  Community Organisations are eligible  to qualify  for  funding  subsidy  and  In‐kind  support  such as (but not limited to):   1. School/College Awards 2. Traditional Support   3. Corporate Partnerships (sponsorship of major regional events) 4. Regulatory Fee Reimbursement 5. Use of Council Plant and Equipment 6. Waste Tipping Fee Waiver 7. Use of small Council Plant and Equipment i.e. chairs, generators, bins, etc; 8. Subsidised  use  of  Rooms  by  Not‐For‐Profit  Community  Groups  i.e.  library, 

function room, offices, etc. 9. Subsidised Hire of Sports Grounds  10. In  Kind  Photocopying  of  up  to  $250  may  be  granted  per  organisation  and 

financial year Subsidised Photocopying  

The different grant schemes are administered in the following ways.  1.  School/College Bursaries & Awards  Intent  ‐  To  assist  in  the  funding  of  awards  conferred  upon  students  enrolled  at institutions in the North Burnett Region.  Eligibility ‐ Each school/college (primary or secondary) in the North Burnett Region.  Procedure  ‐  Eligible  schools/colleges  make  written  application  for  payment  of  an amount <$200 in any given year.  Funding Limit ‐ $200/institution/calendar year. 

33

11 of 14

2.  Traditional Support  Intent ‐ To continue to financially support groups that have traditionally received such support from Council. These groups will generally receive a reduced level of support as granted the pervious year.  It should be noted that cash contributions in this category (Traditional Support) will be determined on an annual basis as per Council budget deliberation.  3.   Corporate Partnerships  Intent:  ‐  To  identify  those major  (non‐sporting)  regional  event  run  by  others  that Council wishes to support financially.   Eligibility –   

Biggenden Show 

Eidsvold Easter Musicians Muster 

Eidsvold Lions Easter Fair 

Eidsvold Show 

Eidsvold Show Ball 

Gayndah Show 

Gayndah Orange Festival  

Monto Dairy Festival  

Monto Fly‐In 

Monto Show 

Mundubbera Show 

Mundubbera 7‐A‐Side Cricket Carnival 

Mundubbera Multi‐Cultural Festival – Taste of the Burnett 

Mount Perry Show  Procedure ‐ the level of support will be determined as part of the budget development each year.   Funding Limit ‐ Determined at budget annually.  4.  Regulatory Fee Reimbursement  Intent  –  To  establish  circumstance  where  Council  will  waive  Local  Government regulatory fees for community groups undertaking project work on Council‐owned or Council‐controlled premises.   Eligibility –   

Be a not‐for‐profit community organisation based in the North Burnett Region.  

Be undertaking work (requiring some form of development approval) on Council‐owned or Council‐controlled land.  

Demonstrate  that  the organisation broadly  caters  for and benefits  the general community, or that it provides a community welfare service.  

34

12 of 14

4.  Regulatory Fee Reimbursement (continued)  

Must  not  have  access  to  funds  generated  from  licensed  premises  or  gaming machines.  

Must not have any outstanding matters of concern before Council.   Procedure ‐   Eligible community organisations can apply  in writing for reimbursement of fees associated with development assessment and/or building certification of work undertaken on public premises in Crown or Council owned land.   Funding Limit – Determined at budget annually.  5.  Use of Council Plant & Equipment  Intent ‐ To provide guidelines for community organisations to apply for use of Council plant and equipment to maintain or improve facilities generally available to the public.  Eligibility ‐   

Be a not‐for‐profit community organisation based in the North Burnett region. 

Be undertaking work to improve facilities that will then be generally available to the public. 

Demonstrate  that  the organisation broadly  caters  for and benefits  the general community, or that it provides a community welfare service. 

Must  not  have  access  to  funds  generated  from  licensed  premises  or  gaming machines. 

Must not have any outstanding matters of concern before Council.  Procedure ‐  

 

Written application made 

Machinery  or  equipment  will  only  be  made  available  when  its  use  will  not otherwise interfere with Council's own works programs and needs. 

An  operator may  be  hired  from  Council  at  the  applicable  private works  rate (including penalties where applicable). 

North  Burnett  Regional  Council  employees, with  appropriate  certification,  are permitted  to operate Council machinery  in  their own  time,  for  the purpose of assisting clubs.    In such circumstances, any arrangements  for payment  (cash or other) of the employee are a matter between the applicant and the employee. 

Floating plant to a job site will be included in the value of work performed.  

Funding Limit – Determined at Budget annually. 

35

13 of 14

6.  Waste Tipping Fee Waiver & Provision of Waste Services at Community Events  Intent  ‐ To provide a  fee waiver  to an agreed amount  for waste disposal charges  for unwanted and clean‐up items from: 

 1.   Charitable  organisations  that  operate  bargain  shops  and  cannot  recycle  the 

donated goods or waste illegally dumped in the organisation's collection bin; 2.   Service  Groups  that  provide  basic  garden  &  home maintenance  or  clean  up 

operations as a welfare service. 3.  Any Council approved community function.   Eligibility ‐ Applicants must:  Be  a  not‐for‐profit  community  organisation  based  in  the  North  Burnett  Regional Council area:  1. Charitable  organisations  that  operate  bargain  shops  and  cannot  recycle  the 

donated goods or waste illegally dumped in the organisation's collection bin; 2.   Service  Groups  that  provide  basic  garden  &  home maintenance  or  clean  up 

operations as a welfare service.  Procedure –  •   Council will make an annual  invitation for eligible groups to register for support 

under this program.  Conditions for Claiming Fee Waiver:  •   Organisations claiming fee relief can deliver to all waste management centres. •   Applicable waste disposal charges to apply. •   All  recyclable material  defined  is  to  be  separated  from  general waste. Where 

material  is  not  separated  for  recycling  the  fee waiver  for  such  loads will  not apply. 

•   The  charitable  organisations  shall  be  responsible  for  all  costs  associated with collection and transportation of the material to the waste management facility. 

 Determining Authority ‐ The administration of the Waste Tipping Fee Waiver Program shall be limited to the annual budget allowance.  Provision of Bins and Waste Services at Public Functions & Community Events Council will support groups with a waste service that traditionally are registered on the traditional support register.    

36

14 of 14

7. Use of Rooms by Not‐For‐Profit Community Groups  Intent  ‐  To  provide  a means  by which meeting  rooms  in  Council  venues  are made available free of charge at a subsidized rate to not‐for‐profit groups for the purposes of staging meetings. 

 Eligibility ‐  

 

Not‐for‐profit community groups and/or charitable organizations. 

Based in North Burnett Region.  

Procedure ‐   

Council  designates  the  following  Council‐managed  venues  (room  specific)  for  free subsidised  use  by  not‐for‐profit  or  charitable  organisations  based within  the  North Burnett  Region  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  ordinary,  special  or  annual  general meetings.  

 Chief  Executive  Officer  or  Delegates  are  authorised  to  grant  a  fee  waiver  these subsidies  for  such not‐for‐profit or  charitable  community organisations based within the North Burnett Region for the purpose of:  1) conducting  ordinary,  special  or  annual  general  meetings  in  the  designated 

rooms 2) holding of functions as fundraisers to support Not‐For‐Profit Organisations 3) School Events 4) Religious Worship Services by recognised denominations and not Sects.    

Venue  Room 

Biggenden Memorial Hall  Foyer 

Biggenden Memorial Hall  Main Hall 

Eidsvold Show Grounds “The Shed”  Indoor Sports Centre – Main Room 

Eidsvold Community Hall  Main Hall 

Eidsvold Community Hall  Supper Room 

Eidsvold Community Hall  Meeting Room 

Gayndah Community Hall  Supper Room 

Gayndah Community Hall  Main Hall 

Monto Community Hall  Supper Room 

Monto Community Hall  Main Hall 

Monto Community Hall  Function Room 

Mundubbera Shire Hall  Main Hall 

Mundubbera Library  Main Room 

Archer Park (Mundubbera)  Community Centre 

Mundubbera Shire Hall  Chambers 

Mundubbera Shire Hall  Supper Room #1 

Mundubbera Shire Hall  Supper Room #2 

Mount Perry Community Hall  Main Hall 

For further information: Contact your Local Council Administration Office 

37

GOV 4 07.2013

STATUTORY POLICY 106 – DEBT

File: 12 – Financial Management Responsible Officer: Les Hotz – Director of Corporate Services Report prepared by: Lisa Benham – Acting Manager Financial Services 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to present for Council’s consideration draft Statutory Policy 106 – Debt. 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND This is an existing Policy and is presented for consideration by Council. 3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN In accordance with Outcome 5 – Governance, 5.2 - Organisational Systems, 5.2.2 – Develop, implement and review strategic policies that assist Council in formulating innovative responses to critical and operational issues. 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS S104 (6) of the Local Government Act 2009 requires that local government ensure the financial policies of the local government are regularly reviewed and updated as necessary. S192 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 requires a local government to (1) prepare and adopt a debt policy for a financial year. (2) The debt policy must state—

(a) the new borrowings planned for the current financial year and the next 9 financial years; and

(b) the period over which the local government plans to repay existing and new borrowings.

6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil 7 RISK MANAGEMENT Nil.

38

8 CONSULTATION Consultation with Councillors & Councils leadership group 9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER Consider this report and accept, reject or amend recommendations.

10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION Presented to Council for consideration. 11 ATTACHMENTS Statutory Policy 102 – Debt RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive the Statutory Policy 102 - Debt report as information and adopt Statutory Policy 102 – Debt as presented with a review date in 1 year.

39

http://infoxpert/docs/Workspace/FINANCE/Budgeting/2013-2014/2013-14 Debt Policy Draft.docx 1 of 3

Policy Title:  Debt Policy

Policy No:  106 Policy Subject:   Financial Operations  Directorate:  Corporate Services Department:   Financial Operations  Responsible Officer:   Director of Corporate Services Authorised by:   North Burnett Regional Council  Adopted Date:   Review Date:    Authorities:  Local Government Act 2009   Local Government Regulation 2012 (LGR)    

 

 INTRODUCTION:  Scope  This policy outlines the Debt Strategy of the North Burnett Regional Council and provides for the responsible management of borrowings made by council from external sources.   OBJECTIVES:  Application of the Policy  This policy will  apply whenever Council  is  considering borrowing  funds externally.  It does not apply to leasing or hire purchase arrangements.  Background and Considerations  Council  recognises  the  desirability  of  establishing  reserves  sufficient  to  fund  future developments,  particularly  for  water  and  sewerage,  and  to  use  these  funds  when appropriate  to  avoid  external  borrowings  for  relatively  minor  acquisitions  and developments.  Council may,  however,  determine  to  borrow  funds  on  the  basis  of immediate  need,  as well  as  for  strategic  reasons  and/or  because  it  is  economically advantageous to do so. 

StatutoryPolicy

40

http://infoxpert/docs/Workspace/FINANCE/Budgeting/2013-2014/2013-14 Debt Policy Draft.docx 2 of 3

OBJECTIVES (CONTINUED): Background and Considerations (continued)  The  level of debt  in  individual programs and  in total  is a matter for Council to decide from time to time. Due recognition will be given to:  

the type and extent of benefits to be obtained from borrowing – including the length of time the benefits will be received 

The beneficiaries of the acquisition or development 

The impact of interest and redemption payments on both current and forecast rates revenue 

The current and future capacity of the rate base to pay for borrowings and the rate of growth of the rate base 

Likely movements in interest rates for variable rate borrowings 

Other current and projected sources of funds such as headworks 

Competing demands for funds  It is recognised that, as infrastructure such as water and sewerage are usually funded in advance of community requirements and borrowings are repaid by future users, its is appropriate  to utilise debt  to  fund  future  infrastructure  capacity. The appropriate mix of sources of funds will depend on the factors mentioned above.  Capital  expenditure  on  general  community  facilities  is  usually  funded  from  such revenue  sources  as  general  rates,  special  rates,  grants,  subsidies  and  borrowings. Borrowings from these developments should be  limited to what can be repaid by the existing rate base and, in general, should be over a shorter period so that current users substantially  contribute  to  the  debt  servicing  and  redemption.  Debt  on  existing facilities  should  not  become  a  burden  on  future  generations who may  not  receive benefits from these facilities. Again, the appropriate combination of debt and revenue will depend upon the type of development and the Council’s circumstances at a time.  PRINCIPLES – Legislative Requirement: Council is required to produce a Debt Policy under section 104 (5c) of the Local 

Government Act and section192 of the Local Government Regulations  Debt Policy 

(1) A local Government must prepare and adopt a debt policy each financial year.  

(2) The debt policy must state –  (a) The new borrowings planned  for the current  financial year and the next 9 

financial years; and (b) The  period  over which  the  local  government  plans  to  repay  existing  and 

new borrowings.  Council will only borrow funds for the purpose of acquiring assets, improving facilities or infrastructure and/or substantially extending their useful life.    Council may borrow to meet strategic needs or to take advantage of opportunities for development providing there is a demonstrably extending their useful life. If necessary 

41

http://infoxpert/docs/Workspace/FINANCE/Budgeting/2013-2014/2013-14 Debt Policy Draft.docx 3 of 3

council  may  borrow  funds  to  finance  special  projects  where  funding  has  been approved but the money  is not yet received and council’s current cash will not cover the project.    PRINCIPLES (CONTINUED):  Redemption  and  interest  charges  on  borrowings,  including  those  relating  to water, sewerage and plant are to be repaid  from revenue generated  in those areas and the full costs are to be taken to account in these areas.   Where borrowings are to be repaid by special rates, the revenue and repayments will be matched  as  far  as  is  practical.  Borrowings may  be  repaid  early  should  revenue exceed scheduled repayments. Repayments will not exceed twenty per cent of general rates revenue.  Borrowings will only be made in accordance with the adopted budget.  Borrowings  from  the  Queensland  Treasury  Corporation  (QTC)  or,  if  from  another organisation, with the approval of the Queensland Treasurer and Department of Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience.  Borrowings  will  normally  be  for  a  maximum  of  twenty  years.  Shorter  borrowing periods  and  earlier  repayments will  be  taken where  possible  and  appropriate.  If  a longer  term  is appropriate, and  this may be  the  case  for  some  infrastructure assets such as water and sewerage, the term will not exceed the  life of the asset, or twenty years, whichever is the shorter period.  SCHEDULE OF DEBT  2009‐2010 Actual Borrowings  $1,089,698 2010‐2011 Actual Borrowings  $2,960,000 2011‐2012 Actual Borrowings  $    2012‐2013 Actual Borrowings  $   960,000 2013‐2014 Proposed Borrowings  $  For the 2013‐2014 financial year Council will be seeking an overdraft of $10,000,000.  This  overdraft  is  to  cover  any  timing  differences  between  contractor  payments  and claims to be received from the NDRRA (Queensland Reconstruction Authority).  At this point  in  time  Councils  Flood  Damage  is  estimated  to  be  $100,000,000,  therefore monthly payments of around $9,000,000 can be expected.   This  is only an overdraft facility and Council expects will cease the facility at the end of the 2013 Flood Damage Restoration  process  in  2014‐15  Financial  Year.    No  further  Borrowings  have  been planned in the following 9 financial years at this stage.     

42

GOV 5 07.2013

STATUTORY POLICY 108 – INVESTMENT

File: 12 – Financial Management Responsible Officer: Les Hotz – Director of Corporate Services Report prepared by: Lisa Benham – Acting Manager Financial Services 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to present for Council’s consideration draft Statutory Policy 108 – Investment. 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND This is an existing Policy and is presented for consideration by Council. 3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN In accordance with Outcome 5 – Governance, 5.2 - Organisational Systems, 5.2.2 – Develop, implement and review strategic policies that assist Council in formulating innovative responses to critical and operational issues. 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS S104 (6) of the Local Government Act 2009 requires that a local government ensure the financial policies of the local government are regularly reviewed and updated as necessary. 6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil 7 RISK MANAGEMENT Nil. 8 CONSULTATION Consultation with Councillor & Councils leadership group 9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER Consider this report and accept, reject or amend recommendations.

43

10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION Presented to Council for consideration. 11 ATTACHMENTS Statutory Policy 108 – Investment RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive the Statutory Policy 108 - Investment report as information and adopt Statutory Policy 108 – Investment as presented with a review date in 1 year.

44

http://infoxpert/docs/Workspace/FINANCE/Budgeting/2013-2014/2013-14 Investment Policy Draft.docx 1 of 2

Policy Title:  Investment Policy

Policy No:  108 Policy Subject:   Investment of Council Funds  Directorate:  Corporate Services  Department:   Financial Operations  Responsible Officer:   Director of Corporate Services Authorised by:   North Burnett Regional Council  Adopted Date:   Review Date:    Authorities:  Local Government Act 2009     Local Government Regulation 2012     Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Act 1982 (SBFA)     Statutory Bodies Financial Arrangements Regulation 2007      (SBFAR)                               

 INTRODUCTION: Scope To  provide  guidance  and  a  framework  for Officers  involved  in  the  investment  of  surplus funds  controlled  by  Council  that  are  not within  the  short  to medium  term  required  for financial commitments.    Funds available for Investments Funds  on  hand  less  any  funds  committed  to  projects  and  or  constrained  funds  (funds allocated for operational requirements)   OBJECTIVES: Primary Objective To  ensure  protection  of  Councils  investment  funds  while  obtaining  the  most  beneficial return  for  Council, with  due  recognition  given  to  the  risk  profile  of  the  institution  being invested with.   To ensure compliance with the  legislative frameworks outlined above when investing Council funds.    Secondary Objective To designate the financial institutions to be approached for quotes. To ensure that appropriate records are kept and that adequate internal controls are in place to safeguard public monies. 

StatutoryPolicy

45

http://infoxpert/docs/Workspace/FINANCE/Budgeting/2013-2014/2013-14 Investment Policy Draft.docx 2 of 2

PRINCIPLES: Guidelines Council’s  investment  portfolio  should  be  realizable,  without  penalty,  in  a  reasonable timeframe, in accordance with operational requirements.  Authorised Institutions  Only  those  institutions  identified  as  suitable  under  the  Category  1  Investment  Powers conferred by  SBFA  S44  (1)(d) &  listed on  the APRA website  as Authorised Deposit  Taking Institutions (ADI’s).   In addition the investment institution is rated in accordance to (SBFAR) S8 and complies with the relevant investment rating as outlined in (SBRAR) S10.  

Quotations on Investment With the exceptions of monies put with the QTC capital guaranteed cash fund, at least three (3)  quotations  shall  be  obtained  from  authorised  institutions whenever  an  investment  is proposed. The best quote on the day will be successful after allowing for administrative and banking  costs,  as well  as having  regard  to  the  limits  set below. Council will  also  test  any offers made by assessing the interest rate in the QTC fair value tool.   

Term to Maturity The term to maturity of any Council investment may range from “At Call” to one (1) year.  

Placement of Investment When placing  investments,  consideration will be  given  to  the  relationship between  credit rating  and  interest  rate  and  Councils  objectives.    In  diversifying  Council’s  investment portfolio Council will  insure funds are  invested according to (SBFAR) S10.   To minimise risk Council  will  manage  investments  so  that  there  is  an  acceptable  range  of  investment institutions used.    

1. Not less than 60% of investment funds in AA rating or above or Queensland Treasury Corporation;  

2. Up to 40% of investment funds within an institution within the A rating range; and/or  

3. Up to 20% of investment funds within an institution with not less than BB rating   

CEO’s Responsibility Council has a number of duties when  investing funds. These are outlined in S47 and S48 of the SBFA and S8 & S10 of the SBFAR.  Council must use its best efforts to invest its funds; 

a) At the most advantageous (risk adjusted) interest rate available to it:  b) In a way it considers is most appropriate in all the circumstances and , 

Council must keep records that show  it has  invested  in the way most appropriate  in all the circumstances and retain documentary evidence of the investment.    

46

GOV 6 07.2013

STATUTORY POLICY 111 – REVENUE

File: 12 – Financial Management Responsible Officer: Les Hotz – Director of Corporate Services Report prepared by: Lisa Benham – Acting Manager Financial Services 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to present for Council’s consideration draft Statutory Policy 111 – Revenue. 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND This is an existing Policy and is presented for consideration by Council. 3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN In accordance with Outcome 5 – Governance, 5.2 - Organisational Systems, 5.2.2 – Develop, implement and review strategic policies that assist Council in formulating innovative responses to critical and operational issues. 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS S104 (6) of the Local Government Act 2009 requires that local government ensure the financial policies of the local government are regularly reviewed and updated as necessary. S193 (3) of the Local Government Regulation 2012 requires a local government to review its revenue policy annually and in sufficient time to allow an annual budget that is consistent with the revenue policy to be adopted for the next financial year. 6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil 7 RISK MANAGEMENT Nil. 8 CONSULTATION Consultation with Councillors & Councils leadership group

47

9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER Consider this report and accept, reject or amend recommendations.

10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION Presented to Council for consideration. 11 ATTACHMENTS Statutory Policy 111 – Revenue RECOMMENDATION

That Council receives the Statutory Policy 111 - Revenue report as information and adopt Statutory Policy 111– Revenue as presented with a review date in 1 year.

48

http://infoxpert/docs/Workspace/FINANCE/Budgeting/2013-2014/2013-14 Revenue Policy Draft.docx 1 of 4

   

Policy Title:  Revenue Policy 

Policy No:  111 Policy Subject:   Financial Operations  Directorate:  Corporate Services Department:   Financial Operations  Responsible Officer:   Director of Corporate Services Authorised by:   North Burnett Regional Council  

Version  Decision Number/Council meeting or CEO Approval 

Decision Date  History 

1  Policy & Strategy Meeting  06/05/2008  Created for 2008/2009 

2  Budget Meeting  23/06/2009  Revised for 2009/2010 

3  Budget Meeting  28/07/2010  Revised for 2010/2011 

4  Budget Meeting  23/06/2011  Revised for 2011/2012 

5  Budget Meeting  07/08/2012  Revised for 2012/2013 

6       

 Authorities:    Local Government Act 2009   Local Government Regulation 2012 (LGR)    

 INTRODUCTION:  Under Section 193 (3) of the Local Government Regulation a local government must review its revenue policy annually and in sufficient time to allow an annual budget that is consistent with the revenue policy to be adopted for the next financial year.  It sets out the principles that Council will use to set its budget and identifies in broad terms the general strategy to be used for raising revenue.  OBJECTIVITIES To meet the requirements of legislation including section 193 of the Local Government Regulation 2012.   Transparency, Simplicity, Equity, Fiscal Responsibility, Efficiency and Flexibility in making of rates and charges, levying of rates, recovery of rates and charges, concessions for rates and charges and the making of Cost‐Recovery Fees.     

StatutoryPolicy

49

http://infoxpert/docs/Workspace/FINANCE/Budgeting/2013-2014/2013-14 Revenue Policy Draft.docx 2 of 4

PRINCIPLES:  The purpose of the policy  is to  identify the planning framework within which Council operates and to set out the principles used by Council for:  

Making and levying rates and charges; 

Exercising its powers to grant rebates and concessions; 

Recovery of unpaid amounts of rates and charges; and 

Methods of cost‐recovery  Whilst observing these principles Council may apply any of the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 2009 and the Local Government Regulation 2012 relating to formulating, levying, applying concessions and recovery in its system of Rates and Charges.  Revenue Policy  Section 193 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 requires the following in regard to a Local Government's Revenue Policy:  

193 ‐ Revenue Policy 

1. A local government's revenue policy for a financial year must state: 

a) the principles that the local government intends to apply in the financial year for ‐ 

i. levying rates and charges; and 

ii. granting concessions for rates and charges; and 

iii. recovering overdue rates and charges; and 

iv. cost‐recovery fees; and 

b) if the local government intends to grant concessions for rates and charges, the 

purpose for the concessions; and 

c) the extent to which physical and social infrastructure costs for a new development 

are to be funded by charges for the development. 

2. The revenue policy may state guidelines that may be used for preparing the local 

government's revenue statement. 

3. A local government must review its revenue policy annually and in sufficient time to 

allow an annual budget that is consistent with the revenue policy to be adopted for the 

next financial year. 

 Policy Period This policy will be effective  from adoption and will  remain  in  force until modified by Council resolution.     

50

http://infoxpert/docs/Workspace/FINANCE/Budgeting/2013-2014/2013-14 Revenue Policy Draft.docx 3 of 4

Policy Principles  

Making and Levying Rates and Charges In general Council will be guided by  the principle of user pays  in  the making of rates and charges so as to minimise the  impact of rating on the efficiency of the local economy.  Council will also have regard to the principles of: 

Transparency in the making of rates and charges; 

Having  in  place  a  rating  regime  that  is  simple  and  inexpensive  to administer;  

Responsibility  in  achieving  the  objectives,  actions  and  strategies  in Council’s Corporate and Operational Plans; 

Equity via a differential rating category 

Flexibility  to  take  account  of  changes  in  the  local  economy,  adverse seasonal conditions and extraordinary circumstances; 

Maintaining valuation relativities within the council; 

Maintaining council services to an appropriate standard; 

Meeting the needs and expectations of the general community; and 

Assessing availability of other revenue sources.  In levying rates Council will apply the principles of: 

Making  clear what  is  the Council’s and each  ratepayer’s  responsibility  to the rating system; 

Making the levying system simple and inexpensive to administer; 

Timing  the  levy  of  rates  to  take  into  account  the  financial  cycle  of  local economic activity, in order to assist smooth running of the local economy; and 

Equity through flexible payment arrangements for ratepayers with a lower capacity to pay. 

 Exercising Its Powers to Grant Rebates and Concessions In considering Council’s powers to grant rebates and concessions, Council will be guided by the following principles:  

Similar treatment for ratepayers with similar circumstances; 

Transparency  –  by making  clear  the  requirements  necessary  to  receive rebates and concessions; 

Flexibility – to allow Council to respond to  local economic  issues, adverse seasonal conditions and extraordinary circumstances; and 

Fairness –  in considering  the provision of community service  rebates and concessions. 

    

51

http://infoxpert/docs/Workspace/FINANCE/Budgeting/2013-2014/2013-14 Revenue Policy Draft.docx 4 of 4

Recovery of Unpaid Amounts of Rates and Charges Council will exercise  its rate recovery powers  in order  to reduce  the overall rate burden on ratepayers. It will be guided by the following principles:  

Transparency  –  by  making  clear  the  obligations  of  ratepayers  and  the processes  used  by  Council  in  assisting  them  meet  their  financial obligations; 

Making the processes used to recover outstanding rates and charges clear, simple to administer and cost effective; 

Equity – by having regard to providing the same treatment for ratepayers with similar circumstances; and 

Flexibility  –  by  responding  where  necessary  to  changes  in  the  local economy. 

 The making of Cost‐recovery Fees In making Cost‐recovery Fees Council will apply the principles of: • Endeavouring to recover the full cost of the service provided for which the cost recovery fee is remitted so as to minimise the effect on ratepayers; • Making the levying of cost‐recovery fees simple, efficient, and inexpensive to administer in order to minimise costs; • Clarity in the method of calculating the amounts payable by a ratepayer. 

 Operating Capability The change in operating capability of the Council is disclosed as the bottom line of the Operating Statement.  Council  intends to progressively  improve the quality of  its operations to enable funds to be available  to ensure  the  long  term maintenance of  the Council’s  infrastructure. Such action is being assisted by Council seeking alternative means of funding through grants, private works and productivity improvements and operation of business units. 

52

GOV 7 07.2013

COST RECOVERY & NON-REGULATORY CHARGES FOR 2013-14

File: 12 – Financial Management Responsible Officer: Les Hotz – Director of Corporate Services Report prepared by: Lisa Benham – Acting Manager Financial Services 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to present for Council’s consideration draft Cost Recovery & Non-Regulatory Charges for 2013-14 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND Cost Recovery & Non-Regulatory Charges for 2013/14 to be adopted effective as at adoption date (except for Waste – Tyres & Community Grant Changes 1 September 2013) 3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN In accordance with Outcome 5 – Governance, 5.2 – Organisational Systems, 5.2.1 – Provide responsive and efficient systems to enable the delivery of Council services. 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Change of Policy around Grants to Community Organisations 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS S97 (8) of the Local Government Act 2009 states that a local government may fix a cost-recovery fee by resolution even if the fee had previously been fixed by a local law. S98 of the Local Government Act requires that Council have a register of Cost Recovery Fees. 6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil 7 RISK MANAGEMENT Nil.

53

8 CONSULTATION Consultation with Councillors & Councils leadership group 9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER Consider this report and accept, reject or amend recommendations.

10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION Presented for consideration by Council. 11 ATTACHMENTS Cost Recovery & Non-Regulatory Charges for 2013-14 RECOMMENDATION

That Council receive the report in relation to Cost Recovery and Non-Regulatory Charges for 2013-14 and that these charges be adopted as amended.

54

GOV 8 07.2013

RATES REBATE – NEW RESIDENTIAL DWELLING File: 12 – Financial Management Responsible Officer: Les Hotz – Director of Corporate Services Report prepared by: Lisa Benham – Acting Manager Financial Services 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information in relation to the Residential Rates Rebate program that Council established so a review can be undertaken. 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND At Council’s General Meeting on the 19th July 2011. The following motion was passed by Council. Cr PW Francis moved and Cr PW Lobegeier seconded: That Council offers two (2) years General Rate Rebate of an amount equivalent to the residential minimum general rate for all new residential dwellings constructed within the North Burnett Region upon final inspection approval; Since the policies inception in July 2011 there have been a total of 19 applicable building applications that have received finals, 12 have been granted the rebate and 7 have not applied for the rebate. There have been 7 finals given that did not meet the criteria as construction had started before 19/7/2011 3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN In accordance with Outcome 5 – Governance, 5.2 - Organisational Systems, 5.2.2 – Develop, implement and review strategic policies that assist Council in formulating innovative responses to critical and operational issues. 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS As indicated in officers comments 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Nil 6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Over the course of this policy Council has provided a total of $10,100 in rebates YTD, with another $4,410 pre-committed for the 2013-14 year. 7 RISK MANAGEMENT Nil.

55

8 CONSULTATION Consultation with Management and Councillors has been undertaken 9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER Receive this report and allow the policy to continue as is

Receive this report and make changes to the current policy

Receive this report and cease the policy as at 19 July 2013.

10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION There have been 70 class 1a Building applications received since this policies inception in July 2011 and only 19 have received final status. This policy had 2 purposes, (1) an incentive to build in the North Burnett and (2) to get people to get finals on their dwelling. ATTACHMENTS Nil RECOMMENDATION That 1. Council receive the report in relation to Rates Rebate – New Residential

Dwellings 2. Cease the policy as at 19 July 2013 (2 years from inception) noting that any

final inspections received after this date will not be eligible for this rebate and 3. All final inspections on or before this date need to have an application to

Council by 31 July 2013 to be considered under this current rebate Policy.

56

ECON Development Statistics – May 2013

Responsible Officer: Bob Savage – Director of Development & Environment Report prepared by: Sue-Ann Jensen – Administration Officer (Development and

Environment) 9 July, 2013 – Standing Committee 

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information on the number and type of development applications received for the month identified. 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The attached report details Building, Planning and Plumbing Statistics

MONTHLY COMPARISON  

TYPE OF APPLICATION 

May‐12 

Jun‐12 

Jul‐12 

Aug‐12 

Sep‐12 

Oct‐12 

Nov‐12 

Dec‐12 

Jan‐13 

Feb‐13 

Mar‐13 

Apr‐13 

May‐13 

Total    (13 

Months)

Planning  6  6  4  9  2  2  4  2  2  3  2  4  2  48 

Building  20  17  14  22  16  21  17  8  10  18  17  7  12  199 

Plumbing  5  6  11  3  3  6  1  7  3  13  0  5  3  66 

TOTAL  31  29  29  34  21  29  22  17  15  34  19  16  17  313 

  NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED ‐ MAY 2013 

Biggenden  Eidsvold Gayndah  Monto  Mundubbera  Perry  TOTAL 

PLANNING                      

* MCU        1           1 

* ROL                    0 

* Other  1                 1 

Sub ‐ Total Planning  1  0  1  0  0  0  2 

BUILDING                      *Domestic (Dlwg/Shed/pools etc)  3  1  5  1  1     11 

$ value of work  $49,182  $9,000  $916,130  $217,370  $43,480  $0  $1,235,162 

* Commercial/Industrial                 1  1 $ value of work                 100,000  100,000 

Sub ‐ Total Building  3  1  5  1  1  1  12 

PLUMBING                      

* Domestic (Dwg/Shed)        2  1        3 

* Commercial/Industrial                    0 

Sub ‐ Total Plumbing        2  1  0  0  3 

TOTAL  4  1  8  2  1  1  17 

57

Yearly Comparison ‐  Number of Applications Received 

TYPE OF APPLICATION 

2008  2009  2010  2011 2012  2013     (to date) 

PROJECTED TOTAL 2013 

PROJECTED % INCREASE/DECREASE FROM PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR 

Planning  54  54  44  37  47  13  31  ‐52%       

Building  271  236  189  186  189  64  154  ‐23% 

Plumbing  90  99  83  72  59  24  58  2% 

TOTAL  415  389  316  295  295  101  243  Average   ‐24% 

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE EXCEEDED THE ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT TIME (SPA) 

TYPE OF APPLICATION 

Jun‐12 Jul‐12 

Aug‐12 

Sep‐12 

Oct‐12 

Nov‐12 

Dec‐12 

Jan‐13 

Feb‐13 

Mar‐13 

Apr‐13 

May‐13 

Planning                    1                

Building                                     

Plumbing                                     

TOTAL  0  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0        0 

  

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009       2010     2011       2012 2013(to date)

Number of Applications

Financial Year

Yearly Comparison of Applications Received up to the date of this Report

Planning

Building

Plumbing

58

Note

The number of Building Applications is the combined total of all those received by Council and Private Certifiers.

The total projected figures are for the calendar year not financial year. The total value of building work may not be accurate. The values are extracted from the information

provided on the application forms and in some cases they are absent or understated. The applications noted above are those received for the month, some may not yet be approved.

3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN In accordance with Outcome 2 Economic Development and Tourism with particular relevance to section 2.4 Land Use Planning. 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Not applicable 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Integrated Planning Act 1997, Sustainable Planning Act 2009, Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002, Building Act 1975. 6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. 7 RISK MANAGEMENT Not applicable. 8 CONSULTATION Council’s ‘in house’ Staff (Planning, Building, Engineering and Environmental Health), Council’s Consultants (Town Planners, Plumbing Inspector, Engineers etc.) and Government Departments if and when required as Referral Agencies.

59

9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER

Information only.

10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION For Council’s consideration 11 ATTACHMENTS Planning, Building and Plumbing applications for the month of May.

North Burnett Regional Council Approvals Report

Application Number

Property Address Description Assessment Number Value

00008822//1133 7711 BBUUNNCCEE SSTTRREEEETT,, MMUUNNDDUUBBBBEERRAA QQLLDD 44662266

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- SShheedd aanndd CCaarrppoorrtt

6600222222--0000000000--000000 $$4433,,448800..0000

00008833//1133 1100 BBRRIIDDGGEE SSTTRREEEETT,, GGAAYYNNDDAAHH QQLLDD 44662255 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 3300554488--0000000000--000000 $$55,,000000..0000

00008844//1133 2222 CCHHAARRLLEESS DDAARRWWIINN DDRRIIVVEE,, MMOONNTTOO QQLLDD 44663300 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 4400111133--1111221100--000000 $$221177,,337700..0000

00008855//1133 22005599 GGOOOORROOOOLLBBAA--BBIIGGGGEENNDDEENN RROOAADD,, DDIIDDCCOOTT QQLLDD 44662211

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- AAlltteerraattiioonnss && AAddddiittiioonnss ttoo EExxiissttiinngg DDwweelllliinngg

1100775566--0000000000--000000 $$88,,773322..0000

00008866//1133 3311 MMTT DDEEBBAATTAABBLLEE RROOAADD,, IIDDEERRAAWWAAYY QQLLDD 44662255

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- RReemmoovvaall DDwweelllliinngg 3311667799--5500000000--000000 $$220000,,000000..0000

00008877//1133 2233 WWAARRTTOONN SSTTRREEEETT,, GGAAYYNNDDAAHH QQLLDD 44662255 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 3300334499--0000000000--000000 $$335500,,000000..0000

00008888//1133 AABBBBOOTTTTSS RROOAADD,, GGAAYYNNDDAAHH QQLLDD 44662255 PPLLAANNNNIINNGG -- EExxttrraaccttiivvee IInndduussttrryy ((HHaarrdd RRoocckk QQuuaarrrryy))

3311668899--1100000000--000000 $$00..0000

00008899//1133 2233 WWAARRTTOONN SSTTRREEEETT,, GGAAYYNNDDAAHH QQLLDD 44662255

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- NNeeww DDwweelllliinngg 3300334499--0000000000--000000 $$00..0000

00009900//1133 22 QQUUEEEENN SSTTRREEEETT,, AABBEERRCCOORRNN QQLLDD 44662277 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- SShheedd 2200001177--1100000000--000000 $$99,,000000..0000

00009911//1133 1111 QQUUEEEENN SSTTRREEEETT,, DDAALLLLAARRNNIILL QQLLDD 44662211

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- GGaarraaggee aanndd AAwwnniinngg 1100442200--4400000000--000000 $$4400,,445500..0000

00009922//1133 2211 PPIINNEE SSTTRREEEETT,, KKAALLPPOOWWAARR QQLLDD 44663300

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- AAlltteerraattiioonnss && AAddddiittiioonnss ttoo EExxiissttiinngg DDwweelllliinngg

4400004455--4400000000--000000 $$00..0000

00009933//1133 22005599 GGOOOORROOOOLLBBAA--BBIIGGGGEENNDDEENN RROOAADD,, DDIIDDCCOOTT QQLLDD 44662211

PPLLAANNNNIINNGG -- BBoouunnddaarryy RReellaaxxaattiioonn 1100775566--0000000000--000000 $$00..0000

00009944//1133 2233AA GGEEOORRGGEE SSTTRREEEETT,, BBIIGGGGEENNDDEENN QQLLDD 44662211

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- RReemmoovvaall DDwweelllliinngg ((OOUUTT))

1100008844--0000000000--000000 $$00..0000

60

00009955//1133 338833 BBEERROONNNNEE RROOAADD,, GGAAYYNNDDAAHH QQLLDD 44662255

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- AAmmeenniittyy BBuuiillddiinngg 3311115533--1100000000--000000 $$00..0000

00009966//1133 7766 PPOORRTTEERR SSTTRREEEETT,, GGAAYYNNDDAAHH QQLLDD 44662255

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 3300339977--1100000000--000000 $$336611,,113300..0000

00009977//1133 7766 PPOORRTTEERR SSTTRREEEETT,, GGAAYYNNDDAAHH QQLLDD 44662255

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg

3300339977--1100000000--000000 $$00..0000

00110011//1133 MMOOOONNTTAA SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500227766--0000000000--000000 $$110000,,000000..0000

TOTAL  $1,335,162.00 

61

ECON 2 Development Statistics – June 2013

Responsible Officer: Bob Savage – Director of Development & Environment Report prepared by: Sue-Ann Jensen – Administration Officer (Development and

Environment) 9 July, 2013 – Standing Committee 

1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information on the number and type of development applications received for the month identified. 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The attached report details Building, Planning and Plumbing Statistics

  NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS RECEIVED ‐ JUNE 2013 

Biggenden  Eidsvold Gayndah  Monto  Mundubbera  Perry  TOTAL 

PLANNING                      

* MCU           1        1 

* ROL     1     1  1     3 

* Other  1                 1 

Sub ‐ Total Planning  1  1  0  2  1  0  5 

BUILDING                      *Domestic (Dlwg/Shed/pools etc)  2     5  1     7  15 

$ value of work  $15,000     $273,900  $31,500  $0  $992,655  $1,313,055 

* Commercial/Industrial                 2  2 $ value of work                 200,000  200,000 

Sub ‐ Total Building  2  0  5  1  0  9  17 

PLUMBING                      

* Domestic (Dwg/Shed)  1              10  11 

* Commercial/Industrial                    0 

Sub ‐ Total Plumbing  1  0  0  0  0  10  11 

TOTAL  4  1  5  3  1  19  33  MONTHLY COMPARISON  

TYPE OF APPLICATION 

Jun‐12 

Jul‐12 

Aug‐12 

Sep‐12 

Oct‐12 

Nov‐12 

Dec‐12 

Jan‐13 

Feb‐13 

Mar‐13 

Apr‐13 

May‐13 

Jun‐13 

Total    (13 

Months)

Planning  6  4  9  2  2 4 2 2 3 2 4  2  5 47

Building  17  14  22  16  21 17 8 10 18 17 7  12  17 196

Plumbing  6  11  3  3  6 1 7 3 13 0 5  3  11 72

TOTAL  29  29  34  21  29 22 17 15 34 19 16  17  33 315 

 

62

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2008 2009       2010     2011       2012 2013(to date)

Number of Applications

Financial Year

Yearly Comparison of Applications Received up to the date of this Report

Planning

Building

Plumbing

Yearly Comparison ‐  Number of Applications Received 

TYPE OF APPLICATION 

2008  2009       

2010     

2011       

2012 2013      (to date) 

PROJECTED TOTAL 2013 

PROJECTED % INCREASE/DECREASE FROM PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR 

Planning  54  54  44  37  47  18  36  ‐31%       

Building  271  236  189  186  189  81  162  ‐17% 

Plumbing  90  99  83  72  59  35  70  19% 

TOTAL  415  389  316  295  295  134  268  Average   ‐10%  

NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE EXCEEDED THE ALLOWABLE ASSESSMENT TIME (SPA) 

TYPE OF APPLICATION 

Jul‐12  Aug‐12  Sep‐12  Oct‐12  Nov‐12  Dec‐12  Jan‐13  Feb‐13  Mar‐13  Apr‐13  May‐13  Jun‐13 

Planning                 1                   

Building                                     

Plumbing                                     

TOTAL  0  0  0  0  0  1  0  0  0  0  0  0 

  

63

Note

The number of Building Applications is the combined total of all those received by Council and Private Certifiers.

The total projected figures are for the calendar year not financial year. The total value of building work may not be accurate. The values are extracted from the information

provided on the application forms and in some cases they are absent or understated. The applications noted above are those received for the month, some may not yet be approved.

3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN In accordance with Outcome 2 Economic Development and Tourism with particular relevance to section 2.4 Land Use Planning. 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Not applicable 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Integrated Planning Act 1997, Sustainable Planning Act 2009, Plumbing and Drainage Act 2002, Building Act 1975. 6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Not applicable. 7 RISK MANAGEMENT Not applicable. 8 CONSULTATION Council’s ‘in house’ Staff (Planning, Building, Engineering and Environmental Health), Council’s Consultants (Town Planners, Plumbing Inspector, Engineers etc.) and Government Departments if and when required as Referral Agencies.

64

9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER

Information only.

10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION For Council’s consideration 11 ATTACHMENTS Planning, Building and Plumbing applications for the month of June.

North Burnett Regional Council Approvals Report

Application Number

Property Address Description Assessment Number Value

00009988//1133 1100 CCHHIICCHHEESSTTEERR SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- SShheedd 5500119944--0000000000--000000 $$2222,,665555

00009999//1133 55 AARRTTHHUURR SSTTRREEEETT,, GGAAYYNNDDAAHH QQLLDD 44662255 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDuupplleexx 3300220044--0000000000--000000 $$00

00110000//1133 MMAALLLLEETTTT SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500220077--0000000000--000000 $$110000,,000000

00110022//1133 MMOOOONNTTAA SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500227766--0000000000--000000 $$110000,,000000

00110033//1133 3322 EEDDWWAARRDD SSTTRREEEETT,, BBIIGGGGEENNDDEENN QQLLDD 44662211

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- SShhaaddee SShheelltteerr

1100001155--0000000000--000000 $$1144,,000000

00110044//1133 MMAASSOONN SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500221122--0000000000--000000 $$119944,,000000

00110055//1133 HHUUNNTTEERR SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500221122--0000000000--000000 $$119944,,000000

00110066//1133 MMAASSOONN SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500221122--0000000000--000000 $$119944,,000000

00110077//1133 SSHHAANNDD SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500221122--0000000000--000000 $$119944,,000000

00110088//1133 11994444 YYAARRRROOLL RROOAADD,, VVEENNTTNNOORR QQLLDD 44663300

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- AAlltteerraattiioonnss && AAddddiittiioonnss ttoo EExxiissttiinngg DDwweelllliinngg

4411224455--0000000000--000000 $$3311,,550000

00110099//1133 HHUUNNTTEERR SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500221122--0000000000--000000 $$119944,,000000

00111111//1133 999922 DDEEEEPP CCRREEEEKK RROOAADD,, DDEEGGIILLBBOO QQLLDD 44662211 PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 1100664400--0000000000--000000 $$00

00111100//1133 SSIIMMOONN SSTTRREEEETT,, GGAAYYNNDDAAHH QQLLDD 44662255 BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- SShhaaddee SShheelltteerr

3300004422--0000000000--000000 $$11,,440000

65

Application Number

Property Address Description Assessment Number Value

00111122//1133 110077 BBEELLLLEERRTTSS RROOAADD,, CCOOAALLSSTTOOUUNN LLAAKKEESS QQLLDD 44662211

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- AAlltteerraattiioonnss && AAddddiittiioonnss ttoo EExxiissttiinngg DDwweelllliinngg

3300881122--1111000000--000000 $$220000,,000000

00111133//1133 PPOOLLIICCEE SSTTAATTIIOONN,, 114433 HHEEUUSSMMAANN SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- SSeeppttiicc TTaannkk

5500009900--0000000000--000000 $$00

00111144//1133 3322113399 MMOONNTTOO--BBIILLOOEELLAA RROOAADD,, MMOOOONNFFOORRDD QQLLDD 44663300

PPLLAANNNNIINNGG -- MMaatteerriiaall CChhaannggee ooff UUssee -- PPiiggggeerryy

4411337766--1100000000--000000 $$00

00111155//1133 MMOOOONNTTAA SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- 33 xx DDwweelllliinngg

5500227766--0000000000--000000 $$00

00111166//1133 MMOOOONNTTAA SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- 33 xx ddwweelllliinnggss

5500227766--0000000000--000000 $$00

00111177//1133 MMAALLLLEETTTT SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500220077--0000000000--000000 $$00

00111188//1133 MMAALLLLEETTTT SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500220077--0000000000--000000 $$00

00111199//1133 MMAASSOONN SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg

5500221122--0000000000--000000 $$00

00112200//1133 HHUUNNTTEERR SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500221122--0000000000--000000 $$00

00112211//1133 SSHHAANNDD SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500221122--0000000000--000000 $$00

00112222//1133 MMAASSOONN SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500221122--0000000000--000000 $$00

00112233//1133 HHUUNNTTEERR SSTTRREEEETT,, MMOOUUNNTT PPEERRRRYY QQLLDD 44667711

PPLLUUMMBBIINNGG -- DDwweelllliinngg 5500221122--0000000000--000000 $$00

00112244//1133 552200 GGLLEENNRRAAEE DDIIPP RROOAADD,, GGLLEENNRRAAEE QQLLDD 44662266

PPLLAANNNNIINNGG -- RReeccoonnffiigguurraattiioonn ooff LLoott ((11 iinnttoo 44))

6600553399--0000000000--000000 $$00

00112266//1133 2255 BBOOYYDD SSTTRREEEETT,, GGAAYYNNDDAAHH QQLLDD 44662255

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- CCaarrppoorrtt 3300556633--0000000000--000000 $$44,,000000

00112277//1133 7700 AALLIICCEE SSTTRREEEETT,, BBIIGGGGEENNDDEENN QQLLDD 44662211

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- SShhaaddee SSttrruuccttuurree

1100119911--0000000000--000000 $$11,,000000

00113300//1133 113322 OO BBIILL BBIILL RROOAADD,, EEIIDDSSVVOOLLDD QQLLDD 44662277

PPLLAANNNNIINNGG -- 22 LLoott SSuubbddiivviissiioonn

2200448899--9900000000--000000 $$00

00112288//1133 110022--110044 CCAAPPPPEERR SSTTRREEEETT,, GGAAYYNNDDAAHH QQLLDD 44662255

BBUUIILLDDIINNGG -- RReessttuummppiinngg

3300006622--0000000000--000000 $$6688,,550000

00112299//1133 CCAARROOLLIINNEE SSTTRREEEETT,, BBIIGGGGEENNDDEENN QQLLDD 44662211

((PPLLAANNNNIINNGG)) EExxtteennssiioonn ttoo KKiinnddeerrggaarrtteenn ((BBuuiillddiinngg WWoorrkk nnoott AAssssoocciiaatteedd wwiitthh aann MMCCUU))

1100222244--0000000000--000000 $$00

00113311//1133 550011 MMAAHHOOOONN CCRREEEEKK RROOAADD,, CCAANNIIAA QQLLDD 44663300

PPLLAANNNNIINNGG -- RReeccoonnffiigguurraattiioonn ooff 11 LLoott iinnttoo 22 LLoottss

4411551188--0000000000--000000 $$00

TOTAL  $1,513,055

66

ECON 03 STATE GOVERNMENT INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES DISCUSSION PAPER

Attachments: Discussion Paper

File: Responsible Officer: Bob Savage – Director of Development & Environment Report prepared by: Bob Savage – Director of Development & Environment 16 July 2013 – Standing Committee Meeting 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the call for comments on the recently released discussion paper: Infrastructure Planning and Charging Framework Review

2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The discussion paper, released on 28 June 2013 seeks comments on options for the reform of Queensland’s local infrastructure planning and charges framework. The purpose of the review is to identify reforms necessary to deliver an infrastructure charges framework that supports long term local authority sustainability and a prosperous development industry in Queensland. The discussion paper presents reform options for:

Framework fundamentals – infrastructure scope, identification of trunk and non-trunk infrastructure and infrastructure planning

Charges mechanisms – planned and capped charging mechanisms

Framework elements – supporting elements of the framework, including: conditions, offsets, refunds, credits, infrastructure agreements, dispute resolution and deferred payment of charges.

3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN 3.5.1 Develop and implement NBRC Planning Scheme and provide effective and efficient planning services 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Further work on Councils current adopted infrastructure charges will be deferred pending the outcome of this review

67

5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Covered under the Queensland governments planning reform agenda that includes a single State Planning Policy and State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) reforms 6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Employee costs only for preparation of submission. 7 RISK MANAGEMENT NA 8 CONSULTATION State government is consulting with public at present 9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER

Prepare separate submission or join with LGAQ submission

10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION For discussion at Planning and Policy Committee meeting

11 ATTACHMENTS Discussion Paper RECOMMENDATION

68

Discussion paper: Infrastructure planning and charging framework review

Options for the reform of Queensland’s local infrastructure planning and charges framework

28 June 2013

69

The Department State Development, Infrastructure and Planning is responsible for driving the economic development of Queensland.

© State of Queensland, Department State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, June 2013, 100 George Street, Brisbane Qld 4000. (Australia)

Licence: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY 3.0 Australia licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. Enquiries about this licence or any copyright issues can be directed to the Senior Advisor, Governance on telephone (07) 3224 2085 or in

writing to PO Box 15009, City East, Queensland 4002.

Attribution: The State of Queensland, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of information. However, copyright protects this publication. The State of Queensland has no objection to this material being reproduced, made available online or electronically but only if it is recognised as the owner of the copyright and this material remains unaltered.

The Queensland Government is committed to providing accessible services to Queenslanders of all cultural and linguistic backgrounds. If you have difficulty understanding this publication and need a translator, please call the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) on telephone 131 450 and ask them to telephone the QDepartment of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning on telephone (07) 3227 8548.

ueensland

Disclaimer: While every care has been taken in preparing this publication, the State of Queensland accepts no responsibility for decisions or actions taken as a result of any data, information, statement or advice, expressed or implied, contained within. To the best of our knowledge, the content was correct at the time of publishing. Any references to legislation are not an interpretation of the law. They are to be used as a guide only. The information in this publication is general and does not take into account individual circumstances or situations. Where appropriate, independent legal advice should be sought.

An electronic copy of this report is available on the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning’s website at www.dsdip.qld.gov.au To obtain a printed copy of this report, please contact us via the contact details provided at the end of this report.

Discussion paper:

70

Contents Contents ................................................................................................................iii

Figures................................................................................................................... iv

Tables .................................................................................................................... iv

Summary................................................................................................................. v

1. Purpose .........................................................................................................6

1.1 About the discussion paper ....................................................................6

1.2 Scope....................................................................................................7

1.3 Stakeholder working group ....................................................................7

1.4 Timeframes ...........................................................................................8

1.5 Consultation..........................................................................................9

1.6 How to make a submission .....................................................................9

1.7 Further information................................................................................9

2. Context ........................................................................................................ 10

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................ 10

2.2 Infrastructure charges in Queensland ................................................... 10

2.3 Interstate snapshot.............................................................................. 12

3. Outcomes..................................................................................................... 14

4. Reform overview ........................................................................................... 15

5. Part 1: Framework fundamentals.................................................................... 17

5.1 Infrastructure scope............................................................................. 17

5.2 Identification of trunk and non-trunk infrastructure ...............................23

5.3 Infrastructure planning ........................................................................ 27

6. Part 2: Framework mechanism options........................................................... 37

6.1 Capped charges................................................................................... 37

6.2 Planned charges ..................................................................................40

7. Part 3: Framework element options................................................................48

7.1 Conditions...........................................................................................48

7.2 Offsets and refunds .............................................................................50

7.3 Credits ................................................................................................54

7.4 Appeals and dispute resolution ............................................................ 57

7.5 Infrastructure agreements....................................................................59

7.6 Deferred payments .............................................................................. 61

8. Other framework issues ................................................................................65

8.1 Alternative funding and financing .........................................................65

Discussion paper:

71

8.2 Resolutions and distributor-retailer board decisions .............................67

8.3 Transitional arrangements ...................................................................68

9. Next steps ....................................................................................................69

9.1 Issues requiring further investigation ...................................................69

Appendix 1: Have your say......................................................................................70

Appendix 2: SPRP charges ..................................................................................... 75

Appendix 3: Interstate snapshot............................................................................. 79

Appendix 4: Example essential infrastructure list .................................................... 81

Appendix 5: Specifications and assumptions used for impact assessment ...............82

References ............................................................................................................92

Figures Figure 1—Reform timeframe......................................................................................8 Figure 2—Reform options structure......................................................................... 15 Figure 3—Planned charges assessment process...................................................... 41 Figure 4—Feasbility and sustainability connectivity .................................................42

Tables Table 1—Reform outcomes ..................................................................................... 14 Table 2—Infrastructure scope options..................................................................... 18 Table 3—Impact of reduced infrastructure scope ..................................................... 21 Table 4—Residential impact ................................................................................... 21 Table 5—Commercial (retail) impact........................................................................22 Table 6—Industry impact........................................................................................22 Table 7—Identification of trunk and non-trunk options.............................................24 Table 8—Infrastructure planning reform options .....................................................29 Table 9—Proposed infrastructure planning process .................................................30 Table 10—Local government financial sustainability indicators ................................42 Table 11—Example development feasibility assumptions .........................................44 Table 12—Conditions reform options ......................................................................49 Table 13—Offsets and refunds reform options ......................................................... 51 Table 14—Credits reform options ............................................................................56 Table 15—Appeals and dispute resolution reform options ........................................58 Table 16—Infrastructure agreements reform options................................................60 Table 17—Deferred payments reform options ..........................................................62

Discussion paper:

72

Discussion paper: Infrastructure planning and charging framework review Options for reform of Queensland’s local infrastructure planning and charges framework - v -

Summary In February 2013, the Queensland Government commenced a review of the local infrastructure planning and charges framework. The purpose of the review is to identify reforms necessary to deliver an infrastructure charges framework that supports long-term local authority (local government and distributor-retailer) sustainability and a prosperous development industry in Queensland.

The review also supports the Queensland Government’s broader planning and development system reforms, which are targeted at ensuring sustainable development outcomes and supporting the state’s continued growth and prosperity.

The options for reform presented in this discussion paper are focused on achieving four key outcomes: certainty, equity, local authority financial sustainability and development feasibility. They have been developed following a targeted stakeholder engagement process with local authority and development industry representatives. The reforms address the three principal areas of the framework:

the scope and identification of trunk and non-trunk infrastructure under the infrastructure charges framework

the infrastructure planning and charges mechanisms to apply under the new framework

the supporting elements of the framework, including: conditions, offsets, refunds, credits, infrastructure agreements, dispute resolution and deferred payment of charges.

The Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning is seeking feedback from all interested stakeholders on how the infrastructure charges framework can best support a growing, sustainable and prosperous Queensland. Following the conclusion of consultation preferred reforms options will be identified for implementation from 1 July 2014. The finalisation and implementation of these reforms will be undertaken in consultation with key stakeholders.

73

1. Purpose

1.1 About the discussion paper This discussion paper outlines options for establishing a long-term infrastructure planning and charges framework that is equitable, certain and supports local authority (local government and distributor-retailer) financial sustainability and development investment throughout Queensland.

The purpose of this discussion paper is to gather stakeholder views on possible reform options. The reform options presented in the paper focus on three areas of the framework:

Part 1: Framework fundamentals—infrastructure scope, identification of trunk and non-trunk infrastructure and infrastructure planning

Part 2: Charges mechanisms—charges mechanisms to apply under the new framework

Part 3: Framework elements—supporting elements of the framework, including: conditions, offsets, refunds, credits, infrastructure agreements, dispute resolution and deferred payment of charges.

For each part, the discussion paper presents stakeholder views, options for reform and analysis of the key issues. The discussion paper includes both stakeholder views and analysis and commentary from the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (the department). Stakeholder views presented in the paper are clearly identified and should not be taken to be the position of the department.

The department has commissioned a number of specialist consultancies to undertake analysis and review of components of the framework. The department also established a working group involving representatives from peak bodies in the local government, planning and building and development sectors to facilitate the exchange of views on opportunities for improvements to current arrangements. This work has supported the development of reform options and analysis presented in this paper.

The options for reform are part of the Queensland Government’s broader planning reform agenda that includes the introduction of a single State Planning Policy (single SPP) and State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) reforms. These initiatives are a key component of the government’s reform agenda to build a resilient and competitive Queensland economy.

The timing of the review is linked to the economic and planning reform priorities of the Queensland Government.

Discussion paper:

74

1.2 Scope The focus of the review is the infrastructure networks delivered by local authorities to support development including water supply, wastewater, stormwater, roads and public parks and land for community facilities. Any further reference to infrastructure in this document should be interpreted as a reference to these networks unless stated otherwise.

The discussion paper specifically excludes consideration of state charges and conditions, however, decisions taken around reforms to the local infrastructure arrangements may have implications for state agency planning and development considerations.

The maximum charge amounts to apply under the long-term framework are also not considered in this discussion paper. These charges will be influenced by changes to the broader framework introduced through the reform process (such as conditions, offsets and credits). Following the conclusion of consultation on the discussion paper, the department will commence a detailed analysis of the capped charges. For more information on this process, refer to section 6.1.

1.3 Stakeholder working group The first stage of the review was undertaken using a stakeholder working group, consisting of local government and development industry representatives, to identify issues with the existing framework and consider options for reform. The discussion paper draws on the outcomes of the stakeholder workshop process in framing reform options and identifying their implications.

The following organisations were represented on the stakeholder working group:

Local Government Association of Queensland

Brisbane City Council

Gold Coast City Council

Townsville City Council

Urban Development Institute of Australia

Council of Mayors (SEQ)

Property Council of Australia

Planning Institute of Australia

Queensland Master Builders Association

Housing Industry Association

Discussion paper:

75

Shopping Centre Council of Australia

Queensland Environmental Law Association

The working group was not tasked with reaching a consensus view on framework issues or reform options, but to provide feedback on issues and options to inform the review. Between February and May 2013, the department facilitated seven workshops with stakeholders.

The department has also met with and sought feedback from distributor-retailers during the preparation of this paper.

1.4 Timeframes A new infrastructure charges framework is intended to commence from 1 July 2014.

The discussion paper will be available for public consultation, from the 1 July to 9 August 2013 and will provide stakeholders the opportunity to review the reform options presented in the paper, consider and analyse the implications and prepare a response to the department.

Following the conclusion of the public consultation period, the department will work to develop a preferred set of reform options taking into consideration feedback received during consultation. The preferred set of reforms will be presented for government approval in late 2013.

The department will work with key stakeholders during the implementation phase of the review to ensure the delivery of a fit for purpose framework. This will include providing guidance material and support for local authorities during the preparation for the commencement of framework reforms.

Figure 1—Reform timeframe

Discussion paper:

76

1.5 Consultation The discussion paper is available for public consultation until 9 August 2013.

Local authorities, development industry participants, the community and other interested stakeholders are encouraged to make a submission. Submissions should focus on:

the impacts (financial, administrative, time) of proposed reform options outlined in the discussion paper

alternative reform options or solutions

evidence to support the existence of identified problems.

Questions have been posed throughout the discussion paper as prompts for feedback. A consolidated list of questions is provided in Appendix 1.

1.6 How to make a submission Please forward your submission to the department at: Post: Infrastructure Charges Framework Review

PO Box 15009 City East QLD 4002

Email: infrastructure.planning@dsdip.qld.gov.au

All submissions must include a nominated point of contact, with the full name and residential or business address contact details of the submitter.

Information considered confidential should be clearly identified. Please note that the content of submissions may be accessed under the Right to Information Act 2009.

1.7 Further information For further information about local infrastructure charges in Queensland, please visit: www.dsdip.qld.gov.au or email infrastructure.planning@dsdip.qld.gov.au

Discussion paper:

77

2. Context

2.1 Introduction As the fourth largest contributor to Gross State Product (GSP) and jobs in Queensland (ABS, 2011a), the development and construction industry is an important contributor to the state economy. In 2010–11 it directly employed 183 800 people, or 9.2 per cent of total employment, in Queensland (ABS, 2011a) and generated $22.3 billion in value to the state’s economy (ABS, 2011b). To support this important sector of the economy, the government’s Property and Construction Strategy identifies the need for reform to increase the competiveness of the development sector and address growth in regulatory complexity and costs and charges levied on new development.

The infrastructure charges review will support the government’s objective to reinvigorate the development and construction industry. A key focus of the review is improving the consistency and transparency of the infrastructure charges framework as a means of supporting better project feasibility analysis and providing confidence to the development industry when planning projects.

The review is also focused on supporting the long-term sustainability of local authorities (local government and distributor-retailers). Infrastructure charges are levied by local authorities to support the delivery of trunk infrastructure necessary to accommodate new development and growth in local communities.

Infrastructure charges are one mechanism through which local authorities can collect money to fund new infrastructure. By providing a cost-effective and administratively efficient infrastructure planning and charges framework, local authorities will be better equipped to plan for and manage growth and development in local communities.

In addition, the diversity in size and income means that local authorities have differing capacities to fund services and plan, deliver and maintain infrastructure. Managing these demands has become particularly challenging for many local authorities since the global financial crisis, with revenue bases seeing only modest growth or no growth.

2.2 Infrastructure charges in Queensland

2.2.1 Framework history

Requiring monetary contributions from developers for the provision of infrastructure was first introduced into Queensland’s planning legislation in the early 1980s as ‘headworks charges’. Headworks charges were intended to contribute to the cost of water and sewer

Discussion paper:

78

infrastructure and, in certain circumstances, open space and parkland. Infrastructure Charges Plans (ICPs) were required under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 as the basis for charges.

In 2003, the requirement for the preparation of priority infrastructure plans (PIPs) was introduced. This was a move towards a ‘user-pays’ system of charging, which enabled the ‘full-costing’ of trunk infrastructure and the apportionment of charges based on demand. The introduction of PIPs and ‘PIP-influenced’ planning scheme policy (PSP) charges were sometimes characterised by sudden and noticeable increases in the level of contributions being made by applicants to the provision of public infrastructure. This caused uncertainty for the development sector and impacted on feasibility analyses.

Additionally, in 2008 the Capital Works Subsidy Scheme was terminated. The scheme had provided up to 40 per cent of funding for larger local government infrastructure projects, such as water treatment plants.

The trend towards user-pays charges, combined with the cessation of the Capital Works Subsidy Scheme and the onset of the Global Financial Crisis resulted in significant industry and local government concern regarding the cost of providing infrastructure and the increase in infrastructure charges.

In response, an independent Infrastructure Charges Taskforce was established in July 2010 to investigate options for the reform of Queensland’s infrastructure charges framework. In response to the taskforce’s recommendations, the maximum infrastructure charges framework was implemented through the State Planning Regulatory Provision (adopted charges) (SPRP) in July 2011.

The framework reforms introduced in July 2011 were intended as interim measures, with a long-term framework to be implemented from July 2014.

2.2.2 Maximum charges framework

The maximum charges framework sets a cap on the amount which local authorities can levy on development for trunk infrastructure. For example, the maximum charge for a three-bedroom dwelling is $28 000. Appendix 2 details the capped charges that apply across the range of residential and non-residential land uses that were introduced in 2011.

It is at the discretion of the local authority to set charges at any amount they consider appropriate, up to the maximum charge. There is no state government oversight of the charges set by local authorities. Local governments publish charges (usually on their websites) in an adopted infrastructure charges resolution and the method of calculating charges is simple by comparison to PIP and PSP calculations. Similarly, distributor-retailers adopt and publicise their charges, which are often collected by a local government on a distributor-retailer’s behalf. This has made it easy to determine an

Discussion paper:

79

infrastructure charge prior to lodgement of a development application, created more certainty for the development sector and simplified previously complex and costly charges calculation models for local authorities.

Since the introduction of the maximum charges framework, feedback from a range of stakeholders, and analysis undertaken by and on behalf of the department, has identified the simplicity and certainty of the capped model is a significant improvement compared with previous frameworks. However, a number of issues with the maximum charges framework have also been identified. These issues are discussed in detail throughout this report.

2.2.3 Distributor-retailers

In 2010, three local government-owned water utilities providers (distributor-retailers) were established in South East Queensland. The distributor-retailers own water and wastewater networks and provide water and wastewater services for their owner local governments. In 2012, Gold Coast City Council, Redland City Council and Logan City Council resumed responsibility for the provision of water and wastewater services in their respective local government areas. These services continue to be provided by distributor-retailers for the remaining South East Queensland local governments—Queensland Urban Utilities for Brisbane, Ipswich, Lockyer Valley, Somerset and Scenic Rim local governments, and Unity Water for the Moreton Bay and Sunshine Coast local governments.

South East Queensland local governments with a distributor-retailer only levy infrastructure contributions for three local infrastructure networks (local roads, stormwater and community facilities/parks), with the distributor-retailer responsible for water and wastewater networks.

The distributor-retailers currently use interim development assessment, appeals and infrastructure charging arrangements under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). Infrastructure contributions are regulated under the maximum charges framework, with distributor-retailers and relevant local governments each levying a proportion of the maximum charge. The total infrastructure charge levied cannot exceed the cap.

The interim arrangements are intended to be replaced with a utility model, similar to that for electricity or telecommunications suppliers, from 2014. Under the utility model, distributor-retailers will continue to be subject to the same approach to infrastructure charges as apply to local governments under SPA.

2.3 Interstate snapshot The levying of local infrastructure charges is not unique to Queensland, with each state having established infrastructure charges frameworks. There are, however, significant

Discussion paper:

80

differences in the regulatory and policy approach adopted by each jurisdiction, including: definitions of infrastructure, what is considered local versus state infrastructure, methodologies of calculating, and administration of infrastructure charges. Additionally, some jurisdictions require information on the infrastructure contributions framework to be accessible to the public (as is the case in New South Wales and Victoria), while others deal with charges on a case-by-case basis through negotiated agreements (for example South Australia).

All of these factors make it difficult to undertake a constructive comparison of infrastructure contributions between states. Appendix 3 provides an overview of the infrastructure framework arrangements for New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia.

Discussion paper:

81

3. Outcomes To support the development of reform options, four reform outcomes have been identified. These outcomes seek to deliver an infrastructure planning and charging framework that balances the competing demands facing local authorities and the development industry through a certain, equitable and efficient infrastructure charging methodology and administrative framework.

Table 1—Reform outcomes

Outcome Result

Development feasibility Makes Queensland a desirable place for the development industry to do business by:

linking the quantum of infrastructure charges to a development’s demand for infrastructure.

minimising risks to development associated with infrastructure contributions (including time delays, increased holding costs and uncertainty).

Local authority financial sustainability

Supports the long-term financial sustainability of local authorities and the planning, delivery and maintenance of local infrastructure by local authorities.

The framework is cost-effective and administratively simple to implement and maintain.

Certainty The framework is simple to understand, implement and use.

Infrastructure charges are supported by transparent published methodologies and charging schedules.

Equity Only infrastructure essential for development is eligible for infrastructure charge contributions.

The outcomes listed in Table 1 have not been used to test reform options presented in the discussion paper. Following consultation a preferred set of reform options will be tested against the outcomes.

Discussion paper:

82

4. Reform overview The infrastructure charges review has identified options for the reform of key parts of the framework, including:

Part 1: Framework fundamentals—infrastructure scope, identification of trunk and non-trunk infrastructure and infrastructure planning

Part 2: Charges mechanisms—charges mechanisms to apply under the new framework

Part 3: Framework elements—supporting elements of the framework, including: conditions, offsets, refunds, credits, infrastructure agreements, dispute resolution and deferred payment of charges.

An overview of the key parts is presented in Figure 2, with detailed discussion of the issues, stakeholder observations and reform options presented in the following sections of the paper.

Figure 2—Reform options structure

Discussion paper:

83

A number of reform options are presented for each issue, including the option to retain existing framework practices (status quo). Options are presented to generate discussion and feedback regarding framework improvements.

The supporting discussion and analysis sections do not identify preferred reform options, with submissions able to provide variations and alternatives to the options presented. Preferred options will be determined following the consideration of stakeholder feedback.

Discussion paper:

84

5. Part 1: Framework fundamentals There are three fundamental factors that need to be considered when determining the most suitable approach to funding the delivery of infrastructure:

5.1 Infrastructure scope—identifies infrastructure included within the infrastructure framework and therefore eligible to be funded through charges and conditions.

5.2 Identification of trunk and non-trunk infrastructure—differentiates between infrastructure generally servicing one development and infrastructure designed to service multiple development sites.

5.3 Infrastructure planning—informs local authority decisions about the most efficient and effective development pattern for an area.

This provides a basis for determining whether infrastructure costs should be:

funded by a developer

shared between developments

funded by a local authority through other revenue sources.

In this regard, the framework fundamentals underpin, and directly impact, all components of the framework. The following section outlines the proposed approach to identifying infrastructure scope, trunk/non-trunk infrastructure and options for infrastructure planning.

5.1 Infrastructure scope Infrastructure scope identifies the type of infrastructure to which the framework applies. In this regard, it directly impacts the amount a developer can expect to contribute when a development approval is received, either through an infrastructure charge or condition.

Under the PIP regime, the scope of infrastructure was established through Statutory Guideline 01/09—Priority infrastructure plans and infrastructure charges schedules (Statutory guideline 01/09) and the definition of ‘development infrastructure’ under SPA. Both Statutory guideline 01/09 and SPA included infrastructure essential for development and infrastructure that could be considered as desirable (for example, barbeques and shade structures in parks), but not essential.

The maximum infrastructure charges, introduced under the adopted infrastructure charges framework in 2011, represent a level of charges broadly benchmarked on the scope of infrastructure from the PIP regime.

Discussion paper:

85

5.1.1 Stakeholder issues

Stakeholders have indicated that some local authorities charge for infrastructure which is not essential and in some cases the charges are excessive.

The review process identified the inequity of requiring developers to pay for infrastructure which did not directly benefit that development but had a broader community benefit.

5.1.2 Reform objective

Provide an equitable and certain scope of infrastructure.

5.1.3 Reform options

Table 2—Infrastructure scope options

Option Key features

1. Status quo Trunk infrastructure is identified through a PIP or Water Netserv Plan (Netserv Plan) in accordance with the scope of infrastructure currently allowed in SPA or applicable to a distributor-retailer.

Infrastructure charges and conditions contribute to the provision of this infrastructure, including infrastructure such as barbeques, shade structures in parks and play equipment.

2. Introduce an essential infrastructure list

The state introduces an essential infrastructure list with reduced infrastructure scope (an example essential infrastructure list with reduced infrastructure scope is provided at Appendix 4)

Local authorities identify infrastructure through a local government infrastructure plan (LGIP) or Netserv Plan in accordance with the essential infrastructure list.

Local infrastructure charges and conditions are limited to essential infrastructure only.

Other ‘desirable’ but non-essential infrastructure is funded through alternative sources such as rates (or user charges in the case of a distributor-retailer) or not provided.

Does not preclude the use of infrastructure agreements about matters that are not on the essential infrastructure list.

Discussion paper:

86

5.1.4 Implications of reform options

The scope of infrastructure adopted will provide a basis for local authority infrastructure planning and the levying of infrastructure contributions. It will also inform other elements of the infrastructure charges framework, such as the determination of credits, offsets and refunds.

The scope outlined in the example essential infrastructure list (Appendix 4) is a basis for analysis of potential impacts on the framework of a reduced scope of infrastructure. The example list presented is intended to be refined based on stakeholder feedback. The list was developed based on the principle that a direct nexus must exist between the infrastructure scope and a development site. For example, the amount of parkland contributions has been reduced to better represent the need for local and district parks. This is based on the assumption that demand for parks is more clearly attributed to the population that live and work within close proximity to a park. A number of issues were identified during the workshop process regarding the likely impacts of the example essential infrastructure list, including:

a reduction in parkland area standards. This could result in unintended consequences such as:

- increased cost to local governments to purchase land after development or at the time of development

- requirement for local governments to use infrastructure agreements to obtain land.

parkland embellishments, which are not included in the example list, may not be provided and would be required to be funded through alternative revenue sources

developers are required to mitigate stormwater impacts on-site. Off-site solutions are funded from sources other than charges

the potential for fewer dedicated public transport corridors (such as a bikeway or pedestrian path outside of a road corridor). The lack of mechanisms to share costs on these networks and to have them within the upfront planning would mean that such opportunities, particularly in greenfield areas, may be lost

road charges being limited to road networks which have a clear nexus with the development. Higher order roads, such as local government arterial roads, that

Discussion paper:

87

are subject to large volumes of through traffic, will not be subject to local charges1

impacts on the delivery of infrastructure that is non-essential.

Quantitative analysis of essential infrastructure list

To gain an understanding of the quantitative impacts of limiting infrastructure contributions to essential infrastructure only, an analysis of the potential financial implications was undertaken on behalf of the department. The analysis uses information from six existing local government PIPs as a benchmark for the cost of infrastructure under the current framework.

A reduced scope of infrastructure was applied to existing PIP data by removing infrastructure items which are inconsistent with a proposed essential infrastructure list. The analysis specifications and assumptions are outlined in Appendix 5. The scope used in this analysis is different from the example essential infrastructure list provided at Appendix 4. These variances were necessary to ensure a consistent and simple basis for the analysis. The example essential infrastructure list in Appendix 5 has been refined since the analysis was undertaken to reflect some of the feedback received from stakeholders.

The results of the analysis show a reduction in infrastructure costs for a developer, regardless of location, based on the reduced scope of infrastructure. This reduction varied depending on the type of development as shown by the examples in Table 3.

The findings presented below do not represent new infrastructure charge amounts but are indicative of the potential impact of the reduced infrastructure scope on trunk infrastructure delivery costs. This information is presented to inform discussion and analysis of the options presented in this paper. The impacts in the table are aggregated across all networks and are not evenly spread.

Discussion paper:

1 Note: all state infrastructure is excluded from the scope of infrastructure within the local infrastructure framework.

88

Table 3—Impact of reduced infrastructure scope

Use type % reduction in infrastructure costs (not a reduction in infrastructure charges)

Detached residential 24%

Attached residential 20—28%

Worship 39%

Bulk goods 47%

Retail 18–20%

Office 21–27%

Education 34%

Indoor sport and recreation 19%

Industry 26%

Hospitals 25%

Tables 4, 5 and 6 demonstrate the impact, on a ‘cost per development type’ basis, of applying the reduced scope to existing PIP charges methodologies using standard apportionment (i.e. no discounted cashflow methodology). As a desktop study, one infill and one greenfield site was selected for each local government area. Because of the limited sample size, the cost calculation results can not be taken as an average representation of costs across all local government areas.

The information presented in Tables 4, 5 and 6 are not indicative of new capped charge amounts. Please refer to section 6.1 of the paper for more information on capped charges.

Table 4—Residential impact

(Cost per three-bedroom dwelling)

Discussion paper:

Cost scenario Sample

PIP infill PIP greenfield Essential infill Essential greenfield

City 1 $27,172 $26,059 $19,147 $20,412

City 2 $29,736 $26,983 $24,777 $21,954

Regional 1 $22,047 $22,047 $13,182 $13,182

Regional 2 $21,732 $21,677 $18,008 $17,916

Regional 3 $18,837 $21,767 $13,521 $16,919

Regional 4 $19,205 $22,144 $14,767 $15,175

89

Table 5—Commercial (retail) impact

(Cost per square metre gross floor area)

Discussion paper:

Cost scenario Sample

PIP infill PIP greenfield Essential infill Essential greenfield

City 1 $508 $363 $441 $444

City 2 $398 $331 $319 $263

Regional 1 $351 $351 $273 $273

Regional 2 $67 $63 $49 $44

Regional 3 $102 $105 $78 $82

Regional 4 $114 $118 $99 $98

Table 6—Industry impact

(Cost per square metre gross floor area)

Cost scenario Sample

PIP infill PIP greenfield Essential infill Essential greenfield

City 1 $80 $64 $70 $72

City 2 $131 $110 $104 $86

Regional 1 $59 $59 $40 $40

Regional 2 $164 $155 $145 $135

Regional 3 $37 $41 $26 $31

Regional 4 $60 $76 $46 $45

Have your say

General Do you support the removal of items from infrastructure scope that do not have a clear nexus with a development site?

What infrastructure items would you include/remove from the example essential infrastructure list (Appendix 4)?

Local authority focus What impacts do you believe the tightening of infrastructure scope will have on your local authority’s operations and activities?

What will likely be the approach to the delivery of infrastructure no longer covered by the essential infrastructure list?

90

5.2 Identification of trunk and non-trunk infrastructure

Local infrastructure fits into two categories:

trunk infrastructure

non-trunk infrastructure.

The classification of infrastructure as trunk or non-trunk has implications for a local authority’s ability to levy an infrastructure charge and the rules for conditioning, credits and offsets.

Trunk infrastructure: higher level infrastructure that is shared between different developments (for example, sewer mains and water treatment plants).

Non-trunk infrastructure: not shared with other development and is generally internal to a development site (for example, access streets within a residential subdivision).

For trunk infrastructure, a charge may be levied and/or a condition applied as part of a development approval for a developer to provide trunk infrastructure works or land. Non-trunk infrastructure is not included in charges, with developers generally conditioned by a local authority to provide the infrastructure that is required to service their development.

The costs associated with infrastructure that is neither trunk nor non-trunk cannot be recovered through an infrastructure contribution (i.e. a charge or condition). This infrastructure is required to be funded by the relevant local authority through another source, such as rates or grants or is not provided. The distributor-retailers have only one other source of revenue to fund such matters, which is user charges for water and sewerage services.

5.2.1 Stakeholder issues

Since the commencement of the maximum charges framework there has been motivation for local authorities not to identify trunk infrastructure within their infrastructure planning documents. Infrastructure not identified can then be considered non-trunk, enabling local authorities to condition a development to deliver the infrastructure in addition to paying a charge and reducing the amount of offsets, credits and refunds available.

Some stakeholders have indicated that local authorities deem all unidentified infrastructure as non-trunk infrastructure, regardless of whether the infrastructure item

Discussion paper:

91

will be shared with other existing or future developments. In these cases, the developer is responsible to provide and fund the infrastructure and is not entitled to offset it against a charge.

5.2.2 Reform objective

Provide a clear and consistent approach to identifying trunk and non-trunk infrastructure.

5.2.3 Reform options

Table 7—Identification of trunk and non-trunk options

Option Key features

1. Status quo Trunk infrastructure is infrastructure identified by the local authority in a LGIP or Netserv Plan.

All other infrastructure is considered non-trunk.

2. Introduction of ‘deemed trunk’ principles

Trunk infrastructure is infrastructure which will be shared between developments.

Trunk infrastructure is identified in a LGIP or Netserv Plan.

The state prepares a detailed guideline identifying standard specifications of trunk infrastructure to ensure consistency across LGIP and NetServ Plans.

A trunk infrastructure test process, included in regulation, is to be used by local authorities and developers to determine which unidentified infrastructure is trunk infrastructure.

5.2.4 Implications of reform options

Currently, the definition of trunk infrastructure is directly linked to the infrastructure identified in a local government PIP. That is, if the infrastructure is shown in the PIP, it is ‘defined’ as trunk infrastructure. This approach necessitates the identification and documentation of all trunk infrastructure within a PIP. Such an expectation is unreasonable, as trunk infrastructure requirements are influenced by many factors over time, including changes to the planned type, location, design and intensity of future development.

Netserv Plans operate somewhat differently but typically identify trunk water and sewerage infrastructure as well as non-trunk or reticulation infrastructure.

On this basis, it is reasonable to assume that some infrastructure not identified in a local authority’s infrastructure plan could be trunk infrastructure. As such, a clearer and more

Discussion paper:

92

consistent basis to determine whether unidentified infrastructure is trunk or non-trunk is necessary.

In this regard, it is proposed that a set of tests could be implemented to achieve this. The tests would be based on:

infrastructure identified in a LGIP or Netserv Plan

state specifications for trunk infrastructure (e.g. minimum pipe diameter for trunk water reticulation)

principle-based evaluation.

Using the tests an applicant could appeal to the local authority for conditioned infrastructure to be deemed trunk infrastructure and therefore eligible for an offset or refund. Additionally, the state specification and principle-based tests could inform the following processes:

the development of plans for trunk infrastructure within a LGIP and Netserv Plan

decisions on offsets and refunds when issuing a development approval which includes conditions for unidentified trunk infrastructure

negotiations regarding offsets and refunds following the issuing of a development approval

dispute resolution processes.

A possible trunk infrastructure test process is outlined below.

The proposed test process could be introduced upon the commencement of the new framework (from 1 July 2014) or deferred (e.g. by two years) to provide local authorities time to transition to the new arrangements.

Discussion paper:

93

provides a link between a group of premises and the defined and mapped trunk network

would otherwise have been identified as ‘trunk’ infrastructure where the demand and development pattern was fully known in detail at the time of developing the infrastructure plan.

In addition to tests 1 and 2, a further principles-based test could be applied for infrastructure that does not meet the minimum standard but provides a ‘trunk function’ by:

facilitating development of other premises by enabling increased development or overcoming deficiencies in service through its provision

Test 2: Does the infrastructure meet the minimum specification for trunk infrastructure?

All infrastructure which is conditioned and is at or above the minimum standard, could be deemed trunk infrastructure. For example:

infrastructure which is identified after detailed network planning as additional to that in the infrastructure plan and meets the minimum standards

infrastructure which provides an alternative solution to the planned infrastructure in the infrastructure plan and meets the minimum standards.

Test 3: Where the infrastructure does not meet the minimum specification, does it provide a ‘trunk function’?

Proposed trunk infrastructure test process:

Test 1: Is the infrastructure included in a local authority’s infrastructure plan?

Where infrastructure is included in the plan it is considered trunk infrastructure.

Stakeholder feedback

During the workshop process, stakeholders raised a number of concerns regarding the introduction of principles to provide for deemed trunk infrastructure. It was noted that some trunk infrastructure which is required at the time of a development approval is necessary to maintain public safety (e.g. traffic permeation, sewerage discharge, fire-flow). This infrastructure will ultimately be shared and could be considered as trunk. However, the need for the infrastructure only arises due to a particular development and would not have otherwise been built. The equity of the community or other developments being required to pay for this infrastructure is therefore questionable.

Discussion paper:

94

This proposal also requires local authorities to accept increased responsibilities and workload and a decrease in revenue. Currently, some local authorities are not able to sufficiently recover the cost of infrastructure delivery through infrastructure charges, with some authorities quoting a cost recovery from infrastructure charges at less than 50 per cent. The above proposal will likely further diminish this return while requiring a higher degree of planning and administrative processes. Additionally, distributor-retailers are also required to return 30 per cent of their infrastructure revenues to their owner local governments, further impacting their cost recovery from charges.

The proposal may also impact on a local authority’s decision to approve development as the approval may create a contingent financial liability for the authority.

Have your say

What do you consider the implications of identifying trunk infrastructure using this approach will be?

Would you support the introduction of a standardised minimum specification for trunk infrastructure (e.g. minimum pipe diameter for trunk water reticulation)?

General Do you support the development of a ‘test-based’ approach to support the identification of trunk and non-trunk infrastructure?

5.3 Infrastructure planning Section 88 of SPA requires all local governments to adopt a PIP into their planning scheme. Likewise distributor-retailers are required to prepare Netserv plans2. PIPs and Netserv Plans include detailed plans for the provision of infrastructure for up to 20 years or longer, the cost of that infrastructure and background information that informed that planning, including design standards and population and employment growth projections.

Infrastructure planning provides critical information to inform local authority decisions about the most efficient and effective development pattern for an area.

Discussion paper:

2 Developed under the South-East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009

95

As well as informing land use planning, infrastructure planning has key functions within the infrastructure framework, including:

providing the basis for imposing infrastructure conditions on development

informing decisions about what infrastructure will receive an offset, credit or refund

supporting other local authority business processes such as financial plans, asset management plans, budget cycles and capital works programs.

5.3.1 Stakeholder issues

Prior to the introduction of the maximum charges framework, local authorities were concerned that the level of detail required in PIPs and the process for approval of PIPs was onerous and resources-intensive.

With the introduction of the maximum charges framework the level of detail required in a PIP was reduced. However, as PIPs form the basis for conditioning practices within the infrastructure framework, the reduction in detail has impacted on the clarity and consistency of conditioning, crediting, offsets and refunds processes.

Other stakeholder concerns include:

- the assumptions that underpin PIPs vary significantly between different local government areas

- PIPs are time consuming to amend, which impacts a local government’s ability to levy contributions which are reflective of the up-to-date information.

5.3.2 Reform objective

Establish a planning process which supports infrastructure contribution, while being less complex to draft and understand.

Discussion paper:

96

5.3.3 Reform options

Table 8—Infrastructure planning reform options

Option Key features

1. Status quo Local governments are required to include a basic level of infrastructure planning in a planning scheme.

Distributor-retailers undertake detailed infrastructure planning in Netserv Plans.

A less prescriptive state government approval process is maintained.

2. Standardised infrastructure planning

Local authorities would be required to include an infrastructure plan in their planning scheme. The inclusion of infrastructure plans in a planning scheme could be deferred for 12 months after a planning scheme is adopted.

The state would provide guidance to support standardisation of format and content within a PIP. This will support local government in drafting infrastructure plans, support a fast review process and make the plans easier to understand and use.

Infrastructure plan approval processes would be expedited through a third party review process.

A less rigorous process for amending infrastructure plans would be implemented where the amendments are not significant.

Local authorities will have two years in which to draft a new infrastructure plan.

Those local authorities which have not drafted an infrastructure plan which is consistent with the new methodology or do not require detailed infrastructure planning, will be required to levy charges under a lowered cap amount.

Note: Distributor-retailers must provide in their NetServ Plans, a high level of detail on their current water and sewerage networks and proposed network extensions – which underpins their charging, and the price monitoring of their capital works programs and pricing by the Queensland Competition Authority. Similarly disciplined approach would be required of distributor-retailers to substantiate using planned charges, however there may be some variances to allow for the existing requirements for economic oversight.

Discussion paper:

97

5.3.4 Implications of reform options

Section 6 of the discussion paper outlines the two options which local authorities may choose for determining infrastructure charges, which are:

capped charges that are based on maximum rates prescribed by the state government (similar to the current SPRP charges but subject to some refinement of rules)

planned charges are calculated based on the infrastructure and associated costs identified in the infrastructure plan (subject to refinement of rules).

While the infrastructure planning requirements for a capped or planned charges arrangement would be the same, a greater level of rigour would be required for the latter option. Those local authorities that undertake a planned charges arrangement would be required to justify how they arrived at the calculated costs and associated charges.

Table 9 outlines the proposed infrastructure planning processes for a LGIP that would be required for the capped and planned charges under reform option 2.

Table 9—Proposed infrastructure planning process

Capped charges

Planned charges

Infrastructure planning process

Application of consistent estimates of growth in population and employment.

Develop a common set of assumptions about the type, scale, location and timing of development.

Identify the capacity for localities to accommodate growth.

Determine the required standard of infrastructure services (desired standard of service).

For purposes of each infrastructure network, conversion of population and employment estimates to standard demand units (e.g. equivalent persons or ‘EP’ for water and sewer networks) that can be applied across different types of residential and non-residential development.

Determine the planned demand for different geographical locations.

Use maps and schedules of works to identify existing and future trunk infrastructure (and its estimated timing) necessary to service development.

Determine the construction costs associated with the identified infrastructure.

Discussion paper:

98

Demarcate the priority infrastructure area or equivalent area for a distributor-retailer where services can be provided most efficiently in the next 10–15 years to service development (the infrastructure planning horizon is not limited to this period and extends to the extent of the urban zoned land in the planning scheme).

Using the estimated cost of infrastructure, develop a cost schedule per network demand unit.

The methodology outlined in Table 9 is similar to the process that was in place prior to the introduction of the capped charges regime for local governments and would be more resource intensive for local authorities than the current system. The proposed option to reinstate a higher level of detail into infrastructure plans is intended to bring greater clarity and consistency to the infrastructure conditioning, offsetting, refunding and infrastructure agreement processes for local governments.

While the imposition of capped charges and associated conditions are not necessarily dependent on the quality of an infrastructure plan, the extent of certainty provided by infrastructure plans about the provision of trunk infrastructure should benefit the local government development assessment and approval processes from an operational point of view. This outcome should be of benefit to both local government and the development sector.

Infrastructure planning requirements for distributor-retailers are established through the South East Queensland Water (Distribution and Retail Restructuring) Act 2009. To avoid over-regulation and duplication of process a review of these requirements prior to incorporating Netserv Plans into the standardised infrastructure framework will be undertaken. The department is working in collaboration with the Department of Energy and Water Supply on this issue.

Standardisation of infrastructure planning methodology

To assist local authorities in developing infrastructure plans which contain a high level of consistency and rigour, the state is proposing to standardise some aspects of the planning process. There are three key ways in which the standardisation of the planning may be implemented through the new framework:

1. standardisation of the methodology for apportioning costs

2. a standard Schedule of Works model

3. standard demand generation rates.

1. Standard methodology for apportioning costs

Infrastructure plans identify trunk infrastructure and costs associated with providing it. By apportioning the cost of trunk infrastructure across the demand for infrastructure

Discussion paper:

99

(generated by residential and non-residential uses) within an area serviced by a network, it is possible to calculate an average cost rate per unit of demand (e.g. per house).

There are two common methodologies used to apportion the cost of infrastructure:

Average cost methodology: The total cost of infrastructure (including existing and future infrastructure) is divided by the total estimated demand (including existing and future demand), to calculate a cost rate per demand unit for a network (service) area. This methodology apportions the cost of all trunk infrastructure across all of its users.

Incremental cost methodology: The estimated cost of remaining infrastructure capacity and any future infrastructure that is necessary to service future demand is divided by the future demand.

In practice it is difficult to determine remaining capacity for different components making up a network, which changes constantly as new development takes up capacity. At the same time, existing development may also benefit from future infrastructure. It is a complex process and accuracy or appropriateness of methodology is difficult to verify by third parties. It often results in a higher charge rate than average apportionment methodology. Stakeholder feedback is sought regarding the most suitable methodology for use by local authorities.

2. Standard schedule of works model

Infrastructure plans include maps identifying existing and future trunk infrastructure and schedule of works spreadsheets to capture data and generate outputs (e.g. to calculate a cost rate per demand unit). For purposes of discussion, this will be referred to as the schedule of works model.

Currently, the approach and format local governments follow to capture, calculate and present data is not prescribed and results in variation of methodologies and outputs. Standardisation of the schedule of works model could provide benefits such as a simplified third party review process and improved developer and public understanding of infrastructure plans. Benefits to local authorities would include the simplification of infrastructure plan development due to the availability of an ‘off the shelf’ schedule of works template which can be populated with local data to suit individual circumstances.

The state has developed draft standardised templates for the individual infrastructure networks and a supporting user manual for potential use by local authorities. The schedule of works model calculates costs per demand unit based on the average cost methodology. In addition it includes a standard approach to the application of a discounted cash flow methodology to calculate the net present value of future infrastructure costs and revenues. The use of this methodology would be optional.

Discussion paper:

100

Copies of the schedule of works template and its user manual can be downloaded from the department’s website at the following link: www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/forms-

templates/infrastructure-charges.html. Local authorities are encouraged to test the template and user manual and provide feedback as part of the consultation process.

3. Standard demand generation rates

Where a local authority requires a developer to provide trunk infrastructure it is relevant to consider how to apportion the share of use and associated cost of that infrastructure between developments. A solution used by infrastructure planners is to determine a common unit of demand that can be applied for different types of development. For example, a typical unit of demand used for water and sewerage is ‘equivalent persons’ (EP). Based on consumption data, network planners are able to determine the average rate of demand per square metre for different types of non-residential uses or the average rate of demand for a dwelling type.

This approach is generally applied by network planners for water, sewer and roads to estimate the demand for infrastructure and the associated costs. It is important that the concept of demand is applied consistently throughout the infrastructure planning process as well as during its implementation. Total demand for a network service area is used to determine the required capacity of the network to service development and informs its design. The same total demand figure is used to calculate the cost per demand unit for that network service area. When assessing development applications against the LGIP to calculate demand generated by the proposal, these demand generation rates should be calibrated to be consistent with the planned demand.

Where calculation of charges is based on infrastructure plans, the demand impact of proposed development is measured to calculate charges. For this purpose demand generation rate tables for different use types are used to calculate demand that will be generated by individual development applications. Currently these table formats differ between local governments and are not always appropriately calibrated. To address this, the following process may be applied as a possible test to improve accuracy:

based on the assumptions of the LGIP, determine the total planned demand for each network service area (identify the average demand assumptions for different use types which was used to calculate the total planned demand)

determine the total infrastructure cost for the service area

determine the average cost rate per demand unit (total cost divided by total demand)

test the demand generation table against this information to ensure its demand generation rates are consistent and will not result in over recovery of costs for the network service catchment.

Discussion paper:

101

An alternative is to consider options to generate a standard demand generation table generally based on average rates of demand for different uses. Specialist input will be required for this and need to be developed in consultation with key stakeholders.

Third party review and amendment processes

The following options are proposed to streamline the review and amendment processes for infrastructure plans by introducing:

a third party certification process

a simplified and shortened process for amendments, which are not significant, to infrastructure plans.

Third party review

A third party review process is intended to address concerns from local government that the pre-2011 PIP review process was onerous, resource consuming and did not include an appropriate scope. It is proposed that these reviews will be undertaken by an independent non-government entity.

An improved review process would involve third party certification which would be undertaken for all infrastructure plans regardless of whether the local authority adopted a capped or planned charges approach.

As infrastructure plans form the basis for the calculation of infrastructure charges under the planned charges option, a more detailed review process would apply to ensure these charges are justified. All inputs that affect the calculation of the charges outputs would be reviewed. To facilitate consistency, transparency and review processes, use of a standard schedule of works spreadsheet model would be required.

The state’s role in the review process would include certification of all third party review entities and auditing of the review process. Further work to progress this proposal will be undertaken by the department based on feedback received.

Streamlined process for amending infrastructure plans

PIPs are currently difficult and time consuming to amend, which can lead to the inclusion of outdated or incorrect information. This impacts a local government’s ability to levy contributions which are reflective of the circumstances on the ground. It is proposed that a streamlined process for making minor amendments to infrastructure plans would address this matter.

Transitioning infrastructure plans

Existing PIP and Netserv Plan infrastructure scope and schedule of works requirements vary from the above proposals. Upon implementation of the new framework, possible changes to infrastructure scope, rules about charges, conditions and offsets will apply

Discussion paper:

102

generally. Consequently, until new infrastructure plans are adopted, local authorities will be required to assess the relevance of identified trunk infrastructure and associated conditions on a development application case by case basis to ensure it complies with the new rules.

To streamline development assessment and approval processes, it is desirable that existing infrastructure plans be updated to reflect the new framework requirements. To incentivise a fast and efficient transition from the current capped charges arrangement to the new framework, it is proposed that all local authorities will have a set period from the commencement of the reforms (e.g. two years) in which to complete and adopt a new LGIP or updated Netserv Plan. Those local authorities that do not complete an infrastructure plan within the set period will be restricted to a reduced capped amount, until a plan has been adopted.

An additional option is to require local governments to include an approved infrastructure plan within a planning scheme within a year of the planning scheme’s adoption. This will facilitate the continued development of planning schemes and allow local governments to prioritise resources.

Also, it is recognised that many local governments do not have detailed future infrastructure plans due to either limited or no growth occurring. In these instances, a lesser degree of rigor will be required in their infrastructure plans and as a result the council would be restricted to a lesser capped charge. This would apply for local authorities whose network planning is limited. In these instances, the ability to condition for necessary trunk and non-trunk infrastructure would still apply if development occurs, however much lower infrastructure charges would apply.

Discussion paper:

103

Have your say

General Do you support increased standardisation of the infrastructure planning process through: 1. a standard methodology for apportioning costs

2. standard schedule of works model

3. standard demand generation rates?

Of the options presented in the paper, which standard apportionment methodology do you prefer? Why?

Do you support the introduction of a third party review process for infrastructure plans (LGIP and Netserv Plans)?

Local authority focus What do you consider the impacts of a standardised infrastructure planning process would be on the time and resources required to undertake infrastructure planning?

Should the standardised infrastructure planning approach apply to both Netserv Plans and LGIPs?

Discussion paper:

104

6. Part 2: Framework mechanism options

6.1 Capped charges The central element of the infrastructure charges reforms introduced in July 2011 was the establishment of maximum charges for residential and non-residential development. The capped charges were established through the SPRP 3 and replaced previous PIP and PSP charging mechanisms.

Under the existing framework, when levying infrastructure charges, local authorities are limited to the maximum charges as specified in the SPRP, however, retain the flexibility to set charges at an amount equal to or below the maximum.

6.1.1 Stakeholder issues

The certainty and simplicity of capped infrastructure charges has been supported by both local authorities and development industry stakeholders. However, stakeholders have also identified a range of concerns with the capped charges, including:

that the charging metric (per bedroom for residential development and per square metre of GFA for non-residential development) does not link a development’s infrastructure charge with its infrastructure demand

the need for better alignment of charge categories and land use/development types to reflect demand for infrastructure

charges for non-residential development being too high on the basis that the existing methodology apportions a high degree of traffic generation to non-residential developments.

6.1.2 Reform objective

Establish capped charges that have regard for local authority financial sustainability and development feasibility.

Discussion paper:

3 A copy of the State Planning Regulatory Provision (adopted charges) 2012 may be obtained from the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning website (www.dsdip.qld.gov.au)

105

6.1.3 Discussion

The maximum charges applicable to the long-term framework will be influenced by the possible reduction in the scope of infrastructure and changes to supporting elements of the framework (such as conditions, offsets and credits). As a consequence, a meaningful evaluation of the capped charges can only be undertaken once reforms to the broader framework have been confirmed.

In this regard, the discussion paper does not propose reform options for the existing capped charges. Instead, following the conclusion of consultation on the discussion paper, the department will commence a detailed analysis of the capped charges. The analysis will:

quantify the impacts of the framework reforms on the capped charges and identify new cap ranges where appropriate

consider options for the differentiation of charges based on location and development type

be undertaken in parallel with the implementation of other elements of the reform agenda and be informed by expert infrastructure planning and financial analysis

take into consideration local authority sustainability and development feasibility impacts

include consultation and engagement with local authorities and development industry stakeholders to support informed and evidence-based decision-making

include consideration of the transport demand apportionment methodology for non-residential charges.

It is proposed that the capped charges analysis will be complete by 31 January 2014.

Charge differentiation

During the stakeholder workshops, three options for the differentiation of charges were considered:

statewide charge

location based differentiation (i.e. urban charges versus regional charges)

development type differentiation (i.e. infill development versus greenfield development).

While a statewide charge supports a simple and consistent approach to infrastructure charges, it does not accommodate regional variations in development conditions and

Discussion paper:

106

infrastructure delivery costs that exist across Queensland. Differentiation by development type was also proposed on the basis that greenfield development requires new infrastructure to service development, while infill development is delivered within existing infrastructure catchments. An initial review by the department, indicates that differences between infill and greenfield development are small (refer to Tables 4 to 6 for more information).

These options for differentiation of infrastructure charges will be considered in more detail during the charges analysis.

Refinement of charge categories

Under the SPRP, infrastructure charges are levied using a demand metric that is based on the number of bedrooms (for residential uses) and gross floor area (for non-residential uses). Based on feedback received from stakeholders and the department’s review, a number of possible refinements have been identified.

For residential development:

dormitory-style accommodation (such as backpacker accommodation) has been identified as unsuitable for charging on a ‘per-bedroom’ basis. It is proposed to implement charging for dormitory-style accommodation based on per bed basis; and

‘retirement facilities’ currently have a maximum charge equivalent to a dwelling house (i.e. $28 000 for a three or more bedroom dwelling or $20 000 for a one or two-bedroom dwelling). Charging on this basis is considered to overstate the infrastructure demand of retirement facilities.

For non-residential development, existing charges for ‘warehouses’ and ‘residential care facilities’ have been identified as overstating the development’s demand for infrastructure. Additionally, the Schools Regulatory and Financial Reform Sub-Committee has recommended the metric for charges for ‘education facilities’ should be based on student numbers, not gross floor area. These issues will be considered in more detail during the charges analysis.

Discussion paper:

107

Have your say

Do you support the proposed refinement of charge categories?

What charge do you consider would be appropriate for each of the listed use types?

If yes, what advantages do you consider the differentiation of infrastructure charges would provide?

Refinement of charge categories

Charge differentiation Do you support the differentiation of infrastructure charges (either by location or infill/greenfield development)?

6.2 Planned charges Prior to the commencement of the maximum charges framework local authorities determined their infrastructure charges based on plans for existing and future infrastructure, established through their PIP or PSP. PIP and PSP based charges provided local authorities with the ability to set charges in accordance with the costs of infrastructure.

The maximum charges framework removed the requirement for charging to be linked to infrastructure planning in a PIP or PSP.

6.2.1 Stakeholder issues

Since the commencement of the maximum charges framework, local authorities have identified a need for the ability to set infrastructure charges above the capped maximums where these charges are not financially sustainable. Stakeholders have been critical of a lack of clearly defined process to facilitate this within the existing framework.

6.2.2 Reform objective

Establish a mechanism through which a local authority can adopt infrastructure charges that exceed the capped charges.

6.2.3 Discussion

The capped infrastructure charges option is proposed to be the default requirement for all local authorities. Planned charges are proposed to be available in circumstances where a local authority can demonstrate that the capped charges create long-term financial sustainability issues.

Planned charges could be based on a standardised infrastructure planning approach generally outlined in the discussion under section 5.3 (Infrastructure Planning). The use

Discussion paper:

108

of the standard schedule of works spreadsheet model would be mandated to ensure a consistent approach is followed and all information relating to the charge calculations is available in a transparent manner. These infrastructure plans would be subject to third party review and certification.

Through the workshop process stakeholders identified the need for an additional level of review prior to local authorities levying planned charges. It was suggested that this should include an evaluation of both local authority sustainability and development feasibility in the context of the proposed planned charges.

The following sections present one option to achieve this proposal.

Sustainability test

A possible process for a local authority to seek to transition to planned charges is identified in Figure 3.

Figure 3–Planned charges assessment process

Local authority assessmentA local authority identifies a need to move to a planned 

charge due to impacts on financial sustainability

 Local authority financial analysis Local authority financial sustainability tested by 

independent expert

Development feasibility analysisFeasibility assessment on areas impacted by proposed 

changes to infrastructure charges

 Ministerial determination

It is important that any decision to move to a planned charge has regard to the impact of this change on the dual outcomes of local authority financial sustainability and development feasibility. Figure 4 demonstrates the connection between these two outcomes and recognises that both are necessary for economic growth.

Discussion paper:

109

Figure 4—Feasibility and sustainability connectivity

Local authority financial sustainability

Local authority financial sustainability is a priority for all levels of government, the community and the private sector. The capacity of local authorities to continue to deliver core services and develop infrastructure is critical to business confidence, as well as economic and community development. Financial sustainability is determined by the ability to balance and maintain financial capital and infrastructure capital over the long-term.

In Queensland, the Queensland Treasury Corporation (QTC) undertakes annual financial sustainability reviews of local authorities. The indicators adopted to consider the sustainability of financial and infrastructure capital are outlined below.

Table 10—Local government financial sustainability indicators

Evaluation element Indicator

Infrastructure capital sustainability

The measures are seeking to identify:

the level of consumption of the existing asset base;

the level of renewal of the existing asset base

the local government’s capacity to fund the level of investment needed.

Over the period of the forecast, with measures expressed annually and on a rolling average basis:

asset sustainability ratio

asset consumption ratio

interest coverage ratio.

Discussion paper:

110

Financial capital sustainability

The measures are seeking to identify:

the working capital capacity

the financial capacity of the local government as represented in the statement of financial position

the ability to fund the ongoing operations of the local government.

Over the period of the forecast, with measures expressed annually and on a rolling average basis:

working capital ratio

net financial liabilities ratio

operating surplus ratio.

Source: Department of Local Government and Planning Financial Management (Sustainability) Guideline 2011

A range of factors can have a significant influence on the financial sustainability of local authorities, including:

sophistication of network planning

divergence of planning sophistication including consideration of shifting demographics

growing demands on local authorities resulting from:

- devolution of state and federal responsibility for services to the local authority level

- increased complexity/ standard of services required of local authorities by other tiers of government

- withdrawal of direct funding support to local authorities in the context of tightening budgetary and fiscal settings

- increased community expectations and demands for improvements in existing local authorities services

- policy choices by local authorities to voluntarily expand their service provision

ageing infrastructure assets and asset valuation methods

volatility in rate revenue and other funding sources to local authorities.

Key elements of analysis required to determine the impact of charges on local government financial sustainability are:

cost recovery: the level of cost recovery that a local authority is able to achieve through the charges regime, noting that infrastructure charges are not intended to achieve 100 per cent cost recovery for trunk assets

Discussion paper:

111

infrastructure delivery: management of infrastructure delivery and associated costs are a critical consideration for a local authority

revenue contribution: the profile of infrastructure charges relative to cash flows is an important component of the broader financial sustainability equation

debt: the propensity of local government to fund infrastructure funding shortfalls through debt has a critical impact on long term financial sustainability

asset management: costs to maintain and renew network assets.

Development feasibility

Development feasibility is used to assess the viability of a project. Forecasting the financial viability for project decision-making requires a series of informed assessments and assumptions in respect of macroeconomic factors and development specific factors.

Development feasibility key considerations differ considerably between types of developments, development proponents, location, funding and a variety of other factors.

The assumptions built into any development feasibility model will vary depending upon the development proponent, location and a variety of other factors. Table 11 outlines some of the key assumptions which could be considered when assessing development feasibility across local authority areas. Given the distinct characteristics which impact individual developments, it is difficult to provide an exhaustive list of feasibility assumptions.

Table 11—Example development feasibility assumptions

Development feasibility input

Assumptions for consideration

hypothetical lot size, location, condition, contamination status, impervious area, fixture units

Lot

type of proposed asset(s) including residential, retail, commercial, industrial, on completion gross floor area/number of lots

Asset

Planning degree of planning risk borne by the developer

total sales/gross realisation

gross realisation rates/square metres Revenue

rent (gross face or net face), capitalisation rates

Discussion paper:

land purchase costs Costs

construction costs

professional fees

112

Development feasibility input

Assumptions for consideration

statutory fees i.e. land tax, municipal rates, fire service levy, water

tenant incentives

contingency (construction, project)

quantum of leverage and on what terms i.e. level of pre sales or tenant pre commitments required to obtain finance

target development margin (or commonly known as profit/risk margin)

estimated timings from land purchase, development approval, construction and realisation

Timing

The proportion of infrastructure charges relative to total construction costs varies between developments reflecting a range of factors (e.g. development type and use, site location and conditions, building design, land costs, lending conditions and economic outlook). However, variations in the proportion of infrastructure charges relative to total construction costs can have a material impact on project returns.

When assessing the impact of increases in infrastructure charges beyond the maximum adopted charges, testing the broad impact on the viability of development will need to take into account a range of key considerations and make an assessment whether or not, despite the increase, a reasonable return for risk can still be achieved on property development based on the market conditions into the near term.

Proposed planned charge assessment process

An indicative process for the assessment of impacts that could be applied to a local authority’s consideration of moving to a planned charge is outlined below. The approach outlined tests both outcomes, involves an assessment by an independent entity and provides an independent recommendation to the Planning Minister.

Discussion paper:

113

It is recognised that although financial sustainability methodologies currently exist these do not directly consider the impacts of infrastructure charges on long-term local government and distributor-retailer sustainability. Should the option to include financial sustainability and development feasibility tests be adopted as part of the preferred reforms, the department will work with the QTC, in their capacity as an independent expert in this field, to further develop appropriate methodologies. Where possible, this process would build upon existing methodologies already in place to limit duplication and allow for a more informed analysis of the specific impacts of infrastructure charges.

Discussion paper:

If financial sustainability is not feasible, consideration will be required to ascertain the approach likely to be taken to fund infrastructure development. This should specifically focus on the scale of the shortfall, and the propensity for the local government to fund this shortfall through a reallocation of general revenue; the increase of revenue through rate uplift; draw down on savings; or the debt financing of the shortfall.

This will allow for the determination of the quantitative impact of the shortfall on the local government’s financial position.

Step 3—Impact analysis

The specific financial shortfall associated with the charges framework, as well as the financing alternative selected by the local government to resolve this shortfall will allow for a more detailed analysis of the impact of these measures on local government financial sustainability. It is proposed that the QTC act in their capacity as an independent expert in this field to undertake a detailed financial sustainability review of the local government.

Proposed planned charges assessment process

Local authority identification of planned charge

A local authority would determine whether or not to enter into an impact assessment process to pursue a planned charge. They would then need to facilitate the two separate impact assessment processes below before submitting the findings to the Minister for Planning.

Local authority financial sustainability component

Step 1—Network review

This step involves the determination of the cost profile for delivering the infrastructure network required to service long term growth, by reviewing the asset management plan and the PIP.

Step 2(a)—Review infrastructure scope

The local authority would need to consider the approach taken historically, and estimated to be taken in the future with respect to infrastructure development.

The analysis would progress to step 2(b) should the local government determine that financial sustainability was not feasible through the review in the scope of infrastructure.

Step 2(b)— Financing options

114

The proposed amendments to infrastructure charges would be either accepted and implemented or rejected. It is proposed that a sunset clause of between 3–5 years is set from the date of implementation to a requirement for review.

Step 3—Ministerial determination

The findings of the independently reviewed impact assessments would be presented to the department for review and Ministerial determination on whether or not to approve a planned charge.

Ministerial decision

Proposed development feasibility assessment process

Step 1—Feasibility assessment

Local authorities identify areas impacted by proposed changes of infrastructure charges, assess the development viability of those areas and prepare a report.

When conducting feasibility assessment across the identified areas, the local authority would need to consider a defined set of assumptions which will assist with fluctuations arising from the very specific nature of development feasibilities. These assumptions would be developed by the department in conjunction with local authorities and development industry stakeholders, and with reference to the Rawlinson Construction Cost Guide.

Step 2—Third party review

It is expected that an independent third party would be provided with information including but not limited to the report. The independent third party would be required to review and assess all relevant submitted information, undertake research, testing, and formalise a binding recommendation.

As development feasibility analysis would be conducted for a local authority area, rather than site-specific or project-specific locations, it is proposed that individual developers would not be able to appeal the quantum of the planned charge on the basis that it makes an individual project unfeasible.

Have your say

Discussion paper:

Should a local authority be able to apply planned charges to particular locations within a local government area, with capped charges applying to remaining locations?

General

What is your view on the use of two separate impact assessments to determine the appropriateness of a planned charge?

What viable and practical alternative methodologies do you consider appropriate to test the appropriateness of a planned charge?

Does your organisation consider an appeals process appropriate? If so, why, for what issues and what would the process look like?

115

7. Part 3: Framework element options

7.1 Conditions In addition to levying infrastructure charges, local authorities can also impose conditions on a development approval for the provision of infrastructure. Infrastructure conditions are an important mechanism though which local authorities can manage the impacts of unplanned or out-of-sequence development. Infrastructure related conditions are typically used to:

provide infrastructure required to service a development site which is located within that site, or which connects the site to existing infrastructure networks (non-trunk infrastructure)

address issues regarding the availability, capacity or protection of trunk infrastructure networks

address infrastructure design, location, scale and type impacts from development that is considered ‘out-of-sequence’ or ‘inconsistent’ with the local authority’s planning.

Currently, the relevant South East Queensland local governments impose infrastructure conditions on behalf of distributor-retailers. Under the proposed utility model, distributor-retailers will act independently and will be subject to the same approach to infrastructure contributions arrangements as applies to local governments under SPA.

7.1.1 Stakeholder issues

Since the commencement of the maximum infrastructure charges framework in July 2011, the development industry has expressed concern regarding the potential for cost shifting through the application of infrastructure conditions. As outlined in section 5.2 of the discussion paper, the shifting of costs from infrastructure charges to conditions results in a developer paying a charge for infrastructure which they have also been conditioned to provide with no prospect of offsetting those costs in some circumstances.

7.1.2 Reform objective

Ensure infrastructure conditions are imposed in a fair and consistent manner.

Discussion paper:

116

7.1.3 Reform options

Table 12—Conditions reform options

Option Key features

1. Status quo Conditions are imposed for the provision of infrastructure which is within a development site and/or connects a development site to the existing infrastructure networks.

Conditions can be imposed to address issues regarding the availability, capacity or protection of ‘in-sequence’ trunk infrastructure.

Conditions can be imposed for infrastructure in relation to ‘out-of-sequence’ or ‘inconsistent’ development.

Development approvals are required to clearly outline conditions and provide detail on why conditions have been imposed.

2. Introduction of ‘deemed trunk’ principles

Current arrangements for conditions are maintained.

The trunk infrastructure tests are used to determine infrastructure which is conditioned but is not identified in a planning scheme as trunk or non-trunk.

Where infrastructure is ‘deemed trunk’, an offset or refund is available.

Further guidance on the requirement to include details on conditioning and heads of power statements will be provided to assist in achieving this objective.

7.1.4 Implications of reform options

It is proposed that the current arrangements for conditioning of non-trunk infrastructure are retained. In regards to trunk infrastructure, it is proposed that a local authority can require the provision of both identified and non-identified trunk infrastructure. However, if unidentified infrastructure is found to be trunk, the local authority may be required to offset the cost of the infrastructure. The proposed options for conditions need to be read having regard to the proposed options outlined under sections 5.1 and 5.2 of this discussion paper.

In regards to the proposal for further detail in a development approval regarding conditions, sections 626, 626A, 649, 650, 651 and 652 of SPA currently require a local authority to provide some justification for why an infrastructure condition has been imposed. Despite this requirement, feedback from stakeholders indicates that often

Discussion paper:

117

there is no information on what section of the Act a condition is made under or whether the infrastructure conditioned is trunk or non-trunk.

This lack of information leads to uncertainty about the availability of an offset or refund. The requirement to include further information on infrastructure conditions in development approvals is intended to provide greater transparency in relation to local government decisions on infrastructure conditions.

Have your say

General What impacts do you consider the proposed option would have for you (your organisation)?

Local authority focus Do you have any current mechanisms that are used to determine unplanned (i.e mapped) infrastructure to qualify as trunk or non-trunk for the purpose of setting conditions?

Could you envisage that such criteria would reduce the amount of negotiation currently undertaken to resolve disputes of this nature?

Could you estimate the number of applications received where the identification of infrastructure which is trunk or non-trunk was unclear?

What other impacts do you believe the proposed options would have on local authority operations and activity?

Development industry focus Do you believe the proposed option would increase or decrease the cost impact of conditions?

Would proposed changes provide increased certainty?

7.2 Offsets and refunds A local authority may, in addition to the payment of infrastructure charges, condition a development approval to supply trunk infrastructure or land. To ensure the value of works or land provided under a condition are accounted for, the infrastructure charges framework requires the value of infrastructure works or land to be offset against the value of the infrastructure charge. Where the value of the works exceeds the amount of a charge, a refund may be provided for the value of works exceeding the charge.

Currently, offsets and refunds are determined through a negotiation process and set out in an infrastructure agreement. Additionally, there are no requirements to provide offsets or refunds for infrastructure which is not identified within a planning scheme.

Discussion paper:

118

7.2.1 Stakeholder Issues

The absence of a supporting guidance framework for offsets and refunds has resulted in considerable uncertainty for the development industry and local authorities. This uncertainty is supported by the findings of a 2012 review of the maximum infrastructure charges framework, which identified significant differences in the offset approaches of local governments and found that some local governments did not have a formal offsets policy.

The review also found that local authorities use a range of offset valuation methods which often result in underestimating the value of the offset to be provided including: excluding works or items from the calculation that are necessary for infrastructure delivery; using the estimated establishment cost as the base method to determine works costs; and/or using a pre-market estimate to determine offset values.

7.2.2 Reform objective

To provide greater clarity and certainty regarding the process for calculating and applying offsets and refunds.

Table 13—Offsets and refunds reform options

Option Key features

1. Status quo Local authorities are required to provide offsets and refunds for infrastructure identified as trunk infrastructure in the planning scheme (at planned value).

Offsets are determined through an infrastructure agreement negotiation process.

2. Actual value for offsets

Offsets are available for identified trunk infrastructure.

The default methodology for calculating offsets is based on planned cost (establishment cost).

Alternatively, the applicant may seek offsets calculated at the ‘actual value’ of the infrastructure. To achieve this, applicants would be required to undertake a robust procurement process set out by the local authority to ensure that the offset cost represents value for money.

Discussion paper:

119

3. Clearer rules about offsets and refunds (actual value or planned value)

Offsets are available for all instances where a condition requires an applicant to provide trunk infrastructure (either identified trunk or deemed trunk).

There are two discrete options for how offsets could be calculated:

‘actual value’ of the infrastructure. Applicants are required to undertake a robust procurement process set out by local authorities to ensure that the offset cost is value for money. Alternatively the applicant can accept the planned cost (establishment cost) and avoid the procurement process; or

planned value as stated in the PIP being the infrastructure plan.

The state sets a standard process for land valuation.

A number of alternatives are explored prior to a refund being provided e.g. a credit is banked, change in scope of the condition etc.

Cross crediting across networks (within an authority’s jurisdiction) is mandatory.

Where a refund is still owing, the applicant is entitled to a refund on the terms agreed with the local authority.

Local authorities must publish information on their offsets and refunds.

7.2.3 Implications of reform options

Currently SPA (sections 649 to 652) requires a local authority to provide offsets and refunds which are equivalent to the ‘establishment cost’. The establishment cost is an estimated cost of infrastructure made by the local authority at the time an infrastructure plan is drafted. The opportunity to receive an offset at the ‘actual value’ of providing the infrastructure as opposed to the establishment cost or ‘planned value’ is intended to address the gap between the estimated cost of infrastructure and the actual cost. This approach is considered appropriate as it is the cost that a local authority would have otherwise incurred to deliver the asset if it had procured the infrastructure itself.

A significant proposed change is the introduction of offsets and refunds for ‘deemed trunk’ infrastructure. Currently local governments are only required to provide offsets for infrastructure identified in an infrastructure plan. This proposed change recognises that the cost of trunk infrastructure, regardless of whether it is identified or not, should be shared between the users of that infrastructure.

Discussion paper:

120

With regards to refunds, it is proposed that cross crediting across infrastructure networks (within the jurisdiction of an entity) must be provided. Additionally a number of alternatives to refunds may be explored to reduce or remove the need for a refund.

An example of an alterative to refunds is credit banking which can be provided in two forms:

1. the retention of credits (held in demand units not cash) from an earlier stage of development under an approval for a later stage of development under the same approval

2. the retention of transferrable credits (i.e. as credits to other sites owned by the same developer in the respective local government area only) if the cost of the infrastructure constructed exceeds the infrastructure charge. This proposal assumes the application of cross crediting and provides for much more certainty for the developer and refund recovery.

Such an approach may help local authorities incentivise development in a local government area. However, it has been recognised that there are several administrative, legal and technical challenges to be addressed, including the need for ‘sunset’ provisions. This approach may also only benefit a small percentage of overall development applications and only the larger developers who construct significant infrastructure as part of the development process.

There was strong opposition from many workshop participants to changing the current arrangements for offsets and refunds. Feedback indicated that the implications of the proposed reform would far outweigh the potential benefits, with implications including:

a slowdown in development assessment processes due to the increase in administrative and cost burden

an increase in refusals of development applications due to the financial burden on local authorities

the review and tightening of land use planning provisions to ensure infrastructure being delivered is aligned with a local government’s planned growth

a significant threat to local authority financial sustainability

the undermining of local authority strategic infrastructure planning and provision.

These implications largely relate to the application of the proposed offset and refund options when applied to ‘deemed trunk’ infrastructure and the offsetting of infrastructure at actual value. This is because local authorities are unable to predict, plan for and

Discussion paper:

121

budget for these components of the framework which will increase uncertainty within the framework for local authorities.

Standardised valuation process

Reform option 3 includes a proposal for the state to set a standard process for land valuation. While this would provide greater consistency within the framework, it would also result in a significant increase in the level of state oversight of the valuation process. The implications of choosing a standard valuation methodology would have direct financial implications for the local authorities and the development industry. Feedback on the appropriateness of a state prescribed valuation methodology and parameters that should apply is sought through consultation.

Have your say

If yes, what parameters do you consider should be applied?

What do you believe would be the scale of financial impact associated with any of the options outlined for reform of offsets and refunds arrangements?

What impacts do you believe the proposed options for reform of offset and refund arrangements would have on development activity?

Land valuation methodology Do you support the introduction of a standardised land valuation methodology?

Local authority focus What do you believe would be the scale of financial impact on local authorities associated with a mandated offsets and refunds policy?

What other impacts do you believe the reforms to offset and refunds calculation would have on local authorities’ operations and activities?

Development industry focus

General Do you support reform of the current offsets and refunds arrangements?

7.3 Credits Credits provide a mechanism through which infrastructure charges for a development may be discounted to account for the existing lawful use rights.

Under the maximum infrastructure charges framework, local governments are able to provide credits to adjust infrastructure contributions payable for the existing lawful use of premises and previous contributions paid. There is a high degree of flexibility on the part of local governments, as the maximum infrastructure charges framework does not mandate the provision of credits or establish a methodology for credit calculation.

Discussion paper:

122

7.3.1 Stakeholder issues

Development industry and local government stakeholders have identified a clear need for greater certainty and guidance regarding the application of credits.

A 2012 review of local government crediting arrangements identified a number of differences in local government approaches currently being applied to the determination of credits, with many local governments continuing to use pre-2011 crediting practices under the maximum infrastructure charging regime. This has established a situation where the determination of an infrastructure charge (through the local government resolution) and the valuation of a related credit, are calculated under inconsistent methodologies.

Additionally, the review identified that some local governments have altered crediting approaches under the maximum infrastructure charges regime to reduce the value of credits recognised, or no longer recognise monetary charges previously paid as an applicable credit.

7.3.2 Reform objective

Deliver a certain, consistent and transparent methodology for applying credits that:

is administratively simple to implement and maintain

supports development feasibility estimates and development planning.

Discussion paper:

123

Table 14—Credits reform options

Option Key features

1. Status quo Crediting remains unclear.

Local authorities are able to determine individual crediting calculation and application methodology.

Local authorities maintain a central record of charges, credits and offsets received for each lot.

The position of distributor-retailers under the current arrangements is not clear.

2. Consistent crediting methodology

Credits are provided for existing lawful use rights (for example, for a 1-into-2 lot residential subdivision where there is an existing house, charges may only be levied for an additional dwelling. Charges cannot be collected for the existing house).

Charges can only be levied for infrastructure demand that is additional to that provided for under existing lawful use rights.

Local authorities maintain a more detailed record of charges, credits and offsets received for each lot to inform the determination of credits.

Detail on local authority crediting policy must be included in their infrastructure plan, resolution or board decision.

7.3.3 Implication of reform options

The option of establishing formalised crediting arrangements is considered an essential step in improving the certainty of the infrastructure charges framework. This is supported by the department’s workshop process, with stakeholders generally supportive of the need to introduce mandated crediting arrangements for existing lawful uses as a means of establishing a clear and consistent methodology.

In regards to including further detail in a record of infrastructure related transactions (i.e. charges, credits and offsets paid/received) for every property, there was acknowledgement that this is a significant administrative burden.

Discussion paper:

124

Have your say

How would the establishment of a register for the collation of credits affect you (your organisation) in the preparation of development applications and planning?

Development industry focus

What do you anticipate would be the time and resourcing requirements for a mandated crediting methodology?

Local authority focus

What impacts do you consider the proposed mandatory crediting process would have for you (your organisation)?

Do you support the introduction of a mandatory crediting methodology for local infrastructure charges?

General

7.4 Appeals and dispute resolution Under the maximum infrastructure charges framework there are two avenues through which an adopted infrastructure charge may be appealed:

1. under section 478 of SPA, to the Planning and Environment Court. An appeal to the Planning and Environment Court may be about the reasonableness of the charge or an error in the calculation of the charge

2. under section 535 of SPA, to the Building and Development Dispute Resolution Committee. Such an appeal may only be about an error in the calculation of the charge.

SPA does not provide for appeals in the methodology used to calculate an infrastructure charge.

Additionally, section 461 of SPA provides for applicants to make appeals about any infrastructure conditions which are included in a development approval.

7.4.1 Stakeholder issues

Both local government and development industry stakeholders have identified existing appeal and dispute resolution processes as being time and resource intensive. Additionally, it is recognised that the Building and Development Dispute Resolution Committee has not been actively hearing cases in regards to infrastructure related disputes.

Discussion paper:

125

7.4.2 Reform objective

Reduce the time and cost associated with infrastructure charge and conditions related appeals and dispute resolution.

7.4.3 Reform options

Table 15—Appeals and dispute resolution reform options

Option Key features

1. Status quo Existing appeal rights and mechanisms remain for both planned and capped charges.

An appeal can be made about:

whether a charges notice is so unreasonable that no reasonable local government could have imposed it

an error in calculation of charges

that a condition imposed is reasonable and relevant.

Following formal lodgement of an appeal to the Planning and Environment Court, a practice direction currently states that the parties to a proceeding involving only infrastructure charges or conditions are to participate in an early mediation4.

2. Pre-lodgement mediation process

Existing appeal rights are maintained for both planned and capped charges.

A Planning and Environment Court mediated dispute resolution process is established requiring parties mediate prior to formal lodgement of an appeal with the Planning and Environment Court.

3. Widening of appeal rights

Expanding existing appeal rights to include one or more of the following:

the methodology used to calculate an infrastructure charge for both planned and capped charges

whether infrastructure which is conditioned is trunk or non-trunk

whether an infrastructure condition is reasonable and relevant

calculation of charge reductions (e.g. credits, offsets and refunds).

Discussion paper:

4 Planning and Environment Court Practice Direction Number 7 of 2013

126

7.4.4 Implications of reform options

The benefits of an improved dispute resolution system needs to be balanced against the administrative and financial costs of reform implementation and management.

Infrastructure charges appeals to the Planning and Environment Court represent only a small proportion of the court’s work. For the period 1 July 2012 to 31 May 2013, of 335 new appeals made to the Planning and Environment Court in Brisbane, only 13 related to infrastructure charges matters.

To drive improvements in this area, one option is the establishment of a Planning and Environment Court-led mediation process prior to an appeal being lodged with the court. This would allow for mediation to occur earlier in the dispute resolution process and may negate the need to formally lodge an appeal. The same appeals process would also be applicable to charges applied under the planned charges framework. Impacts on existing appeal timeframes would need to be considered should this reform option be implemented.

It was noted during the workshop process that other proposed elements of the reform framework, including the introduction of mandated credit and conditioning arrangements and a standardised planning methodology, will improve infrastructure charge calculation methodologies and potentially reduce the need for dispute resolution.

Have your say

What time and cost impacts would a Planning and Environment Court led mediation process prior to lodgement of an appeal be likely to have on your (your organisation’s) dispute resolution costs?

Do you support the introduction of a Planning and Environment Court led mediation process prior to the lodgement of an appeal with the court?

General

7.5 Infrastructure agreements Infrastructure agreements are a flexible mechanism through which a local authority and developer can negotiate and agree specific arrangements outside of the maximum infrastructure charges framework. Infrastructure agreements can be used to negotiate infrastructure charge contributions; agree credit, offset and refund arrangements; or set in place other arrangements related to a development.

Discussion paper:

127

7.5.1 Stakeholder issues

Feedback received from stakeholders indicates that infrastructure agreements are expensive and complex to prepare, with limited guidance provided under SPA regarding their use and negotiation. Concerns have also been raised about the requirement of some local governments for the establishment of an infrastructure agreement as a condition of a development approval.

This was confirmed through a 2012 review of the maximum infrastructure charges framework. The review identified that some local governments require an infrastructure agreement to be entered as a condition of development approval, with failure to do so being considered failure to comply with the approval. Conversely, the review also noted that some local governments avoid entering into infrastructure agreements wherever possible due to their complexity, legal requirements and inexperience of negotiating infrastructure outcomes through this method.

Additionally, some local authorities are using infrastructure agreements as a mechanism to address all infrastructure charges issues, even where more appropriate alternatives exists.

7.5.2 Reform objective

Provide a flexible, simple and cost effective infrastructure agreement process that facilitates the negotiation of innovative and cost-effective outcomes to support development.

Table 16—Infrastructure agreements reform options

Option Key features

1. Status quo Existing infrastructure agreement framework is maintained

2. SPA reform and infrastructure agreement guidelines

Retain existing flexibility.

Review of infrastructure agreement provisions to improve clarity and transparency in relation to local infrastructure provisions.

Prevent conditions in a development approval requiring an infrastructure agreement.

Prepare advisory guidelines to support infrastructure agreement negotiation.

7.5.3 Implications of reform options

It is considered essential to retain infrastructure agreements as a flexible alternative to the infrastructure charges framework. The ability to negotiate innovative, cost-effective and mutually beneficial outcomes is important for both local authorities and developers

Discussion paper:

128

and supports the development feasibility and local authority sustainability objectives of the government’s reform agenda.

The use of infrastructure agreements will be further supported by improved certainty, consistency and transparency introduced though other elements of the reform agenda, including changes to credits, offsets and conditions.

However, more can be done to provide a simple and cost-effective infrastructure agreement framework. This includes a review of provisions within SPA supporting the use of infrastructure agreements under the infrastructure charges framework and the introduction of reforms to ensure that only existing infrastructure agreements can be the subject of development approval conditions.

Other proposals considered during the workshops include the introduction of a framework to support the negotiation of infrastructure agreements, including guidelines on the principles and requirements of infrastructure agreements, and the possible establishment of a time limit for the negotiation process. Both options were considered during the workshop process, with the value of these options to be considered further following the consultation process.

Have your say

General Do you consider that infrastructure agreement negotiation would be enhanced by the establishment of a time limit for negotiation?

Would the development of guidelines support your organisation’s use of infrastructure agreements? What guidance information should be included?

What impacts do you believe reforming infrastructure agreements would have on development activities?

7.6 Deferred payments Infrastructure charges can be levied in relation to reconfiguration of a lot (ROL), material change of use (MCU) or building works (BW) development approvals. The timing of payment of these charges is established under SPA. To date, investigation into deferred payment has been in relation to ROL only, as it is most common for infrastructure charges to be levied at this stage of development.

For ROL development approvals, infrastructure charges are typically collected at the plan sealing stage. A local government’s security of payment is the withholding of plan sealing until full payment of the infrastructure charges is made.

Discussion paper:

129

The introduction of a ‘deferred payment’ mechanism for ROL development would enable the timing of payment of charges to be deferred from plan sealing to the time a lot is sold and settled. The intention of deferring payment of infrastructure charges until the end of the project is to minimise the cost impact on project feasibility.

7.6.1 Stakeholder issues

The option of deferred payment was initially raised by the infrastructure charges taskforce. Deferred payment was suggested as a way of easing financial burden during the initial phases of a project.

However, introduction of a deferred payment mechanism would present a number of challenges, including ensuring security of payment requirements for local authorities and changes to existing land titling and conveyancing arrangements. These limitations were recognised by stakeholders during the workshop series.

7.6.2 Reform objective

To identify the practical implications of deferring the payment of infrastructure charges for ROL applications until settlement.

7.6.3 Reform options

Table 17—Deferred payments reform options

Option Key features

1. Status quo Payment is required to be made by the time of plan sealing.

An infrastructure agreement between the developer and local authority can be used to defer payments.

Local authority can continue to offer early payment discount options.

2. Deferment of payment to settlement of a lot

Payment of infrastructure charges by the developer is moved from plan sealing to settlement.

A notice is placed on title which advises of any outstanding charges.

A sunset clause (i.e. two years) on the payment of charges is introduced.

Local authority will have the flexibility to adopt deferred payment for their local government area or not offer deferred payment.

Discussion paper:

130

3. Mandate earliest payment at plan sealing

It is made explicit in legislation that payment is to occur at plan sealing and no earlier unless agreed by the local authority and developer.

An infrastructure agreement between the developer and local authority can be used to defer payments.

Local authority can continue to offer early payment discount options.

7.6.4 Implications of reform options

The intention of deferring payment of infrastructure charges until the end of the project is to minimise the cost impact on project feasibility. This begs the question of whether there are significant benefits to the payment of infrastructure charges at settlement, compared to at plan sealing. Note, these two milestones frequently occur within one to three months of each other.

The key practical impediments to deferring infrastructure charges to settlement are not directly linked to the timeframe between plan sealing to settlement, but the security requirements that would reasonably be required by local authorities to do so. The problems arise in the flow on effects to the development industry, or more particularly the finance sector in providing the appropriate securities for local authorities. This is by virtue of the local authority’s security instrument taking first ranking priority over any other encumbrance. To implement the deferred payment mechanism and account for the security instrument priority changes, major adjustments to the conveyancing process would be essential.

Other key considerations include:

the cost of security instruments and their flow on effects, particularly to home buyers

potential delays to settlements due to any payment disputes. This could have significant financial impacts not only on developers and financiers, but also the end purchaser (predominantly home buyers)

additional administrative load, primarily on local authorities, in both the short and longer term to ensure full payment is received

impacts on the timing of refunds and assigning credits to the land.

In summary, while it is possible to implement the necessary legislative mechanisms to mandate payment of infrastructure charges at settlement, there remain significant flow on impacts to financiers, the development industry and end purchasers that would appear to outweigh the positives gained from moving the payment of infrastructure

Discussion paper:

131

charges from plan sealing to settlement. The implementation and operational costs which would be incurred in altering the conveyancing process may outweigh the benefits derived from a voluntary deferred payment mechanism.

An additional issue stakeholders have raised is that a number of local authorities are seeking to mandate for either partial for full payment of the charge before plan sealing stage. This practice could have adverse impacts to project feasibility, over the full presales and construction phases. The third reform option outlined above is proposed in response to this issue.

Have your say

General Do you support the introduction of a deferred payment mechanism?

Local authority focus Would you introduce a deferred payment mechanism?

What do you anticipate would be the time and resourcing requirements to implement a deferred payment mechanism?

Are there any issues with mandating the payment of charges at plan sealing and no earlier unless otherwise agreed?

Development industry focus Do you anticipate any benefits from the deferral of infrastructure charges payment?

Discussion paper:

132

8. Other framework issues

8.1 Alternative funding and financing The environment in which local authorities plan, deliver and manage infrastructure has evolved significantly in recent years as a result of demographic changes, growing community expectation and the rapidly changing economic environment. As a consequence, a significant challenge for local authorities is identifying how best to meet infrastructure obligations without access to increased funding from the state and Commonwealth (not available to distributor-retailers) or passing on unsustainable infrastructure funding obligations to the development sector.

The global financial crisis has significantly limited access to development finance credit and the need for alternative funding mechanisms to finance infrastructure has been raised by stakeholders from both local authorities and the development industry.

8.1.1 Current infrastructure financing methods

Local governments typically derive infrastructure funding from general taxation and rates, government borrowing from QTC, user charges, public private partnerships and developer contributions.

Distributor-retailers derive funding from user charges for water and sewerage services, infrastructure charges and borrowing.

As local authorities are faced with significant funding challenges, greater emphasis has been placed on developer contributions, with the onus often falling to developers to often wholly finance trunk and non-trunk infrastructure required by the community.

Developer contributions are considered to be an effective method of financing public infrastructure, but are considered by stakeholders to be inequitable and inconsistent across local authorities. Developer contributions are reflected in end prices to purchasers, hence can often result in the new purchaser paying higher than market value prices, and existing property holders receiving a windfall gain at no cost.

8.1.2 Alternative funding and financing methods

As part of the review process a number of alternative financing methods have been identified by stakeholders. These are outlined below.

Note: The only alternative funding model applicable to distributor-retailers is specific purpose securitised borrowing.

Discussion paper:

133

Specific purpose securitised borrowing

Specific purpose securitised borrowing is used to finance a specific project with the debt being repaid from the income generated by the project.

Value capture levies

A value capture levy aims to capture the uplift in land value that results from the development of land or construction of beneficial infrastructure. The value capture levy has been successfully utilised by the Urban Land Development Authority within particular urban development areas.

Special purpose levies

Special purpose levies or tax increment financing are ad hoc levies used to raise finance to meet the specific infrastructure needs of an area. Special purpose levies enable local authorities to leverage forecast revenue from specific developments as a means of raising finance for infrastructure that will contribute to the appreciation in value of a defined area. They are often regarded as a targeted tax by the broader community and are a contentious method of funding.

Growth area bonds

Growth area bonds are a specialised form of debt financing where bonds are issued to finance infrastructure enhancements that relate to a specific area. This debt is repaid from property tax revenues collected in the defined area.

Business improvement districts

Business improvement districts involve a partnership between private industry and local governments where business within a defined area pay a tax or fee towards the maintenance and development of the defined area.

Centralised financing

Centralised financing is state and national financing to provide local authorities with structured debt that optimise borrowing. Local governments can use affordable debt to deliver infrastructure priorities sooner and more efficiently whilst retaining the responsibility of providing infrastructure and easing the pressure on the development sector.

A centralised finance model can mandate sustainable financial planning from local governments as a prerequisite to obtaining funding. This in turn can drive significant institutional investment as there is a degree of comfort derived from the rigorous requirements which must be satisfied.

Discussion paper:

134

8.1.3 Application in Queensland

The alternative mechanisms identified by stakeholders are considered suitable for use in well defined, small scale locations or areas with clearly identified or highly specialised infrastructure requirements. In this regard, they are considered to have limited application and not to provide a broad scale alternative to infrastructure charges. This is particularly the case when the options are considered in relation to the diversity of development scale and density that exists across Queensland.

The government supports the use of innovative funding and financing solutions by local governments and industry to deliver specific infrastructure when suitable circumstances exist, particularly where delivered through partnerships between local authorities and industry (such as business improvement levy arrangements). It is considered that these options should remain flexible, location specific and optional, not enshrined within the broader infrastructure charges framework.

Have your say

General Do you support the proposed position outlined above in relation to alternative funding and financing mechanisms?

8.2 Resolutions and distributor-retailer board decisions

Adopted infrastructure charges resolutions and distributor-retailer board decisions are the regulatory tools used under the capped charges framework to set infrastructure charges. Through a resolution or board decision, local authorities are able to adopt infrastructure charges for all or part of their local government area in accordance with section 648D of SPA. Local authorities may also set different charges for different parts of their local government area.

There is no state government oversight of the charges set in resolutions or board decisions however, charges cannot exceed the capped amount. Distributor-retailers are subject to price monitoring by the Queensland Competition Authority.

8.2.1 Stakeholder issues

Stakeholders have raised concerns that some resolutions allegedly do not comply with the current provisions of SPA.

Discussion paper:

135

Have your say

Would you support the introduction of a third party review/endorsement process for resolutions and board decisions to ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of SPA? If you do not support the introduction of a third party review/endorsement process, do you have an alternative suggestion?

General

8.3 Transitional arrangements To support the introduction of framework reforms, the department will work with local authorities and the development industry to develop appropriate transitional arrangements. Transitional arrangements will include:

the establishment of formal mechanisms within SPA to provide time for local authorities to adjust systems and processes to implement the reforms (including any changes to infrastructure planning requirements and processes, such as credits and offsets), with mirroring processes for distributor-retailers under their legislation;

a stakeholder information program

ongoing support to local authorities and the development industry.

It is proposed that for all development applications approved prior to the commencement of the new charges framework, the existing framework arrangements will apply (including arrangements for the application of credits, offsets etc). The new framework reforms will apply to all development applications decided after the commencement of the framework.

Have your say

General What are the key framework issues to be addressed through transitional arrangements?

What time period is required to support full transition to the new framework?

Discussion paper:

136

9. Next steps Feedback received during consultation on the discussion paper will inform the development of the long-term framework and the department will continue to work in partnership with local authorities and the development industry to finalise options for reform.

Following the identification of a preferred set of options, the department will provide detailed information about the options such as draft legislative provisions and guideline information. Feedback on this material will further inform the development of reform options to be considered by government.

Commencement of framework reforms will occur from 1 July 2014.

For more information on the Queensland’s infrastructure charges framework visit www.dsdip.qld.gov.au

9.1 Issues requiring further investigation In parallel to the finalisation of options the department will work with key stakeholder groups to progress the analysis of impacts on the capped charges. Outcomes of the analysis will inform government decision-making on the level of capped charges and the finalisation of options.

Discussion paper:

137

Appendix 1: Have your say Infrastructure scope

General Do you support the removal of items from infrastructure scope that do not have a clear nexus with a development site?

What infrastructure items would you include/remove from the example essential infrastructure list (Appendix 4)?

Local authority focus What impacts do you believe the tightening of infrastructure scope will have on your local authority’s operations and activities?

What will likely be the approach to the delivery of infrastructure no longer covered by the essential infrastructure list?

Identification of trunk and non-trunk infrastructure

General Do you support the development of a ‘test-based’ approach to support the identification of trunk and non-trunk infrastructure?

What do you consider the implications of identifying trunk infrastructure using this approach will be?

Would you support the introduction of a standardised minimum specification for trunk infrastructure (e.g. minimum pipe diameter for trunk water reticulation)?

Infrastructure planning

General Do you support increased standardisation of the infrastructure planning process through: 1. a standard methodology for apportioning costs

2. standard schedule of works model

3. standard demand generation rates?

Of the options presented in the paper, which standard apportionment methodology do you prefer? Why?

Do you support the introduction of a third party review process for infrastructure plans (LGIP and Netserv Plans)?

Discussion paper:

138

Local authority focus What do you consider the impacts of a standardised infrastructure planning process would be on the time and resources required to undertake infrastructure planning?

Should the standardised infrastructure planning approach apply to both Netserv Plans and LGIPs?

Capped charges

Charge differentiation Do you support the differentiation of infrastructure charges (either by location or infill/Greenfield development)?

If yes, what advantages do you consider the differentiation of infrastructure charges would provide?

Refinement of charge categories Do you support the proposed refinement of charge categories?

What charge do you consider would be appropriate for each of the listed use types?

Planned charges

General

What is your view on the use of two separate impact assessments to determine the appropriateness of a planned charge?

What viable and practical alternative methodologies do you consider appropriate to test the appropriateness of a planned charge?

Does your organisation consider an appeals process appropriate? If so, why, for what issues and what would the process look like?

Should a local authority be able to apply planned charges to particular locations within a local government area, with capped charges applying to remaining locations?

Conditions

General What impacts do you consider the proposed option would have for you (your organisation)?

Local authority focus Do you have any current mechanisms that are used to determine unplanned (i.e. mapped) infrastructure to qualify as trunk or non-trunk for the purpose of setting conditions?

Could you envisage that such criteria would reduce the amount of negotiation currently undertaken to resolve disputes of this nature?

Discussion paper:

139

Could you estimate the number of applications received where the identification of infrastructure which is trunk or non-trunk was unclear?

What other impacts do you believe the proposed options would have on local authority operations and activity?

Development industry focus Do you believe the proposed option would increase or decrease the cost impact of conditions?

Would proposed changes provide increased certainty?

Offsets and refunds

General Do you support reform of the current offsets and refunds arrangements?

Local authority focus What do you believe would be the scale of financial impact on local authorities associated with a mandated offsets and refunds policy?

What other impacts do you believe the reforms to offset and refunds calculation would have on local authorities’ operations and activities?

Development industry focus What do you believe would be the scale of financial impact associated with any of the options outlined for reform of offsets and refunds arrangements?

What impacts do you believe the proposed options for reform of offset and refund arrangements would have on development activity?

Land valuation methodology Do you support the introduction of a standardised land valuation methodology?

If yes, what parameters do you consider should be applied?

Credits

General Do you support the introduction of a mandatory crediting methodology for local infrastructure charges?

What impacts do you consider the proposed mandatory crediting process would have for you (your organisation)?

Local authority focus What do you anticipate would be the time and resourcing requirements for a mandated crediting methodology?

Development industry focus How would the establishment of a register for the collation of credits affect you (your organisation) in the preparation of development applications and planning?

Discussion paper:

140

Appeals and dispute resolution

General Do you support the introduction of a Planning and Environment Court led mediation process prior to the lodgement of an appeal with the Court?

What time and cost impacts would a Planning and Environment Court led mediation process prior to lodgement of an appeal be likely to have on your (your organisation’s) dispute resolution costs?

Infrastructure agreements

General Do you consider that infrastructure agreement negotiation would be enhanced by the establishment of a time limit for negotiation?

Would the development of guidelines support your organisation’s use of infrastructure agreements? What guidance information should be included?

What impacts do you believe reforming infrastructure agreements would have on development activities?

Deferred payments

General Do you support the introduction of a deferred payment mechanism?

Local authority focus Would you introduce a deferred payment mechanism?

What do you anticipate would be the time and resourcing requirements to implement a deferred payment mechanism?

Are there any issues with mandating the payment of charges at plan sealing and no earlier unless otherwise agreed?

Development industry focus Do you anticipate any benefits from the deferral of infrastructure charges payment?

Alternative funding and financing

General Do you support the proposed position outlined above in relation to alternative funding and financing mechanisms?

Resolutions and distributor-retailer board decisions

General Would you support the introduction of a third party review/endorsement process for resolutions and board decisions to ensure compliance with the relevant provisions of SPA?

Discussion paper:

141

If you do not support the introduction of a third party review/endorsement process, do you have an alternative suggestion?

Transitional arrangements

General What are the key framework issues to be addressed through transitional arrangements?

What time period is required to support full transition to the new framework?

Discussion paper:

142

Appendix 2: SPRP charges Adopted infrastructure charges schedule

Column 1 Adopted infrastructure charge category

Column 2 Use

Column 3 Maximum adopted charge

Residential Dwelling house Caretaker’s

accommodation Multiple dwelling Dual occupancy

$20,000 per 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling or $28,000 per 3 or more bedroom dwelling

For a tent or caravan site in a tourist park: $10,000 per 1 or 2 tent/caravan sites or $14,000 per 3 tent/caravan sites Example: The maximum charge for seven caravan sites is $38,000. This is calculated as below: $14,000 x 2 (for 2 x 3 caravan sites) = $28,000 plus $10,000 (for 1 site) = $10,000 Total charge for seven caravan sites = $38 ,000

Discussion paper:

For a cabin in a tourist park: $10,000 per 1 or 2 bedroom cabin or $14,000 per 3 or more bedroom cabin

Accommodation (short-term)

Hotel Short-term

accommodation Tourist park

For a hotel or short-term accommodation: $10,000 per suite (with 1 or 2 bedrooms) or $14,000 per suite (with 3 or more bedrooms) or $10,000 per bedroom (for a bedroom that is not within a suite) Examples: The maximum adopted charge for a hotel

containing suites with 3 bedrooms is $14,000 per suite.

The maximum adopted charge for a motel with studio rooms is $10,000 per room.

The maximum adopted charge for a bedroom (which is not in a suite) in a backpackers is $10,000.

143

Column 1 Adopted infrastructure charge category

Column 2 Use

Column 3 Maximum adopted charge

For a relocatable home park: $20,000 per 1 or 2 bedroom relocatable dwelling site or $28,000 per 3 or more bedroom relocatable dwelling site

Accommodation (long-term)

Community residence Hostel Relocatable home

park Retirement facility

For a community residence, retirement facility or hostel: $20,000 per suite (with 1 or 2 bedrooms) or $28,000 per suite (with 3 or more bedrooms) or $20,000 per bedroom (for a bedroom that is not within a suite)

Club Community use Function facility Funeral parlour Place of worship

$70 per m2 of Gross Floor Area (GFA) plus $10 per impervious m2 for stormwater

Places of assembly

Agricultural supplies store

Bulk landscape supplies

Garden centre Hardware

Commercial (bulk goods)

and trade supplies

Outdoor sales Showroom

$140 per m2 of GFA plus $10 per impervious m2 for stormwater

Adult store Food and drink ou

Commercial (retail)

tlet Service industry Service station Shop Shopping centre

FA plus $10 per impervious m2 r stormwater

$180 per m2 of Gfo

Office Sales office

$140 per m2 of GCommercial (office) FA plus $10 per impervious m2 for stormwater

Child care centre Community c

Education facility

are centre

Educational establishment

FA plus $10 per impervious m2 for stormwater $140 per m2 of G

Discussion paper:

144

Hotel (non-residential component)

Nightclub Theatre

$200 per m2 of GFA plus $10 per impervious m2 for stormwater

Entertainment

Indoor sport and recreation

$200 per m2 of GFA, court areas at $20 per m2 of GFA plus $10 per impervious m2 for stormwater

Indoor sport and recreational facility

Low-impact industry Medium-impact

industry Research and

technology industry Rural industry Warehouse Waterfront and

marine industry

$50 per m2 of GFA plus $10 per impervious m2 for stormwater

Industry

High-impact iHigh-impact industry ndustry Noxious and

hazardous industries

$70 per m2 of GFA plus $10 per impervious m2 for stormwater

Animal huLow-impact rural Nil charge sbandry Cropping Permanent

plantations Wind farms

Aquaculture Intensive an

High-impact rural

Discussion paper:

imal industries

Intensive horticulture Wholesale nursery Winery

$20 per m2 of GFA for the high-impact rural facility

Correctional facility Emergency services Health care servic

Essential services

es Hospital Residential care

facility Veterinary services

FA plus $10 per impervious m2 for stormwater $140 per m2 of G

145

Specialised uses Air services Animal keeping Car park Crematorium Major sport,

recreation and entertainment facility

Motor sport Non-resident

workforce accommodation

Outdoor sport and recreation

Port services Tourist attraction Utility installation Extractive industry

The maximum adopted charge is the charge (in column 3) for the charge category (in column 1) that the local government determines should apply for the use at the time of assessment

M Advertising Nil charge device Cemetery Home-ba

inor uses

sed business

Landing Market Roadside stalls municaTelecom tions

facility oTemp rary use Park Outdoor lighting

Other uses A use not otherwise listed in column 2, including a use that is unknown because the developmen

Discussion paper:

t application does not specify a proposed use.

the local government decides should apply for the use at the time of assessment.

The maximum adopted charge is the charge (in column 3) for the charge category (in column 1) that

146

Appendix 3: Interstate snapshot New South Wales

Local governments within New South Wales are responsible for the planning and implementation of trunk infrastructure networks, similar to local authorities in Queensland.

The main infrastructure planning tool used by local government in New South Wales are Infrastructure Delivery Plans (IDPs) which are prepared for key growth areas within their jurisdiction. IDPs are based on the premise that the beneficiary of infrastructure should make a contribution to that infrastructure.

On 16 April 2013, the New South Wales Government released a White Paper—A new planning system for NSW for public feedback. The White Paper proposed several significant amendments to New South Wales’ infrastructure frameworks including:

Key contributions reform actions:

removal of capped charges

contributions are limited to essential infrastructure attributable to development only

introduction of deferred payment of charges

better reporting on infrastructure spending by local governments

benchmarking of infrastructure costs

restricted use of infrastructure agreements and conditions.

Victoria

In Victoria, local governments have a limited role in the initial planning, construction and management of trunk infrastructure. Various state entities are the primary agencies for these activities. Local government contributions are levied through Development Contributions Plans (DCPs) for a range of state and local government provided infrastructure, including: roads, public transport, stormwater, open space and community facilities.

In May 2012 the Victorian Government implemented changes to the infrastructure contributions framework. The new approach comprises of ‘off the shelf’ charges schedules for different development settings across Victoria such as metropolitan growth areas, regional cities, peri-urban areas and urban development areas. Local governments can tailor charges to a certain area where an ‘off the shelf’ schedule is not suitable.

Discussion paper:

147

South Australia

In South Australia, contributions are collected through the development assessment process via negotiations with developers on a case-by-case basis.

Additionally, there are a number of provisions related to infrastructure contributions in the Development Act 1993 including:

an open space contribution scheme which provides for obtaining land in-lieu or cash contributions where a development creates 20 or more additional lots;

with the minister’s approval a local government may establish a car parking or urban tree fund for a designated area.

There is no standardised and regulated process for obtaining infrastructure contributions.

Western Australia

In Western Australia, local governments are able to levy contributions for items of infrastructure that are required to support the ‘orderly development’ of an area. Standard requirements include roads, water and sewerage facilities, utilities and public open space. Local governments can also seek contributions for the capital costs of community infrastructure, such as sporting and recreation facilities, community centres and child care centres.

Contributions are set out in a local government Development Contributions Plan.

Discussion paper:

148

Appendix 4: Example essential infrastructure list Network Essential infrastructure

Water supply

Water treatment facilities owned by the local government (and not funded from other sources such as rates or utility charges)

Distribution systems including:

- water storage facilities

- water transport systems

- pumping stations

- chlorination equipment

- meters, valves, control and monitoring systems

Fire fighting devices

Sewerage

Sewage treatment plant systems owned by the local government (not funded from other sources such as rates or utility charges)

Collection and transport systems:

- gravity sewers

- pumping stations

- rising mains

- emergency storage.

Stormwater Condition on-site treatment to a standard of non-worsening

Transport

Local government roads (including associated intersections, roundabouts, bridges and culverts) excluding higher order local government roads such as arterial roads.

Standard items associated with the road profile including kerb and channel, lighting, signage, traffic lights, foot and cycle paths on the shoulder, basic verge revegetation

Bus stops (excluding shelters) constructed as part of the road.

Serviced land for parks and community facilities

For serviced land for parks and community purposes either:

- condition the development to provide two hectares of land per 1000 population, or

- charge for an identified catchment based solution provided to a standard of not more than two hectares of land per 1000 population.

All land contributions to include works associated with making the site suitable for its intended use including earthworks, clearing, turfing, road frontage and connection to services including water, sewerage, power and telecommunications.

Discussion paper:

149

Appendix 5: Specifications and assumptions used for impact assessment Note: This attachment includes a summary of the specifications and assumptions that were applied by consultants doing an assessment on behalf of the state from December 2012 to February 2013.

Purpose

The state is reviewing its infrastructure planning and charging frameworks for local governments. Options include possible changes to the list of infrastructure local government may include under conditions or cost calculation of infrastructure for development. To assess the potential impact of a draft list of essential infrastructure, a comparison of different infrastructure costs based on existing local government priority infrastructure plans (PIPs) is required.

Background

Most local governments have either adopted PIPs in their planning schemes or progressed to an advanced stage of drafting PIPs to comply with the requirements of the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA). The PIPs identify the existing and future infrastructure necessary to service development. Information in the PIP is supported by extrinsic material which includes background detail used in its preparation. The infrastructure and associated information identified in the PIP (and extrinsic material) form the basis for the calculation of infrastructure costs associated with development. The PIP also provides the basis for the imposition of local government conditions about infrastructure.

A draft list identifying infrastructure that may be included in the calculation of infrastructure costs under a possible alternative framework is included as part of this specification (see Table 1).

Requirements and deliverables

Review the PIPs and relevant extrinsic material for the local government areas to calculate the costs that would apply under the circumstances outlined below.

A calculation can be done for each of the types of development identified in Table 2—Assumptions for development examples, as it would apply for typical infill development and greenfield development example locations respectively. These calculations are to be based on the assumptions identified in Table 2.

Discussion paper:

150

These calculations can be done separately for each network component (water supply, wastewater, roads, stormwater quantity, stormwater quality, public parks and land for community facilities) for each of the following:

- The existing PIP or draft PIP as it would have applied under the SPA PIP and infrastructure charges schedule framework prior to the introduction of the provisions for the SPRP. The previous Statutory Guideline 01/09—Priority Infrastructure Plans and Infrastructure Charges Schedules (including PIP Template 2) further outlines the rules that applied to the calculation of infrastructure charges/costs at the time. If a discounted cash flow methodology has been applied in the PIP, calculate the values of costs prior to application of the discounted cash flow methodology as well as post application of the discounted cash flow methodology.

- The existing PIP, but modified to only include the ‘essential’ infrastructure identified in Table 1—Essential infrastructure. If a discounted cash flow methodology has been applied in the PIP, calculate the cost values prior to application of the discounted cash flow methodology as well as post application of the discounted cash flow methodology.

[Note: For consistency, cost apportionment is based on the formula: Total cost of existing and future infrastructure divided by the total existing and future demand.]

The results of calculations for each PIP are to be based on the template included in Table 3—Cost calculation summary (add columns to show calculations with and without the discounted cash flow methodology).

The approach and methodology to calculate these costs, as well as relevant observations or notes, can be outlined in a report to support the completed Table 3—Cost calculation summary (data captured in Microsoft Excel).

Essential infrastructure and cost calculations

Table 1—Essential infrastructure identifies the infrastructure that may be included in the calculation of costs.

Key assumptions for purposes of doing the impact assessment

Stormwater quality and quantity infrastructure for PIPs are often not separately mapped and identified. Costs under a PIP therefore represent a combination of both quality and quantity infrastructure. Cost calculations for the essential infrastructure option exclude stormwater as it is assumed to be dealt with on-site (no worsening).

State-controlled roads are excluded from the calculations.

Discussion paper:

151

Parkland costs under the essential infrastructure options are only applicable to residential developments.

Parkland costs for PIPs exclude land acquired pre-1990 in accordance with PIP methodology and guidelines in place prior to the adopted charges framework. This rule is not relevant under the essential infrastructure option.

All cost apportionment undertaken to determine a cost rate per demand unit are based on the ‘user pays’ methodology where total costs (existing and future) are apportioned to total demand (existing and future).

All demands used to calculate costs for different development scenarios are based on the application of demand conversion rates identified in the PIP.

Cost rates are indexed to June 2012 dollars from base year using CPI (Brisbane, All Groups).

Water supply:

- all water sources (dams, aquifers, and other raw water intakes) and piped network linking water sources to water treatment plants are excluded. Note that provision of such infrastructure is still the responsibility of local governments outside South East Queensland

- piped network less than 200 millimetres diameter are excluded.

Sewerage:

- all rising mains and pump stations are retained as essential infrastructure irrespective of pipe diameter size—rising mains are typically smaller in diameter to gravity mains however still provide a shared function

- similar to water supply, all gravity mains less than 200 millimetres diameter are excluded.

Stormwater:

- no stormwater infrastructure (quality or quantity) costs are included for the essential infrastructure scenario (based on the option to condition on-site treatment to a standard of no-worsening). All infrastructure identified in PIP Plans for Trunk Infrastructure is considered trunk. Costs for these works are reflected under the PIP scenario only.

Parkland:

- essential infrastructure costs are based on two ha per 1000 population including an allowance of $192 000 for road frontage and basic services to connect to.

Discussion paper:

152

Table 1—Essential infrastructure

Network Essential infrastructure

Water supply

Water treatment facilities owned by the local government (and not funded from other sources such as rates or utility charges).

Water storage facilities (excluding dams).

Reticulation network (local governments identify reticulation networks associated with pipes with a minimum diameter of 200 millimetres for purposes of an ICP).

Pump stations.

Fire fighting devices.

Sewerage

Sewage treatment facilities owned by the local government (and not funded from other sources such as rates or utility charges).

Reticulation network (local governments identify reticulation networks associated with pipes with minimum diameter of 200 millimetres).

Pump stations.

For stormwater quantity :

- condition on-site treatment to a standard of non-worsening

- where a charge is levied for an identified catchment based detention solution, a condition may not be imposed on a developer to provide an on-site detention solution.

For stormwater quality either:

- condition on-site treatment to a standard of non-worsening

- charge for an identified catchment based solution.

Stormwater

Transport

Local government roads consisting of limited access urban collectors and urban sub-arterials and arterials (including associated intersections, roundabouts, bridges and culverts).

Standard items associated with the road profile including kerb and channel, lighting, signage, traffic lights, foot and cycle paths on the shoulder, basic verge revegetation.

Bus stops (excluding shelters) constructed as part of the road.

Discussion paper:

153

Serviced land for parks and community facilities

Serviced land for parks and community purposes either:

- condition the development to provide two hectares of fair average land per 1000 population

- charge for an identified catchment-based solution

- provided to a standard of not more than two hectares of land per 1000 population.

All land contributions to include works associated with making the site suitable for its intended used including earthworks and clearing, road frontage and connection to services including water, sewerage, power and telecommunications.

Discussion paper:

154

Table 2—Assumptions for development examples

Chosen type of development

Assumptions SPRP Category *

3+ bedroom dwelling Detached dwelling 3 bedrooms

3 people

700 square metre lot

150 square metre GFA

455 square metre impervious area

1 or 2 bedroom dwelling Detached dwelling 2 bedrooms

2 people

600 square metre lot

120 square metre GFA

390 square metre impervious area

Multi-unit dwelling Apartment 6 units

12 bedrooms

24 people

1000 square metre lot

660 square metre GFA

900 square metre impervious area

Accommodation (short-term)

Motel 20 units

20 bedrooms

30 people

2000 square metre lot

600 square metre GFA

1800 square metre impervious area

Accommodation (long-term)

Retirement village 100 units

200 bedrooms

300 people

30,000 square metre lot

10,000 square metre GFA

27,000 square metre impervious area

Discussion paper:

155

Places of assembly Place of worship 400 seats

2500 square metre lot

500 square metre GFA

1250 square metre impervious area

10 toilets/basins

Commercial (bulk goods) Garden centre/landscape supplies

4,000 square metre lot

200 square metre GFA

3600 square metre impervious area

20 fixture units

Commercial (retail) Shop—local 450 square metre lot

200 square metre GFA

405 square metre impervious area

0 fixture units

Commercial (retail) Shop—neighbourhood 25,000 square metre lot

18,750 square metre GFA

22,500 square metre impervious area

100 fixture units

Commercial (retail) Shop—major 100,000 square metre lot

200,000 square metre GFA

90,000 square metre impervious area

400 fixture units

Commercial (office) Office—small 450 square metre lot

200 square metre GFA

405 square metre impervious area

20 fixture units

Commercial (office) Office—medium 3000 square metre lot

7500 square metre GFA

2700 square metre impervious area

200 fixture units

Discussion paper:

156

Discussion paper: Infrastructure planning and charging framework review Options for reform of Queensland’s local infrastructure planning and charges framework - 89 -

Education facility Secondary school 500 students 50 staff 100,000 square metre lot 30,000 square metre GFA 50,000 impervious area 275 fixture units

Entertainment Theatre/cinema 250 seats 3000 square metre lot 2000 square metre GFA 2700 square metre impervious

area 40 fixture units

Indoor sport and recreation

Gymnasium 1000 square metre lot 400 square metre GFA 900 square metre impervious

area 40 fixture units

Industry Low- or medium-impact industry

1500 square metre lot 800 square metre GFA 1350 square metre impervious

area 30 fixture units

High-impact industry High-impact industry or industry

50,000 square metre lot 30,000 square metre GFA 45,000 square metre impervious

area 30 fixture units

Essential services Nursing home (residential aged care)

100 beds 20,000 square metre lot 8000 square metre GFA 10,000 square metre impervious

area 80 fixture units

Hospital 400 beds 150,000 square metre lot 50,000 square metre GFA 75,000 square metre impervious

area 300 fixture units

Specialised uses Not included in analysis.

* These categories are aligned with the categories identified in the Adopted Infrastructure Charges Schedule of the SPRP.

157

Table 3 - Cost calculation summary (insert name of priority infrastructure plan)

Network PIP costs Essential infrastructure

costs Difference Type of development

Infill example—

(suburb name)

Greenfield example—

(suburb name)

Infill example

Greenfield example

Infill example

Greenfield example

Water supply Waste water Tra nsport Stormwater qu antity Stormwater quality Public parks Land for community uses

(Insert development type from Table 2)

Total

Water supply Waste water Tra nsport Stormwater qu antity Stormwater quality Public parks Land for community uses

(Insert development type from Table 2)

Total

Water supply (Insert development type from Table 2) Waste water(Add bl

158

Discussion paper: Infrastructure planning and charging framework review Options for reform of Queensland’s local infrastructure planning and charges framework - 91 -

nsportTra Stormwater qu antity Stormwater quality Public parks Land for community uses Total

159

References ARUP & Integran (2011) Draft Transport Network Charges Method Review

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), (2011a) Census of Population and Housing: Industry of Employment by Occupation, Retrieved from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2011/communityprofile/3?opendocument&navpos=230

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), (2011b) 5220.0 - Australian National Accounts: State Accounts, Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/5220.0

AECgroup (2010) Financing Public Infrastructure in Queensland

Ernst & Young (2011) Strong Foundations for Sustainable Local Infrastructure

SGS Economics & Planning (2011) Funding Growth Areas in a National Urban Policy

Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA), (2011) Budget Blueprint to Recovery: 2012/2013 Queensland Pre-Budget Submission, Brisbane

Discussion paper:

160

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning O Box 15009 City East Qld 4002 Australia l 13 QGOV (13 74 68) x +61 7 3224 4683

Pte

fainfo@dsdip.qld.gov.au

www.dsdip.qld.gov.au

161

SOCIAL 1 07.2013

Regional Development Australia Fund – Round 5

Local Government – Allocative Round File: 14.3.24 Responsible Officer: Andrew Jackson – Director of Community and Cultural Services Report prepared by: Tracey Wilson – Media / Grants Officer 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to obtain guidance from Council regarding a proposed project for the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF), Rounds 5 – Local Government – Allocative Round. 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND General information On Wednesday 19 June 2013 the Minister for Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, announced that applications for Round Five of the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) open on Friday 21 June 2013. RDAF Round Five is an allocative funding round, with each local government that was funded under the General Purpose component of the Financial Assistance Grants 2012–2013 eligible to apply for funding for infrastructure projects. The department will assess applications as they are received throughout the application period and will approve projects within each eligible local government's Funding Allocation. Funding allocations RDAF Round Five will provide $150 million to eligible local governments, according to an allocative model, for capital infrastructure projects. $105 million of the funding will be allocated to regional local governments while $45 million will be allocated to urban local governments. The funding for regional local governments will come from the Regional Development Australia Fund and funding for urban local governments will come from the Liveable Cities program. Eligible local governments are those that received the General Purpose component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants in 2012–13. Funding will be allocated among states and territories on a per capita basis. A base grant of $30,000 will apply for all eligible local governments with the remaining funding in each state or territory to be distributed in the same proportion as the General Purpose funding component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants (as determined by each state and territory local government grants commission). North Burnett Regional Council has been allocated funding of $721,689.

162

Key dates

RDAF Round Five Milestone Date

RDAF Round Five announced 19 June 2013

Draft Guidelines published to website

21 June 2013

Guidelines published to website 26 June 2013

Applications available in GMS Portal

1 July 2013

Assessment of applications As applications are received

Applications close 22 July 2013 (5.00 pm local time)

Department approval of grants Following assessment on a rolling basis

Funding Agreements negotiated and executed

Funding Agreements will be negotiated on a rolling basis and must be executed within six months of grant approval

Applications for RDAF Round Five opened on 21 June 2013 and closes at 5.00 pm local time on 22 July 2013. Applications must be submitted via the department's Grants Management System portal which will be accessible on 1 July 2013. Information on the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF), Rounds 5 – Local Government – Allocative Round can be found at http://www.regional.gov.au/regional/programs/rdaf_round_five.aspx 3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN In accordance with the 2013-2018 Corporate Plan: - Outcome 2 – Social Wellbeing – 2.8 – Sport & Recreation - Outcome 5 – Governance – 5.03 - External Funding In accordance with Operational Plan: - Outcome 1 – Community Infrastructure, Section 1.4 Infrastructure Funding - Outcome 3 – Organisational Capability, Section 3.7 Sourcing External Funds - Outcome 7 – Culture, Heritage, Sport & Recreation, Section 7.3 Funding Options

163

4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Nil 6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Eligible local governments are expected to make contributions to projects in the form of cash or in-kind contributions. 7 RISK MANAGEMENT Nil 8 CONSULTATION Nil

9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER Consider this report and accept, reject or amend recommendations. 10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION Nil 11 ATTACHMENTS Doc ID 444134 – RDAF Round 5 - Guidelines Doc ID 444132 – RDAF Round 5 - Frequently Asked Questions RECOMMENDATION That Council endorse the North Burnett Sportsground Upgrade Project as the preferred project for the Regional Development Australia Fund, Round 5 – Local Government – Allocative Round. Further, that Council provide an in-kind / cash allocation up to the amount of $100,000 towards the North Burnett Sportsground Upgrade Project.

164

 

G U I D E L I N E S

Regional Development Australia Fund

Round Five

Local Government—Allocative Round  

June 2013

165

 

Minister’s Foreword 

During the past few years, the Australian Government has focused as never before in our history on the economic development and wellbeing of our communities—our regions and our local communities. This new partnership is injecting an unprecedented amount of investment in nation-building infrastructure in order to unlock the potential of Australia’s regions—to strengthen their diversity, increase productivity and enhance economic strength. It is a renaissance fuelled by the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF) and prior to that, the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. In order to continue the momentum, the Australian Government is releasing a further $150 million for local community infrastructure development through RDAF Round Five. RDAF Round Five gives eligible councils the opportunity to build new community infrastructure and renew existing infrastructure in partnership with the Australian Government. RDAF Round Five is about providing a boost for ‘shovel-ready’ projects in communities. It is yet another step by this Government to empower local councils and shires to play a much greater role in shaping the future of their communities—and with it the greater fortunes of the nation. Under the first three rounds of the RDAF, 160 projects have received more than $380 million in funding. This funding, mostly delivered to local councils and shires, is delivering major infrastructure, such as sporting and cultural infrastructure, libraries, airports, ports and transport infrastructure and renewable energy initiatives. Under Round Five, all eligible local councils and shires will receive a base grant of $30,000, with the remaining funding in each State or Territory distributed to each eligible local government in accordance with the General Purpose component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants for suitable projects. This will mean that smaller councils and shires also receive appropriate funding. Funding will be provided for additional capital infrastructure projects, including the construction of new infrastructure and the refurbishment or renovation of existing infrastructure. Round Five also gives eligible local governments whose expressions of interest or applications were unsuccessful under previous rounds of RDAF the opportunity to resubmit.

166

The current level of funding for RDAF is being supplemented by an additional $45 million to fund the grants for urban councils. These Guidelines outline how the Australian Government plans to continue, in partnership with local councils and shires, our objective of growing and sustaining our regions. The Guidelines are essential reading for local councils and shires intending to participate in the funding round. It includes a new range of objectives, administrative processes, funding criteria and mutual responsibilities that will apply throughout the application period. Information including help with supporting documentation and details of the contractual arrangements are also featured. Advice on the outcome of applications will be provided in writing to all applicants and the Funding Allocation for eligible local governments will be listed on my Department’s website, www.regional.gov.au RDAF has already driven great change in our regions. I want to acknowledge the vital work of the Regional Development Australia committeees in this process. RDAF Round Five will continue this change and deliver real infrastructure to deliver both social and economic benefits. Anthony Albanese Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Minister for Regional Development and Local Government    

167

 

 

Table of Contents  

1  Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 2 

1.1  Objectives and Outcomes of the Regional Development Australia Fund........................................... 2 

1.2  Overview of Round Five ...................................................................................................................... 2 

2  Eligibility ................................................................................................................................................ 4 

2.1  Funding Criteria .................................................................................................................................. 4 

2.2  Ineligible Organisations ...................................................................................................................... 5 

2.3  Ineligible Projects ............................................................................................................................... 6 

3  Application and Assessment Process .................................................................................................... 6 

3.1  Application .......................................................................................................................................... 6 

3.2  Supporting Documents ....................................................................................................................... 7 

3.3  Assessment of Applications ................................................................................................................ 7 

3.4  Risk Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 7 

3.5  Approval of projects ........................................................................................................................... 8 

3.6  Advice to applicants ............................................................................................................................ 8 

4  Funding Arrangements .......................................................................................................................... 8 

4.1  Funding Allocation .............................................................................................................................. 8 

4.2  Payments ............................................................................................................................................ 8 

4.3  Funding Agreement ............................................................................................................................ 9 

5  Probity ................................................................................................................................................... 9 

6  Confidential Information ..................................................................................................................... 10 

7  Complaints Process .............................................................................................................................. 10 

8  Key Dates ............................................................................................................................................. 10 

Glossary of Terms ........................................................................................................................................ 11 

Guidance on Preparing Supporting Documentation ..................................................................................... i 

Australian Government Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme ........................................ iv 

Contractual Arrangements ............................................................................................................................ v 

 

168

        

Program Overview  

 

The  Regional  Development  Australia  Fund  is  a  national  infrastructure  grants  program supporting Australia’s regions and enhancing their wellbeing and economic development.  

The  program  is  administered  by  the Department  of  Regional Australia,  Local Government, Arts and Sport (the Department) with four funding rounds currently being managed. 

Funding  is  provided  for  capital  infrastructure  projects,  including  the  construction  of  new infrastructure and the refurbishment or renovation of existing infrastructure. 

Round Five will allocate $150 million between all eligible local governments, according to an allocative model, for capital infrastructure projects.  Eligible local governments are those that received  the  General  Purpose  funding  component  of  the  local  government  Financial Assistance Grants in 2012‐13. 

Funding will be allocated among States and Territories on a per capita basis. A base grant of $30,000 will apply for all eligible local governments with the remaining funding in each State or  Territory  to  be  distributed  in  the  same  proportion  as  the  General  Purpose  funding component of the  local government Financial Assistance Grants  for 2012‐13  (as determined by  each  State  and  Territory  Local Government Grants  Commission).  Additional  funds  have been provided into the RDAF to fund the capital city council allocations.  The  Funding  Allocation  for  each  eligible  local  government  will  be  available  on  the Department’s website (www.regional.gov.au). 

169

1 Introduction 

These  Guidelines  outline  the  objectives  and  outcomes  for  Round  Five  of  the  Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF); the application and assessment process, including funding criteria;  roles  and  responsibilities  of  the  administering  parties  and  funding  recipients;  and funding arrangements. 

1.1 Objectives and Outcomes of the Regional Development Australia Fund The objective of the RDAF program is to support the economies and communities of Australia’s regions. Outcomes of the RDAF program are: 

• sustainable  regional  economic  development,  economic  diversification,  and  increases  to the economic output of local and regional economies 

• strong, dynamic and progressive regional communities which support social inclusion and “Closing  the  Gap  on  Indigenous  Disadvantage”  and  are  underpinned  by  quality recreational, arts, cultural and social facilities, and 

• development of  sustainable partnerships  across Australian,  state  and  local  government, the private sector and the not‐for‐profit community to support a shared vision and  joint investment in regional communities. 

Applications for Rounds One to Four have concluded, and details of projects to be funded under these rounds are available on the Department’s website (www.regional.gov.au).  

Projects  funded  from  Rounds  One  to  Four  were  selected  on  their  merits  according  to  a competitive  application  process.  Projects  for  Round  Five  will  be  funded  according  to  an allocative model that allows for grants to all eligible local governments.  

The RDAF program will be  reviewed  five years after  the  completion of projects  to be  funded from the  last funding round, subject to the availability of resources. The review will determine the extent to which the program has achieved its objectives and outcomes. 

1.2 Overview of Round Five • Round  Five  will  allocate  $150  million  to  eligible  local  governments  for  capital 

infrastructure projects.   Eligible  local governments are  those  that received  the General Purpose component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants in 2012‐13. 

• Funding will be allocated among States and Territories on a per capita basis. A base grant of  $30,000 will  apply  for  all  eligible  local  governments with  the  remaining  funding  in each State or Territory to be distributed in the same proportion as the General Purpose funding component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants (as determined by each State and Territory Local Government Grants Commission). 

• Applications for Round Five open on 21 June 2013 and close at 5:00pm (local time) on 22 July 2013.  

170

• However,  the Department will assess applications as  they are  received  throughout  the application period.  

• The  Funding  Allocation  for  eligible  local  governments  will  be  available  on  the Department’s website (www.regional.gov.au). 

• The  Department  will  approve  projects  within  each  eligible  local  government’s Funding Allocation.  

• Eligible  local  governments  will  receive  a  50%  up‐front  payment  of  the  Funding Allocation  on  execution  of  a  Funding  Agreement  with  the  Commonwealth  with subsequent  payments  on  the  achievement  of  milestones.  The  exception  being eligible  local  governments with  a  Funding  Allocation  of  $50,000  or  less who will receive a 100% up‐front payment on execution of a Funding Agreement between the applicant and the Commonwealth. 

• Eligible local governments are expected to make contributions to projects in the form of cash or in‐kind contributions. 

• Eligible  local  governments  may  submit  applications  for  projects  that  have  been  the subject of expressions of interest or applications under previous RDAF rounds. However, if a project received funding under a previous RDAF round, an application under Round Five must be for a discrete and further stage of the project.  

• Where  an  eligible  local  government  resubmits  a  project  that  was  not  approved  for funding under a previous round of RDAF funding, they are to ensure that they have taken into  consideration  any  feedback  provided  by  the  Department,  when  preparing  their applications. 

• Applicants  can ask questions  relating  to Round  Five by emailing  rdaf@regional.gov.au. Questions  should be  clear and  concise, and  identify  that part of  the process  they are seeking advice on. All questions that are directly relevant to Round Five will be added to a  Frequently  Asked  Questions  document  and  placed  on  the  Department’s  website (www.regional.gov.au). This document will be regularly updated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

171

 

2 Eligibility 

2.1 Funding Criteria To be funded, applications must satisfy the following criteria: 

Funding Criterion 1: The applicant must be an eligible organisation. 

• Eligible  organisations  are  local  governments  that  received  funding  under  the General Purpose component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants in 2012‐13. 

• Applicants may  be  supported  by  a  consortium  and  projects may  be  delivered  by  the consortium.  Consortium  members  may  include  other  local  governments,  state  or territory governments, not‐for‐profit organisations, business and industry organisations, universities and  technical colleges, Regional Organisations of Councils, and community organisations. 

• The  legal and operational arrangements for a consortium are a matter for participants. The  Commonwealth  will  only  enter  into  a  Funding  Agreement  with  an  eligible organisation.  

Funding Criterion 2: The application must be for an eligible project. 

• Projects must  be  for  the  construction  of  new  infrastructure,  or  the  refurbishment  or upgrade to existing infrastructure.  

• Projects must be  ‘investment  ready’,  i.e.  the project must be  completed no  later  than 31 December 2016. The project must also be  ready  to  commence  construction within 12 months of  the execution of  the Funding Agreement between  the applicant and  the Commonwealth. 

• Projects must be maintained for a period of not less than five years following completion of the project. 

• Single projects or a package of smaller projects will be supported. There  is no  limit on the number of projects that may be submitted, however all projects must be included in a  single  application  and,  subject  to  approval,  will  form  a  single  Funding  Agreement between the applicant and the Commonwealth.  

172

Funding  Criterion  3:  The  project  must  provide  community  benefit,  economic  growth,  or support the environment. 

Projects must benefit  the  Local Government Area  and  the  communities  that  reside within  it. Benefits may be to: 

• develop the community, i.e. projects that support or enhance social capital and regional liveability through the construction, expansion or refurbishment of community facilities, infrastructure  to  support  housing,  streetscapes  and  civic  upgrades,  or  facilities  to support the disadvantaged 

• support economic growth, i.e. by sustaining existing growth, enhancing productivity and innovation, supporting industry diversification and value‐added activities, contributing to new investment, creating sustainable jobs, exploiting export opportunities, or facilitating workforce re‐training and skills development, and/or 

• support  the  environment,  i.e.  projects  that  support  a  transition  to  clean  energy, sewerage upgrades, efficient storage, transformation and use of water, or the effective disposal of waste. 

Funding Criterion 4: The project must be viable. 

The application must demonstrate that the project is viable by providing: 

• Evidence of approvals—that approvals are in place, applied for, or otherwise expected to be received to allow the commencement of construction within 12 months of entering  into a Funding Agreement with the Commonwealth. 

• Evidence of co‐contributions—that the project will be fully funded through commitment of partnership contributions in cash or in‐kind. 

• Evidence of planning—that the project will be delivered on time and to budget. This will be achieved through the provision of supporting documents, per 3.2 of these Guidelines. 

• Evidence of costing—that the project has been appropriately costed. The level and detail of the  costing,  and  procurement  processes,  should  be  commensurate with  the  value  of  the project. 

2.2 Ineligible Organisations Organisations that did not receive assistance under the General Purpose funding component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants in 2012‐13 are not eligible to apply for Round Five. Ineligible organisations include: 

• Regional Organisations of Councils, notwithstanding  their establishment by  legislation  in some states and territories, 

• not‐for‐profit organisations, 

• for profit and commercial organisations, 

173

• commercial  arms  of  local  or  state  government  bodies,  for  example  organisations  that deliver  services  to  communities which would normally be expected of a  council  and/or which operate on a commercial basis, 

• Governments of Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and Cocos (Keeling) Islands, 

• universities and technical colleges, and 

• Regional Development Australia committees. 

These organisations may participate  in a consortium which  is  led by an eligible applicant.  It  is expected that consortia will be supported by appropriate legal and governance arrangements. 

2.3 Ineligible Projects Funding will not be provided for:  

• local government premises that are occupied by local government for administrative purposes  

• artworks 

• toilet blocks 

• soft infrastructure, such as computer software or hardware 

• salaries for service delivery staff, research staff and/or contractors 

• purchase of plant and equipment that is not an integral part of the funded project 

• administrative overhead items, including office equipment and vehicles 

• mobile capital equipment, such as trucks and earthmoving equipment 

• provision of services and support activities  

• ongoing operational and maintenance costs  

• project management, feasibility studies and other costs associated with project management, and 

• activities that are eligible to be funded under the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements.  

3 Application and Assessment Process 

3.1 Application Applications will open on 21 June 2013 and close at 5:00pm (local time) on 22 July 2013. During this  time,  applicants  will  need  to  complete  and  submit  their  application  and  supporting documents. Applicants must address  the  funding criteria  in  their application, and are strongly advised  to  provide  supporting  documents.  Applicants  should  be  clear  and  succinct  in  their descriptions of the project.  

Applications must  be  submitted  via  the Department’s website  (www.regional.gov.au). A User Guide will be available on the Department’s website to support the application process.  

174

Eligible  local governments may submit applications  for projects  that have been  the subject of expressions  of  interest  or  applications  under  previous  RDAF  rounds.  However,  if  a  project received funding under a previous RDAF round, an application under Round Five must be for a discrete and further stage of the project. If a previous application was not successful, applicants should  ensure  that  they  have  taken  into  consideration  any  feedback  provided  by  the Department when preparing their applications. 

3.2 Supporting Documents  A number of documents should be provided by applicants to demonstrate their capability and capacity  to deliver and maintain  the project. The  size and detail of  the documents  should be commensurate with the value and scope of the project, and sufficient to enable the Department to  assess  value‐for‐money, project  viability,  and  the  local  government  capacity  to deliver  the project  within  the  specified  timeframe  and  budget.  The  supporting  documentation may  be provided in a single document where appropriate. 

Failure  to  provide  adequate  documentation  may  impact  on  the  timely  assessment  of applications  and  has  the  potential  to  significantly  delay  the  establishment  of  Funding Agreements. 

Project documentation should enable the proper identification and assessment of project costs, benefits and risks. 

Supporting documentation relating  to the proposed project should outline the benefits to the community,  demonstrate  value‐for‐money,  and  outline  how  the  project will  be  delivered  on time and  to budget. Complex  larger projects require more detailed documentation to support their application. 

To  assist  applicants  in  providing  only  that  information  necessary  for  effective  assessment, further guidance on expected documents is at Attachment A. 

3.3 Assessment of Applications The Department will undertake a value‐for‐money assessment of all applications to determine that they meet the funding criteria. 

Applications  will  be  assessed  as  they  are  received  throughout  the  application  period  and beyond. It may be necessary for the Department to contact applicants to verify elements of the application. 

3.4 Risk Assessment  The  Department  will  conduct  a  risk  analysis  on  each  application  and,  depending  on  the outcomes,  may  require  additional  checks  or  independent  advice  through  an  Independent Viability Assessment  (IVA).  IVAs will  be  conducted  by  an  external  consultant  engaged  by  the Department  and  the  findings will  be  included  in  the  analysis  of  the  project.  All  information provided in an application will be considered during an IVA process. 

175

Information provided  in the application form and attached supporting documents will be used to  assess  value‐for‐money.  Value‐for‐money  requires  that  the  project  can  be  delivered  at  a reasonable whole‐of‐life cost. Generally, this requirement means open procurement processes or  mechanisms  will  be  used  throughout  project  execution  to  ensure  competitive  delivery. Project  costs  must  compare  favourably  with  available  benchmarks  for  the  activities  being undertaken. 

Eligible local governments will be required to use resources in an efficient, effective, economical and ethical manner and be accountable and transparent in their dealings.  

3.5 Approval of projects The Department has the delegation to approve projects. 

Following the assessment processes, the Department will approve grants for eligible projects within each eligible local government area’s Funding Allocation. The approved funding will be available subject to the applicant entering into a Funding Agreement with the Commonwealth. 

3.6 Advice to applicants Advice  on  the  outcome  of  applications will  be  provided  in writing  to  all  applicants.  Projects approved for funding will be listed on the Department’s website (www.regional.gov.au). 

4 Funding Arrangements 

4.1 Funding Allocation • $150 million is available under Round Five.  

• Funding will be allocated among States and Territories on a per capita basis. A base grant of $30,000 will apply for all local governments with the remaining funding in each State or  Territory  to be distributed  in  the  same proportion  as  the General Purpose  funding component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants (as determined by each State and Territory Local Government Grants Commission). 

• The  Funding  Allocation  for  each  eligible  local  government  will  be  published  on  the Department’s website (www.regional.gov.au). 

4.2 Payments • Eligible  local  governments  will  receive  a  50%  up‐front  payment  of  the  Funding 

Allocation upon execution of a Funding Agreement between  the applicant and  the Commonwealth.  The  exception  being  eligible  local  governments  with  a  Funding Allocation of $50,000 or less who will receive a 100% up‐front payment on execution of a Funding Agreement between the applicant and the Commonwealth. 

• Subsequent RDAF payments will be made in arrears on the achievement of agreed milestones, as set out in the Funding Agreement. 

176

4.3 Funding Agreement  Funding will be delivered to applicants through a Funding Agreement that will specify: 

• the purpose for which the RDAF funding must be used 

• the terms and conditions under which the RDAF funding is provided  

• any requirements or conditions that must be met prior to the release of RDAF funds, and 

• milestones and project outcomes that must be achieved prior to the release of each RDAF payment. 

Applicants  should  not  make  financial  commitments  for  funded  activities  until  a  Funding Agreement has been executed. 

Requests  for  additional  funding  from  the  Australian  Government  will  not  be  considered.   Requests to change the scope of the project or to partnership arrangements that do not involve the provision of additional funding by the Australian Government will be considered as long as the revised project continues to meet the objectives and outcomes of the RDAF program.  

Attachment C provides  further detail about  the contractual arrangements and  the negotiation process. Building work  funded by the Australian Government  is subject to all relevant state or territory work health and safety laws. 

The  Department  will  regularly  monitor  the  progress  of  projects,  and  any  delays  in  the commencement  of milestones will  be  dealt with  according  to  the  procedures  set  out  in  the Funding Agreement. 

5 Probity  The  Australian Government  is  committed  to  ensuring  that  the  process  for  providing  funding under programs  is  fair and  in accordance with published Guidelines, as may be varied by  the Australian Government from time to time. Amendments to the Guidelines will be published on the Department’s website (www.regional.gov.au). 

Independent probity advice may be requested to support the implementation of the Guidelines, including the assessment process.  

Applicants should identify existing or potential conflicts of interest. Similarly, as projects roll out, applicants must  immediately  declare  actual  or  apparent  conflicts  of  interest  that  arise  and inform the Australian Government. 

177

6 Confidential Information  

All  information provided  in an application may be distributed  to other parties  to assist  in  the assessment of the application and may be distributed and/or publicised as part of material on the program or the project. 

Applicants must  identify any  information contained within their application that they consider should  be  treated  as  confidential  and  provide  reasons  for  the  request.  The  Australian Government reserves the right to accept or refuse a request to treat information as confidential. 

A request made under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 for access to an application marked ‘confidential’ will be determined in accordance with that Act. 

7 Complaints Process  

Complaints about the RDAF application and assessment process should be directed to:  

RDAF Complaints Corporate Services  Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport GPO Box 803 CANBERRA  ACT  2601 

Details  of  the  complaints  process  are  available  from  the  Department’s  website (www.regional.gov.au). 

8 Key Dates  

Milestone  Date

RDAF Round Five announced   19 June 2013 Draft RDAF Round Five Guidelines published to website—www.regional.gov.au

21 June 2013  

Applications for RDAF Round Five open  21 June 2013 Assessment of applications  As applications are received Applications for RDAF Round Five close  22 July 2013 (5:00pm local time) Department approval of grants under Round Five  Following assessment Funding Agreements negotiated and executed  Funding Agreements will be negotiated 

on a rolling basis and must be executed within six months of grant approval 

178

Glossary of Terms 

Consortium 

An  association  of  two  or more  individuals,  companies,  organisations  or  governments  in  any combination with the objective of participating in a common activity or pooling their resources to achieve a common goal. A consortium is often formed to undertake a venture that would be beyond  the  resources of a  single  individual or company. A consortium must be  supported by appropriate legal arrangements. 

The Department 

Australian Government as represented by Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport. 

Funding Allocation 

The funding allocated to eligible local governments under RDAF Round Five. 

Infrastructure 

The facilities and installations needed to support a functioning community.  

In‐kind contributions In‐kind  contributions may  be  contributions  of  land,  equipment,  supplies,  or  other  tangible resources, as distinguished from a monetary grant.  

Investment Ready 

The  project must  be  completed  no  later  than  31 December  2016.  The  project must  also  be ready to commence construction within 12 months of the execution of the Funding Agreement between the applicant and the Commonwealth. 

Local Government 

A  local  governing  body  is  defined  by  the  Local  Government  (Financial  Assistance)  Act  1995 (Cwlth) as either: 

a) a  local governing body established by or under a  law of a State, other than a body whose sole or principal function  is to provide a particular service, such as the supply of electricity or water, or  

b) a body declared by  the Minister, on  the  advice of  the  relevant  State Minister, by notice published in the Gazette, to be a local governing body for the purposes of this Act.  

Please note that ‘State’ in the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995 (Cwlth) includes the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. 

179

 

12 | P a g e   

Regional Development Australia Fund  Guidelines for Round Five

For the purposes of the RDAF program, organisations that received the General Purpose funding component of the  local government Financial Assistance Grants  in 2012‐13 will be considered eligible local governments. 

Outcomes 

The  long  term  benefits  that  a  project  brings  to  a  community,  i.e.  the  result,  impact  or consequence of the project. For example, outcomes could  include an  increase  in employment, increase in education opportunities or increase in community capacity.  

Partner contribution (or partnership funding) 

A cash contribution to the project made by an  individual or organisation (partner contributor) from a  specific program or  funding  source. Contributions of  tangible  resources,  such as  land, should be  included as contributions of  in‐kind support. The applicant will usually be a partner but this is not a specific requirement.  

Project 

A project  is  the entire endeavour undertaken  to  create a product or output under  the RDAF program. 

Social Capital  

Projects  that build  the  social  cohesion  of  a  community,  support  or  enhance  social  inclusion, build or strengthen social networks or address issues which are specific to minority groups.  

180

Attachment A 

 

Guidance on Preparing Supporting Documentation 

It is expected that the detail, size and content of supporting documents will be commensurate with the size and scope and risk of the project. Documentation relating to larger projects and/or more complex projects  is expected  to be more detailed and provide extensive  information  to demonstrate capacity and capability. Documentation in relation to smaller projects may be less detailed. 

Supporting documents should be practical documents that will be used for the implementation and/or management of the project. These documents need not be prepared  just for the RDAF application.  Consideration  should  be  given, where  possible,  to  using  existing  documents  to support the application. 

Where  applicants  are  seeking  funding  for  a  package  of  smaller  projects,  supporting documentation should be provided for each project.  

Budgets  for  the  project,  both  for  individual  phases  and  overall  should  be  provided.  These budgets will  contain  statements  of  income,  expenses  and  projected  balances  by  scheduled project milestones. Budgets  should be detailed  and  specific. Major expense  items  should be itemised. 

For larger projects applicants should, in putting their supporting documentation together, have regard  to  the  following  aspects  of  good  project management  and  assess  the  applicability  to their projects. 

1. Business Case 

The Business Case (or similar) should provide an overview of the project and the benefits that will accrue. The Business Case should include reasons for initiating the project; outcomes; and a methodology  to  review  progress  against  them.  It will  also  detail  the  physical  aspects  of  the project,  including  inclusions and exclusions  (for example because  they are already  in place or will be provided by a third party), and include a cost/benefit analysis.  The Business Case sets the framework for the delivery of the project.  

2. Asset Management and Operations Plan 

The  Asset  Management  and  Operations  Plan  should  demonstrate  that  the  outputs  of  the project will be  retained  in original  condition  for a  five year period.  It  should also outline  the operational  needs  of  the  project  into  the  future,  a  strategy  to  manage  the  project  and arrangements to maintain the ongoing viability of the completed project. 

181

The  Plan  should  include  details  of  ownership  arrangements  for  the  facility  including  leasing and/or  rental  arrangements.  Five  year  financial  projections  post  project  delivery  should  be provided, including1: 

• costs associated with operating and maintaining the infrastructure, 

• projections of any revenue that may be generated and the percentage to be applied to ongoing maintenance and management of the infrastructure, and 

• arrangements to manage revenue shortfalls relative to expenditure. 

3. Project Management Plan 

Applications  should  include  a  Project  Management  Plan  (or  similar),  which  addresses  the implementation of the project, from commencement to completion. It should define how, when and by whom project activities will be completed. The Project Management Plan should include: 

• Project Objectives: the outputs of the project, the infrastructure to be delivered and the benefits to be realised. 

• Project Scope: what  is  included  in and excluded  from  the project,  identify geographical location and coverage,  identify business units  involved  in  implementation, note project prerequisites and assumptions, and specify the criteria that demonstrate completion of the project. 

• Governance and Organisational Structures: the organisational structure, particularly as it relates to the project. Roles and responsibilities of key staff members should be defined.  

• An Operational approach for the Execution of the Project: timelines, milestones and key activities. 

• Resourcing: the staffing and physical resources required, and how these will be applied to the project. 

• Resource Management: the staffing, contractor and resources required to complete the project. Arrangements to procure resources should be described. 

• Project Quality: the strategy to ensure the quality of the construction and delivery of the project. 

• Project Communication Strategy:  the  formal and  informal  communication  strategies  to engage with stakeholders and other interested parties. 

• Approvals: approvals which are in place and still to be obtained, as well as a strategy and timeline to finalise all outstanding approvals. 

• Compliance:  the  processes  to  ensure  that  the  activities  undertaken  comply  with  all requirements, and arrangements to monitor compliance. 

• Audit  and  performance  reporting:  arrangements  and  time  frames  for  internal  reviews and audits. 

                                                            1 For capital assets with no revenue stream, and which will become part of the ongoing capital asset management activity of the applicant or a consortium member, the ownership, budget responsibilities and operational responsibilities for this must be identified and projected expenditure detailed. 

182

 The Project Management Plan drives the delivery of the project. 

4. Risk Management Plan 

Applications  should  include  a  Risk  Management  Plan  (or  similar),  which  is  essential  to demonstrating  that all key  risks have been  identified, assessed and appropriate mitigation or management strategies are in place. The Plan should address project risks from commencement of the project, through construction and management in the medium term. 

The  Risk Management  Plan  should  be  compliant  with  the  risk management  principles  and practices  laid out  in the International Standard, ISO 31000. It should  include the organisation’s approach to identifying and managing risk. This may be a risk management policy which applies across the organisation. 

The  Risk Management  Plan must  address  risks  which  relate  directly  to  the  stated  project, include for each identified risk: 

• the nature of the identified risk 

• the likelihood of occurrence 

• treatment and mitigation strategies 

• residual risk, and 

• staffing arrangements to manage and monitor the risk. 

 

 

   

183

Attachment B 

Australian Government Building and Construction OHS Accreditation Scheme 

The Australian Government  is  committed  to  improving occupational health  and  safety  (OHS) outcomes in the building and construction industry. From 1 October 2007, only persons who are accredited  under  the  Australian  Government  Building  and  Construction  OHS  Accreditation Scheme  are  able  to  contract  for  building  work  that  is  indirectly  funded  by  the  Australian Government where: 

• the value of the Australian Government contribution (including the amount of any Contingency Payment) to the project is at least $5 million and represents at least 50 per cent of the total construction project value, or 

• the Australian Government contribution (including the amount of any Contingency Payment) to a project is $10 million or more, irrespective of the proportion of Australian Government funding.  

The Scheme is established by the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 and specified  in  the  Building  and  Construction  Industry  Improvement  (Accreditation  Scheme) Regulations 2005. 

Building work is considered indirectly funded where it is funded by the Australian Government or  an Australian Government  authority  through  grants  and  other  programmes.  This  includes building  projects  where  the  Australian  Government  provides  money  through  a  funding agreement or grants to a person,  for example, a state or territory government who then may contract with persons who will undertake the building work or persons who will arrange for the building work to be carried out. 

Indirectly  funded building work also  includes building projects  that  the person, who  receives Australian Government  funding,  facilitates by agreement  (for example pre‐commitment  lease, Build Own Operate and Build Own Operate Transfer arrangements). 

If a project meets the above threshold amounts, the requirement that accredited builders carry out the building work only applies to contracts for building work that are valued at $3 million or more as defined in the Building and Construction Industry Improvement (Accreditation Scheme) Regulations 2005. 

Further  information  on  applying  the  Australian  Government  Building  and  Construction  OHS Accreditation  Scheme  is  available  from  the  Office  of  the  Federal  Safety  Commissioner  at www.fsc.gov.au. 

The Australian Government  reserves  the  right  to  set other  conditions especially where  there may be a need to mitigate risks identified within the project. 

   

184

Attachment C 

Contractual Arrangements  Between the Australian Government and Applicant 

Agreement 

Funding will be delivered to applicants via a Funding Agreement (FA) with a local government. 

FAs will specify:  

• the purpose for which the RDAF funding must be used 

• the terms and conditions under which the RDAF funding is provided , and any requirements or conditions that must be met prior to the release of RDAF funds, and 

• milestones and project outcomes that must be achieved prior to the release of RDAF payments.  

Applicants should not make financial commitments for funded activities until the FA has been signed by all relevant parties. 

If there are any conditions or risk treatments  identified by the Department, evidence must be provided  to, and accepted by,  the Department  that  these conditions have been met, prior  to RDAF  payments  being  made.  Conditions  and  risk  treatments  will  be  managed  through milestones  specified  in  the  FA.  Action  may  be  taken  to  terminate  the  FA  where  the Department’s requirements are not met.  

Branding and recognition 

Organisations must ensure  that all advertisements, promotional activities, such as pamphlets, other publicity or fundraising events, and any other public relations matters are consistent with the branding requirements and arrangements to acknowledge Commonwealth funding set out in the Funding Agreement. As a minimum, all publicly available material on the project should include  the  words  ‘Funded  by  the  Australian  Government  under  the  Regional  Development Australia Fund’. 

Successful applicants must notify the Department at  least 45 business days  in advance of any upcoming promotional activity, such as launches, sod‐turning events, openings, graduations and visits or public statements. The Minister must be invited to all such activities. The Minister has the option of accepting, declining or nominating a representative to attend on his behalf. The representative may  be  another Minister,  a  Parliamentary  Secretary,  and/or  a  local member supporting the Minister. Departmental staff may also attend. 

185

It  is  not  appropriate  for  organisations  to  invite  a  representative,  such  as  a  local Member  of Parliament,  to attend  such a  launch or  function without prior agreement  from  the Minister’s Office. Such permission must be sought through the Department. 

Payment arrangements 

RDAF  Payments  will  be  available  on  execution  of  the  Funding  Agreement  with  an  upfront payment  of  50%  of  the  Funding Allocation  and  the  remaining  RDAF  Payments made  on  the achievement  of  agreed  milestones.  The  exception  being  eligible  local  governments  with  a Funding Allocation of $50,000 or less who will receive a 100% up‐front payment on execution of a Funding Agreement between the applicant and the Commonwealth. 

Before a RDAF payment can be made, funding recipients will be required to provide: 

• evidence of meeting the milestone through provision of a progress report, photographs and other documentation as requested 

• evidence of meeting the obligations of the FA 

• evidence that all previous RDAF payments for the project have been expended or committed, and 

• a tax invoice, which meets the requirements of the Australian Taxation Office, for the amount of the payment.  

Payments  will  only  be  made  after  the  Department  is  satisfied  that  milestones  and  the associated obligations specified in the FA have been met (noting the first milestone will be the execution of the Funding Agreement). 

Managing the project 

Once  the  FA  is  finalised,  the  applicant will  be  required  to  actively manage  the  project.  The project’s progress will be monitored by the applicant, which will provide progress reports to the Department. 

The Department will monitor progress of  the project  through assessment of progress  reports and by conducting site visits as necessary. Based on project size, complexity and the amount of funding  being  provided,  the  Department  may  require  applicants  to  establish  a  Project Governance Board with regular meetings and reports. The Department may be an observer at these meetings. 

Reporting 

Applicants must provide  regular  reports on  their progress against  the achievement of agreed milestones. Depending on the size and/or complexity of the projects, reporting will generally be quarterly to half yearly. 

186

 

vii | P a g e   

Regional Development Australia Fund  Guidelines for Round Five 

The timing of progress reports will be determined  in the FA, and will be directly  linked to the agreed milestones and risk assessments. Acquittal of expenditure will also be a key element of these reports. 

 

Where progress payments are linked to the achievement of particular activities, these payments will  only  be made  after  the  relevant  progress  report  is  accepted  and  the  requirements  for payment stated in the FA have been met, including expenditure or commitment of the previous payment. 

Additionally, if funding has been approved subject to meeting certain conditions, evidence that the conditions have been met must be presented to, and accepted by the Department. 

Acquittals 

Applicants  are  required  to  provide  the  Department  with  financial  acquittals,  and  may  be required  to provide audited statements upon project completion,  that demonstrate  that  they have spent the Australian Government funding on the purposes specified in the FA. 

Applicants should familiarise themselves with the FA to ensure they are able to comply with the acquittal requirements. 

When the project has been completed, applicants must submit to the Department a: 

• ‘Completion Report’, to demonstrate that they have achieved all the agreed milestones and 

• Financial acquittal report of all expenditure of Australian Government funding and other funding sources, as set out in the FA. Where requested by the Department, an audited statement by an independent auditor, for all expenditure of Australian Government funding and other funding sources, must be provided.   

Once the report has been accepted by the Department, the final grant payment will be made. 

Evaluation 

To  enable  evaluation  of  the  benefits  of  Government  funding,  each  applicant  is  required  to identify the project’s key outputs and the manner in which they will be measured (Performance Measures). These outputs and Performance Measures will be  included  in  the FA. The Project Completion Report will document what was achieved with the funding provided for the project by  the Australian Government. Utilising  this  information,  the Department will determine how the funding contributed to the objectives and outcomes of the program.  

 

187

Round Five

Regional Development Australia Fund

Local Government - Allocative Round

June 2013

F R E Q U E N T L Y A S K E D Q U E S T I O N S

188

Table of Contents

1. Applicants ...................................................................................................................... 5

1.1. Who is eligible to apply for funding under Round Five of the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF)? ............................................................................................ 5

1.2. I am a not-for-profit organisation. Can I submit an application? .............................. 5

2. Applications ................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. How will projects be funded under Round Five of RDAF? ........................................ 5

2.2. How will funding be allocated? ................................................................................ 5

2.3. When will the Department commence assessing applications? ............................... 5

2.4. Can I submit an application for a project that was an Expression of Interest and/or a full application in a previous RDAF round? .............................................................. 6

2.5. Can I resubmit my previous application form? ......................................................... 6

2.6. How do I submit an application?.............................................................................. 6

2.7. Can I submit more than one application? ................................................................ 6

2.8. What supporting documents should be provided? .................................................. 6

2.9. Can I withdraw my application? ............................................................................... 7

2.10. If I make a mistake in my application can I send the Department a replacement? ... 7

2.11. How will applications be assessed?.......................................................................... 7

2.12. When will I be advised about the outcome of my application? ................................ 7

3. PROJECT ......................................................................................................................... 8

3.1. What can be funded? .............................................................................................. 8

3.2. What does ‘investment ready’ mean? ..................................................................... 8

3.3. Can I apply for a project that has already commenced or is scheduled to commence? ............................................................................................................. 8

3.4. What if I didn’t seek feedback for my previous RDAF application can I get feedback now? ....................................................................................................................... 8

4. PARTNERSHIP FUNDING ................................................................................................ 9

4.1. Can I apply for funding for a project if I don’t have partnership funding? ................ 9

5. Role of the Department ................................................................................................. 9

5.1. What is the Department’s role in the assessment of applications? .......................... 9

5.2. Will the Department contact me with questions relating to my application? ........... 9

5.3. I have questions about the program and application process. Who can I talk too? .. 9

189

6. Grants Management System (GMS) Portal .................................................................. 11

6.1. What is the GMS Portal?........................................................................................ 11

6.2. Can I access the GMS Portal if I use an internet browser other than Internet Explorer? ............................................................................................................... 11

6.3. How can I check whether my organisation is registered in the GMS Portal? .......... 11

6.4. How do I register my organisation for access to the GMS Portal? .......................... 11

6.5. How can I receive my GMS Portal username if I have forgotten it? ........................ 12

6.6. How can I receive my GMS Portal password if I have forgotten it? ........................ 12

6.7. I pressed the ‘Forgotten your password?’ link on the Login Page of the GMS Portal but have not received an email with my password. How can I receive my password? ............................................................................................................. 12

6.8. How do I find out who the GMS Portal Administrator for my organisation is? ....... 12

6.9. How do I find out who is nominated as the Signatory for my organisation? ........... 13

6.10. How can my organisation register another GMS Portal user? ................................ 13

6.11. My organisation’s only GMS Portal Administrator has left the organisation. How can I assign a new Administrator in the GMS Portal? ............................................. 13

6.12. My organisation’s Signatory nominated on the GMS Portal has left the organisation. How can I assign a new Signatory in the GMS Portal? ............................................ 13

7. RDAF Round Five Application Webform ...................................................................... 14

7.1. How do I know which questions in the webform are mandatory? ......................... 14

7.2. How do I know which documents in the webform are mandatory? ....................... 14

7.3. What is meant by a ‘single location’ in the webform? ............................................ 14

7.4. How do I complete the Budget Table? ................................................................... 14

7.5. How do I add Partner Funding to the Budget Table? .............................................. 15

7.6. Is funding from the applicant included as Partner Funding? .................................. 16

7.7. How do I complete the Partner Funding table? ...................................................... 16

7.8. How do I answer the questions on the Project Delivery tab if I have more than one project? ................................................................................................................. 16

7.9. When I upload a document the document does not appear on the screen and there is no error message. How can I upload the document? ......................................... 16

7.10. Can I increase the speed at which documents upload in the webform? ................. 16

7.11. What is the difference between cancelling and withdrawing an application? ........ 17

7.12. Can I re-activate a cancelled application? .............................................................. 17

190

Record of Updates to the Frequently Asked Questions

This ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ document is a living document, and will be updated regularly to reflect new questions or issues. The following table provides an indication to the reader of when this document was last updated and the nature of the changes.

Prior to application review this document to ensure that the information you have based your submission on considers the full range of Frequently Asked Questions.

These Frequently Asked Questions should be read n conjunction with the RDAF Round Five Program Guidelines.

Date Updated Pages Updated Description of Update

191

1. Applicants

1.1. Who is eligible to apply for funding under Round Five of the Regional Development Australia Fund (RDAF)?

Eligible applicants are local governments that received funding under the General Purpose component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants in 2012-13.

Eligible applicants can be supported by a consortium and projects may be delivered by the consortium. However, the Commonwealth will only enter into a Funding Agreement with an eligible organization.

1.2. I am a not-for-profit organisation. Can I submit an application?

No, only eligible local governments can submit an application to Round Five of RDAF (Section 2.2, Guidelines).

However, an ineligible organisation can participate in a consortium which is led by an eligible applicant. It is expected that consortia will be supported by appropriate legal and governance arrangements.

2. Applications

2.1. How will projects be funded under Round Five of RDAF?

Eligible local governments will need to submit for approval, applications for eligible projects seeking RDAF funding within their Funding Allocation.

2.2. How will funding be allocated?

Funding will be allocated among States and Territories on a per capita basis. A base grant of $30,000 will apply for all eligible local governments with the remaining funding in each State or Territory to be distributed in the same proportion as the General Purpose funding component of the local government Financial Assistance Grants (Section 1.1 Guidelines).

A list of Funding Allocations for each eligible local government is published on the Department’s website (www.regional.gov.au).

The Department will approve projects within each Funding Allocation.

2.3. When will the Department commence assessing applications?

Applications will be assessed as they are received throughout the application period and beyond.

192

2.4. Can I submit an application for a project that was an Expression of Interest and/or a full application in a previous RDAF round?

Yes, eligible local governments can submit applications for projects that have been the subject of expressions of interest or applications under previous RDAF rounds.

However, if a project received funding from a previous RDAF round, then the application under Round Five must be for a discrete and further stage of that project.

2.5. Can I resubmit my previous application form?

No, a new application form must be submitted.

2.6. How do I submit an application?

On- line applications are submitted via the Department’s Grants Management System (GMS) Portal.

The GMS Portal will be available between Monday 1 July 2013 and 5:00 pm (local time) Monday 22 July 2013. Late applications will not be accepted.

Prior to Monday 1 July 2013, applicants can use the sample application form available on the Department’s website at www.regional.gov.au to start preparing their application.

A User Guide to the GMS Portal will be available on the Department’s website at www.regional.gov.au from 1 July 2013.

As soon as you have decided to submit an application you should register for access to the GMS Portal at https://gms.infrastructure.gov.au/UI.

For more information see sections 6 and 7 below.

2.7. Can I submit more than one application?

No, an eligible applicant can only submit one application for funding for a single project or a package of smaller projects. However, an eligible applicant can be a member of a number of consortia led by another eligible applicant.

2.8. What supporting documents should be provided?

Supporting documents should demonstrate an applicant’s capability and capacity to deliver and maintain the project. The size and detail of these documents should be commensurate with the value and scope of the project, and sufficient to enable the Department to assess value-for-money and project viability.

Failure to provide adequate documentation (as recommended in Section 3.2 and Attachment A of the Guidelines) may impact on the timely assessment of applications and has the potential to significantly delay the establishment of Funding Agreements.

193

2.9. Can I withdraw my application?

Yes, an application can be withdrawn at any time by the applicant’s authorised person (identified at Question 7 in the application form).

Written advice of withdrawal must be provided to the Department at rdaf@regional.gov.au

2.10. If I make a mistake in my application can I send the Department a replacement?

Applications can be amended or substituted up to the closing date for applications.

The closing date for applications is Monday, 22 July 2013.

Where an application is amended, the initial application must be withdrawn and a replacement application provided. This should be done in writing via email, with emails sent to rdaf@regional.gov.au and clearly setting out the name of the proponent, project, date of submission to the Department and reasons for withdrawal.

Replacement or revised applications must be emailed to the Department before the closing date.

2.11. How will applications be assessed?

The Department will assess all applications to determine if they meet the Funding Criteria (Section 2.1 of the Guidelines):

The applicant must be an eligible organisation.

The application must be for an eligible project.

The project must provide community benefit, economic growth or support the environment.

The project must be viable.

2.12. When will I be advised about the outcome of my application?

Announcements on projects to be funded will be made following the completion of the assessment process and consideration by the Program Delegate.

The Department will advise each applicant of the outcome of their application in writing.

A list of projects approved for funding will be listed on the Department’s website at www.regional.gov.au.

The Department will commence assessing applications as they are received throughout the application period. Applicants may be contacted by the Department to verify elements of their applications.

194

Grants will be approved for eligible projects within each eligible local government’s Funding Allocation, subject to the applicant entering into a Funding Agreement.

3. PROJECT

3.1. What can be funded?

A single project or a package of smaller projects:

for the construction of new infrastructure, or the refurbishment or upgrade of existing infrastructure

that benefit the Local Government Area and the communities that reside within it, and

that provide community benefit, economic growth, and/or support the environment.

A package of projects must be included in a single application form and if approved will be contracted in a single Funding Agreement between the applicant and the Commonwealth.

3.2. What does ‘investment ready’ mean?

A project must commence within 12 months of signing a Funding Agreement and the project must be completed no later than 31 December 2016.

All planning, zoning, environmental and/or native title approvals are in place or close to being finalised.

Funding Agreements are to be negotiated within 6 months from the date of the written advice to the applicant on the outcome of their Round Five application.

3.3. Can I apply for a project that has already commenced or is scheduled to commence?

Funding will not be provided for projects that have already commenced or are scheduled to commence.

Funding is for ‘shovel ready’ infrastructure projects that provide additional economic activity in regional and local communities.

3.4. What if I didn’t seek feedback for my previous RDAF application can I get feedback now?

The Department is currently providing feedback to unsuccessful projects from RDAF Rounds Three and Four. However, feedback sessions for unsuccessful projects from RDAF Round One and Two have been completed.

195

4. PARTNERSHIP FUNDING

4.1. Can I apply for funding for a project if I don’t have partnership funding?

Yes, applications for projects with no partnership funding in place will be accepted.

If applicants are providing partner funding they should provide evidence of contributions to the project, such as an authorised letter from each contributing partner confirming the commitment and noting any conditions that may apply, with the application for funding.

5. Role of the Department

5.1. What is the Department’s role in the assessment of applications?

The Department will undertake a value-for-money assessment of all applications to determine that they meet the funding criteria.

The Department may contact applicants to verify elements of their applications throughout the application process and beyond.

The Department is the decision maker on all projects.

5.2. Will the Department contact me with questions relating to my application?

As RDAF Round Five is not a competitive funding round, the Department may contact the person nominated as the Senior Project Manager in your application form to clarify aspects of your application.

For example, if you have projects or Project Line Items that are ineligible, the Department will contact you to amend your application to include eligible projects or Project Line Items. Similarly, if the Department requires further information to determine whether a project is viable, they may contact the applicant with questions regarding contingency arrangements or cost estimates.

It is important that you provide an application that you consider to be eligible according to the guidelines. Including potentially ineligible projects in your application, or not providing supporting documents, will impact on the Department's ability to assess the application, and has the potential to delay the establishment of a funding agreement with the Department.

5.3. I have questions about the program and application process. Who can I talk too?

To ensure the highest standard of probity, the Department requires that questions be written (email) and sent to rdaf@regional.gov.au, and that answers be provided in writing.

This ensures that consistent advice, provided to all applicants, does not advantage any single applicant, and is auditable. It also ensures that all key questions can be added to this document, and made available to all other potential applicants.

196

Questions to the rdaf@regional.gov.au inbox should be clear and concise, and identify the part of the process you are seeking advice on.

197

Submitting Your Application

6. Grants Management System (GMS) Portal

6.1. What is the GMS Portal?

The GMS Portal is a secure website managed by the Department. The GMS Portal enables applicants and recipients of grant funding to: manage the Department’s record of their organisation’s details;

view upcoming grant programs or program rounds;

complete and submit applications in open program rounds;

upload supporting documents; and

complete and submit reports for funded projects.

The GMS Portal URL is https://gms.infrastructure.gov.au/UI. This will take you to the front page of the GMS Portal.

6.2. Can I access the GMS Portal if I use an internet browser other than Internet Explorer?

No, the GMS Portal is only compatible with Internet Explorer 7 and above. If you open the GMS Portal with an internet browser other than Internet Explorer 7 or above, you will be asked to use Internet Explorer.

You can download Internet Explorer 9 for free at http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/internet-explorer/products/ie/home.

6.3. How can I check whether my organisation is registered in the GMS Portal?

Most local governments will already be registered in the GMS Portal from the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program.

To check whether your organisation is registered in the GMS Portal, press the ‘Register here…’ link on the Login Page of the GMS Portal, type in your organisation’s name and ABN and press the ‘Check for Organisation’ button.

If your organisation is registered in the GMS Portal, the following message will appear: An Organisation matching Legal Name, Operating Name or ABN is already registered with GMS. Email rdaf@regional.gov.au to find out the name of your organisation’s users.

If your organisation is not registered, the ‘Register Organisation’ page will appear.

6.4. How do I register my organisation for access to the GMS Portal?

To register your organisation for access to the GMS Portal: open the GMS Portal page;

198

press the ‘Continue’ button;

press the ‘Register here…’ link;

complete the organisation check;

complete the ‘Register Organisation’ page; and

press the ‘Register’ button.

You will then be sent an email confirming that your registration is in process. Once your organisation’s registration has been approved by the Department you will be

sent an email that includes your username and password. This may take up to three working days. You will then be able to create an RDAF Round Five application.

6.5. How can I receive my GMS Portal username if I have forgotten it?

To receive your username you must ask your organisation’s Administrator to check on the ‘Manage Users’ page, or email a request to rdaf@regional.gov.au. The Department will provide your username by email within three working days.

6.6. How can I receive my GMS Portal password if I have forgotten it?

If you remember your username and have forgotten your password, enter your username into the Login ID field on the Login Page of the GMS Portal and press the ‘Forgotten your password?’ link. Your password will be emailed to the email address provided in the GMS Portal.

6.7. I pressed the ‘Forgotten your password?’ link on the Login Page of the GMS Portal but have not received an email with my password. How can I receive my password?

You must ask your organisation’s Administrator to check what email address is recorded against your profile in the GMS Portal. If the email address is incorrect, you should have the Administrator change the email address for you. You must then press the ‘Forgotten your password?’ link again to regenerate the email with a new password.

If the email address is correct in the GMS Portal and you have not received your password, please email rdaf@regional.gov.au.

6.8. How do I find out who the GMS Portal Administrator for my organisation is?

If you are a registered GMS Portal user and have access to your account, press the Manage Users button on the left menu within the GMS Portal. There will be a tick in the Administrator column next to your organisation’s Administrator.

If you are not a registered GMS Portal user, email the request to identify your organisation’s Administrator to rdaf@regional.gov.au.

199

6.9. How do I find out who is nominated as the Signatory for my organisation?

The Signatory for an organisation is generally the Chief Executive Officer, General Manager or equivalent.

If you are a registered GMS Portal user and have access to your account, press the Manage Users button on the left menu within the GMS Portal. There will be a tick in the Signatory column next to your organisation’s Signatory.

If you are not a registered GMS Portal user, email the request to identify your organisation’s Signatory to rdaf@regional.gov.au.

6.10. How can my organisation register another GMS Portal user?

To register another GMS Portal user, your organisation’s Administrator must open the Manage Users page, select the ‘Add a user’ link at the bottom of the page, complete the user’s details and press the ‘Save’ button. You must then press the ‘Activate’ button on the right in the row with the user’s name, and the press ‘Reset Password’. The user will then be emailed their username and password.

If the user does not receive the email with the username and password, check that their email address in the GMS Portal is correct, and enter their username into the Login ID field on the Login Page of the GMS Portal and press ‘Forgotten your password?’, which will email them their username and password.

6.11. My organisation’s only GMS Portal Administrator has left the organisation. How can I assign a new Administrator in the GMS Portal?

If your organisation only has one Administrator and they have left the organisation, your organisation’s Chief Executive Officer or equivalent must email a request to rdaf@regional.gov.au to assign a new Administrator.

In the request, please include the new Administrator’s name, job title, phone number and email address.

Requests to change the Administrator can take three working days to complete - applicants should plan for this timing.

6.12. My organisation’s Signatory nominated on the GMS Portal has left the organisation. How can I assign a new Signatory in the GMS Portal?

Your organisation’s GMS Portal Administrator must either assign an existing user as a Signatory, or create a new user and then assign them as the Signatory.

To assign a Signatory the Administrator must open the Manage Users page and press the ‘Set as Signatory’ button next to the user’s name.

Only one Signatory is permitted per organisation. All users that no longer work at the organisation should have their accounts deactivated by

pressing the ‘Deactivate’ button next to the person’s name on the Manage Users page.

200

7. RDAF Round Five Application Webform

7.1. How do I know which questions in the webform are mandatory?

All questions in the webform are mandatory, unless specified otherwise on the tab in the form.

If you have not completed a mandatory field, or if you have entered invalid information, an error notification will appear at the top of the tab after pressing the ‘Save’ button. The tab will then appear red. An application cannot be submitted if red tabs are present.

For example, if you do not add an RDAF Requested Amount for a Project in the Project Table, the following error notification will appear at the top of the screen: ‘Please provide an RDAF Requested Amount.’ and the tab will appear red.

7.2. How do I know which documents in the webform are mandatory?

Applicants are strongly advised to provide the following documents in their application: Business Case; Asset and Operations Management Plan; Project Management Plan; Risk Management Plan; Procurement Management Plan; Location Maps; Evidence of Partner Funding; and Evidence of Licences or Approvals.

It is not mandatory to provide the expected documentation, however not providing these documents will impact on the Department’s ability to assess the application, and has the potential to delay the establishment of Funding Agreements.

7.3. What is meant by a ‘single location’ in the webform?

A single location refers to infrastructure that is in one discrete location. For example, a sports field or a specific building.

If the infrastructure is a linear project, for example a bike path, you should include a start and end point, and at least one intermediate point.

If the infrastructure is in several locations, for example the same type of infrastructure in two locations, you should include either at least two ‘One location of many’, or one ‘One location of many’ and a start and end point, and at least one intermediate point.

7.4. How do I complete the Budget Table?

The Budget Table is the budget for the infrastructure described in the Project. The Budget should be a record of what RDAF and Partner Funding will be spent on within the Project.

201

Partner Funding refers to all financial contributions towards the Project besides the requested RDAF contribution, including contributions from the applicant.

A Project Line Item is the smallest breakdown of each task to be delivered as part of the Project.

The Budget Table includes calculations to ensure that the budget adds up to the correct amounts (that is, those provided in the Project Table). For instance, for each Project: The Total Cost of Project Line Items in the Budget Table must equal the Total Cost of

the Project provided in the Project Table; and

The Total RDAF Funding for Project Line Items for that Project must equal the RDAF Requested Amount for that Project in the Project Table.

Project Line Items can be funded in the following ways: solely funded by partners and have no RDAF funding contribution (that is, the partner

funding equals the Total Estimated Cost of the Project Line Item, so you would put a zero in the RDAF funding field);

solely funded by RDAF and have no partner funding contribution (that is, the RDAF funding equals the Total Estimated Cost of the Project Line Item); or

funded by partners and RDAF (that is, the Total Estimated Cost of the Project Line Item minus the RDAF funding equals the partner funding).

To complete the table, press the ‘Add Project Line Item’ button. You are then required to fill in each of the fields (noting the conditions above), which will populate the table once you press the ‘Update’ button.

You must press ‘Save’ to ensure all updates are saved.

7.5. How do I add Partner Funding to the Budget Table?

In the Budget Table, the Partner Funding for a Project Line Item is calculated by deducting the RDAF Funding for the Project Line Item from the Total Estimated Cost of the Project Line Item. To add Partner Funding, the RDAF Funding for the Project Line Item must be less than the Total Estimated Cost of Project Line Item.

For example, if Construction/Fit Out for Project X is estimated to cost $10,000, partner funding for Construction/Fit Out is $6,000, and RDAF funding is $4,000, then you should enter $10,000 in the Total Estimated Cost of Work Line Item field and $4,000 in the RDAF Funding for this Project Line Item field. This will calculate $6,000 of Partner Funding and populate this into the table.

The webform is designed to reduce the input of data and to ensure that figures add up to the correct amounts.

202

7.6. Is funding from the applicant included as Partner Funding?

Yes, if funding will be contributed by the applicant organisation you should select ‘My Organisation’ in the Funding Partner Type field in the Partner Funding Table, and complete the remaining fields.

7.7. How do I complete the Partner Funding table?

The Partner Funding Table is a record of all Partner Funding for each Project. The sum of Partner Funding for a Project in the Partner Funding Table must equal the Total

Value of Partner Funding for the Project in the Project Table.

7.8. How do I answer the questions on the Project Delivery tab if I have more than one project?

Questions on the Project Delivery tab relate to all of the projects that you have entered into the Project Table. For example, if you have five projects listed in the Project Table, and a ‘yes’ to

applies to four projects for Question 26, but a ‘no’ applies to one project, then you should answer ‘no’ to this question. For Question 27, you should choose one cost estimate to include the details of in the form and provide the cost estimates as supporting documents. In Questions 29 you should list the organisations responsible for maintaining and sustaining the assets and services.

7.9. When I upload a document the document does not appear on the screen and there is no error message. How can I upload the document?

This occurs because you have browsed for the document but not pressed the ‘Upload’ button.

To upload a document you must press the ‘Browse’ button, select your document, press the ‘Open’ button in Windows Explorer, and press the ‘Upload’ button in the webform.

If the document has been successfully uploaded it will be visible on the webform.

7.10. Can I increase the speed at which documents upload in the webform?

The upload speed of documents is governed by the speed of your internet connection and the size of your documents. If your internet connection is slow, you can try: working from a computer with a faster internet connection; or

uploading smaller documents. If your document file name is over 45 characters (including the file extension), contains special characters ( e.g *, -, !) or the file size is over 15MB, the document will not upload and the webform will display an error message.

203

7.11. What is the difference between cancelling and withdrawing an application?

Unsubmitted applications can be cancelled. Cancellation can occur at any time during the application submission period. Once an application is cancelled, another application can be commenced within the

GMS Portal immediately.

Cancelled applications can be re-activated.

Cancellation and re-activation is undertaken by the applicant within the GMS Portal.

Submitted applications can be withdrawn, but not cancelled. Submitted applications can be withdrawn at any time during the application submission period. However, applications cannot be withdrawn within the GMS Portal. If an application is to be withdrawn, a request must be sent to rdaf@regional.gov.au. The withdrawal process takes three working days and another application cannot be commenced until the withdrawal process has been completed. Withdrawn applications cannot be re-activated.

The person requesting a cancellation or withdrawal will receive confirmation via email that the process has been completed.

7.12. Can I re-activate a cancelled application?

Yes, to re-activate a cancelled application you press the ‘Re-activate’ link on the RDAF Round Five page within the GMS Portal. To re-activate a cancelled application you must have no active RDAF Round Five applications, as only one application can be completed at a time.

204

SOCIAL 2 07.2013

Flood Mitigation and Resilience Funding File: 14.3.07 Responsible Officer: Andrew Jackson – Director of Community and Cultural Services Report prepared by: Tracey Wilson – Media / Grants Officer 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to obtain guidance from Council regarding proposed projects for the Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding available through the:

Royalties for the Regions Local Government Flood Response Subsidy Natural Disaster Resilience Program

2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The Queensland Government is working with local governments and other organisations to protect communities from future flooding and other natural hazards to build more resilient communities. Enhanced preparation, improved flood security and better education about responses to natural disasters, ultimately will reduce expenditure on natural disaster reconstruction and recovery activities. In 2013–14, the government has introduced a new process to deliver disaster mitigation and resilience funding to Queensland communities. The joint application package provides applicants with a single point for all disaster mitigation and resilience funding administered by the state government and offers a streamlined assessment process. The joint application package for disaster mitigation and resilience funding incorporates the following programs:

Royalties for the Regions — $10 million available in 2013-14 for flood mitigation projects. Royalties for the Regions is administered by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

Local Government Floods Response Subsidy — $12.944 million available in 2013-14 for flood mitigation projects. The Local Government Flood Response Subsidy is administered by the Department of Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience.

Natural Disaster Resilience Program — joint Queensland and Australian Government funding, delivered under a National Partnership Agreement. Supporting flood mitigation and all hazards projects. The Natural Disaster Resilience Program (NDRP) is administered by the Department of Community Safety.

205

Please note: the Queensland and Australian Governments are currently negotiating continued NDRP funding for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 financial years. Funding under the 2013–14 and 2014–15 NDRP is dependent upon agreement between the governments.

Key dates Applications open - 25 June 2013 Applications close - 19 July 2013 Announcement of successful projects - from August 2013. Applications must be received by the application closing date to be considered for funding. Information on Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding can be found at http://dlgcrr.qld.gov.au/grants-and-subsidies-programs/queensland-disaster-mitigation-and-resilience-funding.html 3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN In accordance with the 2013-2018 Corporate Plan: - Outcome 5 – Governance – 5.03 - External Funding - Outcome 5 – Governance – 5.11 – Disaster Management In accordance with the 2012-2013 Operational Plan: - Outcome 1 – Community Infrastructure, Section 1.4 Infrastructure Funding - Outcome 1 – Community Infrastructure, Section 1.5 Disaster Management - Outcome 3 – Organisational Capability, Section 3.7 Sourcing External Funds 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Nil

206

6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil 7 RISK MANAGEMENT Nil 8 CONSULTATION Nil

9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER Consider this report and accept, reject or amend recommendations. 10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION Nil 11 ATTACHMENTS Doc ID 441436 – QDMRF – Minister’s Announcement Doc ID 444145 – QDMRF – Information Pack Doc ID 444147 – QDMRF – Certification Form Doc ID 444148 – QDMRF – Application Form 2013-14 Doc ID 444152 – QDMRF – Application Form 2013-14 – All Hazards Projects RECOMMENDATION That Council endorse the following 2013-14 Queensland Disaster Mitigation and Resilience projects to be delivered as a coordinated funding package through the Local Government Flood Response Subsidy (LGFRS); Royalties for the Regions, and; Natural Disaster Resilience Program: 1. North Burnett Disaster Early Warning System, 2. North Burnett Disaster Communications.

207

208

209

Joint Application Package 2013-14 Information pack

For Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding available through the:

Royalties for the Regions Local Government Floods Response Subsidy Natural Disaster Resilience Program

June 2013

210

Contents Section 1—Introduction and overview.................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction...........................................................................................1 1.2 Key dates in 2013–14...........................................................................1 1.3 How to apply.........................................................................................1 1.4 Assessment process ............................................................................2 1.5 Successful projects...............................................................................2

More information....................................................................................................... 2

Section 2—Flood mitigation funding ...................................................................... 3 2.1 State funding priorities in 2013–14 .......................................................3 2.2 Flood mitigation funding .......................................................................3 2.3 Eligibility requirements..........................................................................4 2.4 Types of projects ..................................................................................4 2.5 Assessment criteria ..............................................................................5

Section 3—All hazards mitigation and resilience funding (excluding floods) .... 7 3.1 All hazards mitigation and resilience funding—excluding floods ..........7 3.2 Funding priorities in 2013–14 ...............................................................7 3.3 Eligible applicants.................................................................................8 3.4 Types of projects ..................................................................................8 3.5 Assessment criteria ..............................................................................8

Section 4—Program guidelines ............................................................................. 10

Schedule 1—Royalties for the Regions 2013–14 ................................................. 10

Schedule 2—Local Government Floods Response Subsidy 2013–14 .............. 14

Schedule 3—Natural Disaster Resilience Program 2013–14 .............................. 17

Schedule 4—General conditions of funding Queensland Government flood mitigation and resilience funding .................................................. 21

Schedule 5—Legal requirements .......................................................................... 25

Schedule 6—Glossary ............................................................................................ 26

Schedule 7—Guide for structural works............................................................... 28

211

Section 1—Introduction and overview

1.1 Introduction The Queensland Government is working with local governments and other stakeholders to protect communities from future flooding and other natural hazards and to build more resilient communities. Enhanced preparation, improved flood security and better education about responses to natural disasters, ultimately will reduce expenditure on natural disaster reconstruction and recovery activities.

In 2013-14, the government is committed to a new process to deliver disaster mitigation and resilience funding to Queensland communities. This joint application package provides applicants with a single application point for all disaster mitigation and resilience funding administered by the state government and offers a streamlined assessment process.

This application package provides potential applicants with the necessary information on applying for funding, set out as follows:

Section 1 Introduction, key dates and how to apply

Section 2 Applying for flood mitigation funding

Section 3 Applying for all hazards funding (excluding flood mitigation)

Section 4 Program guidelines

Schedule 1 Royalties for the Regions 2013–14

Schedule 2 Local Government Floods Response 2013–14

Schedule 3 Natural Disaster Resilience program 2013–14

Schedule 4 General conditions of funding

Schedule 5 Glossary of terms

1.2 Key dates in 2013–14 Applications open: 25 June 2013

Applications close: 19 July 2013

Announcement of successful projects: from August 2013

Applications must be received by the application closing date to be considered for funding. Applicants will be informed if there is a change in these dates.

1.3 How to apply To apply for funding:

complete and submit one application for each individual project irrespective of the funding program. It is not necessary to identify a particular funding program—a single application for each project is all that is required

submit each completed application and all supporting project documents electronically via email to lgfundingunit@dlgcrr.qld.gov.au

complete all sections relevant to the project (use the relevant sections and schedules as a guide)

ensure the certification section is completed.

212

In order to complete an application:

refer to the relevant contents of this package

download a copy of the Joint Application Package 2013–14 for Queensland Disaster Mitigation and Resilience Funding form, which is available on each of the respective departments’ websites

submit each application electronically by the application closing date.

Note: Applications will be assessed by all participating agencies.

1.4 Assessment process All applications will be assessed for eligibility under the available disaster mitigation and resilience funding programs administered by the state.

Applications deemed eligible for more than one program will be assessed under each of the relevant programs. Funding recommendations will be made based on a single–stage, competitive assessment process against all relevant programs.

The single application form provides the basis for decisions on eligibility and strategic merit, as well as helping agencies assess the applicant’s capacity to deliver the project and any risks associated with the project.

All project proposals may be subject to due diligence, including financial and economic assessments. Further information may be requested from applicants for this purpose. Departmental agencies will provide information on applications received to their relevant Minister for decision.

All applicants to this process will be advised of the outcome of their application.

1.5 Successful projects Successful applicants will be required to enter funding agreements with the Queensland Government and to meet any other program prerequisites prior to receiving funds.

Projects that are approved for funding under more than one funding program will be implemented with an integrated funding agreement between the recipient and the state.

More information Further information on the application and approval processes for each of the relevant funding programs is included in the funding program schedules. Please direct all enquiries on the Queensland Government joint application for disaster mitigation and resilience funding process to: Department of Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience lgfundingunit@dlgcrr.qld.gov.au 13 QGOV (13 74 68). Applications to be submitted as electronic documents to the email address above.

213

Section 2—Flood mitigation funding Note: Applicants need only submit one application per project. It is not necessary to identify a

funding program in the application.

2.1 State funding priorities in 2013–14 In 2013-14, the state’s priorities for flood mitigation funding are to support:

projects that are supported and informed by a completed flood management study and, where relevant, consider the potential impact of communities downstream

projects that will achieve improved infrastructure and flood resilience outcomes (such as levees and detention basins) that protect people and property, and essential services such as water and sewerage treatment plants, hospitals and major transport facilities such as airports

projects that reflect the needs of the catchment as a whole and provide evidence that they have been developed collaboratively across relevant councils or other organisations

flood mitigation projects that address outstanding needs from the events of 2010–11 and January 2013

projects that are ready to proceed and can be delivered within the timeframe.

2.2 Flood mitigation funding Applications for floods mitigation funding will be considered for eligibility against the following three funding programs:

1. Royalties for the Regions (R4R)—see Schedule 1

- $40 million for flood mitigation projects over four years (2012–13 to 2015–16) with $10 million available in 2013–14.

- administered by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

2. Local Government Floods Response Subsidy (LGFRS)—see Schedule 2

- $40 million in state funds over three years (2012–13 to 2014–15) with $12.944 million available in 2013–14.

- administered by the Department of Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience.

3. Natural Disaster Resilience Program (NDRP) see Schedule 3

- joint State and Australian Government funding delivered under a National Partnership Agreement

- administered by the Department of Community Safety.

It should be noted that the Australian and Queensland Governments are currently negotiating continued NDRP funding for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 financial years. Funding under the 2013–14 and 2014–15 NDRP will be dependent upon agreement between the governments.

214

2.3 Eligibility requirements Table 1 provides a summary of organisation types and their eligibility for each funding program. Table 1: Organisation types and their eligibility

Eligibility by funding program

Organisation type Royalties for the Regions (R4R)

Local Government Floods Response Subsidy (LGFRS)

Natural Disaster Resilience Program (NDRP)

All local governments

Only those outside of South East Queensland plus Toowoomba and Lockyer Valley Regional Councils

Y Y

Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs) N Y Y

River Improvement Trusts N N Y

Government owned corporations (GOCs) N N Y

Other government bodies, including Queensland Government departments and agencies

N N Y

Incorporated non-government organisations (NGOs)

N N Y

Queensland-based not for profits N N Y

Refer to Section 4 Schedules for more information on eligible applicants and projects.

2.4 Types of projects The types of flood mitigation projects that could be funded include, but are not limited to:

flood mapping, flood management studies, reports and modelling

infrastructure that mitigates against flood damage and inundation, such as levees, detention basins, floodgates and backflow prevention devices.

Schedules 1, 2 and 3 provide program specific information on eligible flood mitigation projects.

Schedule 7 provides details on the technical requirements for flood mitigation projects and need to be read before developing a project proposal.

Important: potential applicants are not required to nominate a funding program in their submissions.

Applications will only be considered under programs for which they are assessed as eligible. Submitting an application through this single application point for all flood mitigation projects does not automatically qualify the project for funding across all three funding programs.

Table 2 provides an at-a-glance summary of activity types that may be eligible under one or more of the three funding programs. This table is high level and does not include details of other eligibility requirements that qualify projects for funding under the three funding programs. As such, it should be used as a guide only. The eligibility criteria that govern each program are provided in the individual funding program schedules included in the application package.

215

Table 2: Flood mitigation projects and their eligibility under the three funding programs

Activity type

Local Government Flood Response Subsidy (LGFRS)

Royalties for the Regions (R4R)

Natural Disaster Resilience Program (NDRP)

Mapping or studies, such as flood mapping or flood management studies

Y Not applicable Y

Mitigation infrastructure that protects residents, essential infrastructure and other assets, or improves resilience against future flooding

Y

Structural works only, where consistent with R4R funding program schedule

Y

Community preparedness / resilience, such as community education programs and volunteer capability building

Not applicable Not applicable Y

2.5 Assessment criteria To assist applicants in preparing applications under the one application process, assessment criteria are grouped below:

1. The project informs development of appropriate mitigation strategies such as flood management studies, mapping and modelling

complements, where relevant, existing flood studies and mapping (such as Level 2 mapping undertaken by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority)

addresses an identified area of need which has been impacted historically and considers all communities within a catchment

the project improves information on flood inundation and overland flow to meet urban land use planning and disaster management needs

incorporates consultation with neighbouring council. .

2. The project provides infrastructure that builds resilience for the community and achieves improved mitigation outcomes

supported by a recent flood management study that clearly demonstrates why it is a preferred option and has considered the impact of the infrastructure on the other communities in the catchment

evidence of need for the project demonstrated through the historical impact of flooding events

demonstrates that the infrastructure will reduce the impacts of flooding to the built environment and in particular will protect lives and property and/or essential infrastructure

improves flood mitigation infrastructure and enhances liveability and community resilience.

3. The project is collaborative and based upon a regional catchment approach

the project demonstrates a regional or catchment area approach to mitigation

evidence that consultation has occurred with relevant affected and neighbouring councils.

4. The project is financially sound and is ready to be delivered

a project budget is provided that gives a breakdown of costs

216

6

the project is financially sound, including demonstrated value for money and a plan for the viability of the project (such as applicant’s ability to manage, operate and maintain the infrastructure following construction)

the applicant has the capability to deliver the project, such as appropriate staff expertise and capacity to manage the implementation of the project (capability may be sourced externally)

all factors in relation to the site details for infrastructure projects have been considered.

the project can be delivered within approved timeframes

the project will comply with applicable legislative, industry or regulatory requirements

the project effectiveness will be evaluated by the applicant post completion

the applicant’s proven ability to deliver Queensland Government funded projects, where applicable.

5. The project has demonstrated community support

the application includes evidence of community consultation regarding the project

the application includes evidence of a priority need and clear benefits to the community.

.

217

Section 3—All hazards mitigation and resilience funding (excluding floods)

This section assists applicants that are applying for funding for disaster mitigation and resilience projects that are not flood mitigation. This information needs to be read in conjunction with the Section 4 – Schedule 3 which provides further information on the Natural Disaster Resilience Program (NDRP).

It should be noted that the Australian and Queensland Governments are currently negotiating continued NDRP funding for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 financial years. Funding under the 2013–14 and 2014–15 NDRP will be dependent upon agreement between the governments.

3.1 All hazards mitigation and resilience funding—excluding floods

Applications for other hazard mitigation and resilient projects will be assessed against the NDRP.

The NDRP is a jointly funded by the Queensland and Australian Governments under the National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience. NDRP projects are funded on a cost sharing basis with the applicant, Queensland Government and Australian Government each contributing an equal share (one-third each) to the total project value.

Consideration may be given to approving a project with a lower applicant contribution in the case of councils with low capacity or other organisations. The Applicant Advisory Group will consider the rationale for the request and other relevant matters—for example a council’s low rate base or lack of operating revenue for a non-government organisation (NGO)—in deciding to recommend an increase in the grant percentage.

3.2 Funding priorities in 2013–14 In 2013–14, NDRP funding will be targeted at projects that support the following priorities:

1) mitigating against or building resilience to Queensland’s highest natural hazard risks (in order of highest risk): flooding, cyclone, storm tide/surge, severe storm and bushfire

2) enhancing community preparedness for natural events through community education and awareness raising

3) strategic targeting to increase resilience across sectors.

In addition, NDRP funding will be prioritised to projects that contribute towards the fulfilment of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (NSDR), adopted nationally in 2011. Applicants are required to familiarise themselves with the NSDR. Applications should demonstrate a contribution to at least one of the seven key action themes of the NSDR:

1) leading change and coordinating effort

2) understanding risks

3) communicating with and educating people about risks

218

4) partnering with those who effect change

5) empowering individuals and communities to exercise choice and take responsibility

6) reducing risk in the build environment

7) supporting capabilities for disaster resilience.

3.3 Eligible applicants Organisations considered eligible for NDRP funding are:

local government agencies as defined in the Local Government Act 2009 and City of Brisbane Act 2010

Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs)

River Improvement Trusts

government owned corporations

other government bodies, including Queensland Government departments and other state agencies within Queensland

incorporated NGOs (including volunteer groups) and Queensland-based not-for-profits.

Note: An eligible organisation may submit an application for NDRP funding in partnership with ineligible organisations. Ineligible organisations include: small businesses, for-profit volunteer groups, organisations based outside of Queensland, and any other group not specified as eligible in these guidelines.

3.4 Types of projects To be considered eligible, the proposed project should demonstrate that it addresses one or more of Queensland’s highest natural hazards listed under the NDRP priorities (3.2).

Examples of eligible projects that are not flood related include:

All hazards

natural hazard risk assessments and studies

geographic information systems (GIS) based hazard and flood data for disaster mitigation purposes

research and/or development projects

community preparedness, education and training programs

evacuation plans

local volunteer capacity building.

Note: capability and capacity projects may be identified as ‘all hazards’, or may address one or more specific risks.

For further details on eligible and ineligible projects please refer to the program guidelines in Section 4 – Schedule 3.

3.5 Assessment criteria Eligible applications will be assessed and prioritised, according to the extent that they meet the following criteria.

address one or more of the NDRP objectives

219

9

address one or more of Queensland’s highest natural hazards risks

enhance community resilience by building partnerships between sectors/regional or catchment areas

protect the community from physical effects of a natural disaster

the project provides value-for-money.

220

Section 4—Program guidelines

Schedule 1—Royalties for the Regions 2013–14 1. Program outline Royalties for the Regions is a Queensland Government initiative to invest in regional community infrastructure, roads and floodplain security projects. This initiative helps regions hosting major resource developments receive genuine long-term royalty benefits through better planning and targeted infrastructure investment. The program will help resource communities better manage the consequences of resource sector development, seize economic opportunities and encourage growth.

2. Program objectives The Royalties for the Regions program helps regions receive genuine, long-lasting royalty benefits through improved planning and targeted infrastructure investment.

The program contributes to building community capacity and economic sustainability through:

infrastructure that improves the liveability ad amenity of regional communities, making places more attractive for people to live and work

economic development and resilience of regional communities

development consistent with Queensland regional economic or planning priorities

increased private sector investment in resource communities.

3. Funding Royalties for the Regions funding is allocated in rounds.

A total of $10 million of Royalties for the Regions funding has been allocated for the 2013-14 financial year for flood mitigation projects such as building levees, flood bypasses, flood mitigation dams, flood retention basins and other key projects to protect Queensland communities from flooding.

This schedule refers to flood mitigation projects only.

4. Eligibility 4.1 Eligible applicants

In round 2, the following local governments are eligible to apply for funding for flood mitigation projects through the Royalties for the Regions program:

Local governments outside of South East Queensland Toowoomba Regional Council Lockyer Valley Regional Council.

4.2 Eligible projects

For an infrastructure project to be eligible for funding assistance, it must be: located in a flood prone community where there is a demonstrated historical impact of flooding

events developed by a council eligible for this program for structural works that will provide flood mitigation for communities during future flooding

events ready to commence construction within six months of signing the funding agreement, with all

necessary approvals in place by the time the funding agreement is signed.

221

Local governments are required to provide evidence that ongoing operation, maintenance and replacement costs of the project can be funded. Financial assistance is intended to assist with the construction costs of approved projects only.

Feasibility studies and pre-construction stages of a project will not be funded by the Royalties for the Regions program.

Construction is deemed to begin when changes are made to the project site. Eligible project costs may include contingencies (up to 15 per cent), as well as remuneration of technical, professional, and/or administrative staff for time directly related to project managing the construction of approved works (excluding any executive duties and general overhead changes) as a reasonable proportion of overall project costs.

Local governments will be required to coordinate any necessary regulatory approvals, however the Queensland Government may assist local governments by utilising powers under existing legislation such as the State Development Public Works Organisation Act 1971 or the Queensland Reconstruction Authority Act 2011.

Proposals that relate to State Government infrastructure may be considered if there is evidence of increased community need and the relevant agency is supportive. For example, proposals could include:

upgrading existing infrastructure bringing forward planned infrastructure to meet growth demand.

If the project is on Queensland Government owned land and/or facilities, the application must be supported by the relevant Queensland Government agency.

4.3 Ineligible projects

Projects that are ineligible for funding under Royalties for the Regions include: works not constructed on council owned or controlled land except where the project is for works

on Queensland Government owned land and/or facilities and the application is supported by the relevant Queensland Government agency (applicants to note that tenure for the land would need to be secured prior to signing the funding agreement)

feasibility and planning studies flood warning systems projects that would otherwise normally be funded through another existing Queensland

Government program.

While generally projects may not be eligible if there is an alternative Queensland Government funding source, there may be exceptions—such as where there is a high level of demand for the project and funding from Royalties for the Regions will bring project construction forward.

Royalties for the Regions is intended to cover actual construction works.

Ineligible project costs include:

costs related to any activities incurred prior to the signing of a funding agreement legal expenses including necessary approval preparation, document and approval fees temporary works, other than those required to complete the proposed project land acquisition official opening expenses detailed design and construction plans community consultation ongoing costs for local government administration, operation, maintenance or engineering once

the asset is completed vehicle purchase or leasing.

This list should not be interpreted as either prescriptive or comprehensive. If there is any doubt about eligible projects or costs, please contact:

Royalties for the Regions Secretariat Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning Phone: 13 QGOV (13 74 68) Email: royalties@dsdip.qld.gov.au

222

5. Assessment criteria To be considered for Royalties for the Regions flood mitigation funding, applicants must meet eligibility criteria, (for applicants, projects and costs) listed in section 4.

Applicants must provide all required documentation to be considered for funding.

Eligible applications will be assessed and prioritised, according to the extent that they meet the following criteria:

1) The project will improve floodplain security with clear benefits for the community a) there is demonstrated need for the project as identified through the historical impact of

flooding events b) the project will improve flood mitigation infrastructure and enhance liveability and community

resilience

2) The project supports reduced risks to the built environment a) the project can demonstrate that the infrastructure will reduce the impacts of flooding to the

built environment

3) The project makes sense financially and is ready to be delivered a) the project makes sense financially, including demonstrated value for money and a plan for

the viability of the project (such as applicant capacity to manage, operate and maintain the infrastructure following construction)

b) the applicant has the capability to deliver the project, such as appropriate staff expertise and capacity to manage the project (capability may be sourced externally)

c) the project is supported by appropriate flood investigations/studies or relevant agencies d) the project can be delivered on time

4) The project has community support a) the project has demonstrated community support.

6. Successful applications Local governments with successful projects will receive an offer of financial assistance. If the local government accepts the offer, it will be required to enter into a formal funding agreement with the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning on behalf of the State of Queensland within three months of funding approval of the project.

The agreement provides details on general and specific conditions of funding associated with delivery of the program.

An agreement is valid for the duration of the approved project and once signed by both parties is a legally binding agreement.

Key features of the agreement include:

information about the funding recipient

details of the approved project details

conditions of funding, such as timeframes for project completion

how funds will be spent

accountability and acquittal processes

forecast claim dates

reporting requirements

acknowledgement of government funding.

All applicants will receive a letter stating the outcome of their application. Feedback on unsuccessful projects will be available for all eligible applications lodged. In certain cases where projects are not approved in the current round (e.g. where further development work is necessary or sufficient funding is not available), local governments may be advised to resubmit for consideration in subsequent funding rounds.

223

13

7. Industry involvement 7.1 Local Industry Participation Plans

To encourage and support local industry growth and benefit from infrastructure and other major projects, the Queensland Government has a local industry policy. In some cases, local governments may be required to develop and implement a local industry participation plan to give local businesses a genuine opportunity to tender and supply for the project. Information on the local industry policy and local industry participation plans is available at www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/local-industry-policy

7.2 Industry support

Resource companies are able to contribute directly to the Royalties for the Regions funding pool for projects that help mitigate the social impacts of their resource activities. These projects can be co-branded, promoting the financial contributions of the applicable companies, in addition to any Royalties for the Regions funding received.

8. Funding acknowledgement and branding Local governments that receive funding through the Royalties for the Regions program are required to appropriately acknowledge the Queensland Government’s contribution.

Further information is available in the Royalties for the Regions Funding Acknowledgement Guidelines and the funding agreement template. These documents are available upon request.

9. Resources and contacts Further information on the Royalties for the Regions program, including projects previously awarded funds, is at www.qld.gov.au/royalties. Officers from Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning are available to assist local governments. Enquiries may be directed to the Royalties for the Regions program on 13 QGOV (13 74 68) or via email at royalties@dsdip.qld.gov.au

Where an infrastructure project involves a Queensland Government owned or controlled facility, local governments should consult with the relevant Queensland Government agency.

224

Schedule 2—Local Government Floods Response Subsidy 2013–14

1. Program outline The Queensland Government has committed $40 million over three years, commencing in 2012–13, to assist Queensland councils in implementing relevant recommendations of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry (Floods Commission).

This funding commitment, the Local Government Floods Response Subsidy (LGFRS) is administered by the Department of Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience (DLGCRR) as a component of the Local Government Grants and Subsidies Program (LGGSP).

In 2013–14, the government is launching a joint application package to provide a single point for application and assessment for disaster mitigation and resilience funding administered by the state. The 2013–14 LGFRS is being delivered as part of this joint application package.

2. LGFRS aims The LGFRS aims to:

assist Queensland councils in implementing relevant recommendations of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry (Floods Commission)

support delivery of improved infrastructure and flood resilience for the community and achieve mitigation outcomes

target funding to meet the state’s flood mitigation funding priorities.

3. LGFRS objectives The objectives of the LGFRS are to support:

flood mitigation projects highlighted as a priority following the impact of the January 2013 disaster event on Queensland communities and infrastructure, as well as unaddressed needs identified following the events of 2010–11

councils to identify, manage and respond to future flood risks through flood management studies, modelling and flood mapping

councils to deliver key flood mitigation infrastructure projects, such as levees and detention basins to protect lives, property and essential infrastructure, that are informed by a completed flood management study which incorporates consideration of the potential impact of the project on communities downstream

projects that have been developed collaboratively by councils to address flood mitigation needs on a river catchment basis.

4. Funding A total of $12.944 million in LGFRS funding is allocated in the 2013–14 financial year to subsidise delivery of flood mitigation projects.

5. Eligibility 5.1 Eligible applicants

Eligible applicants under the LGFRS are local government bodies constituted under the Local Government Act 2009 and the City of Brisbane Act 2010.

Other entities may be deemed by the Minister as an eligible applicant for the purposes of the LGFRS.

225

5.2 Eligible projects

Under the LGFRS, proposed projects must demonstrate a clear link to recommendations of the Floods Commission and meet the state’s priorities.

Eligible flood mitigation projects include:

flood management studies, flood modelling and flood mapping in areas of identified need

infrastructure projects such as levees, detention basins, floodgates and backflow prevention devices that mitigate against flood damage and inundation in areas of identified need, and are informed by a completed flood management study which incorporates consideration of the potential impact on other communities within the river catchment.

5.3 Eligible costs

LGFRS is intended only to assist with the direct costs to applicants of an approved project.

5.4 Ineligible costs

LGFRS applications must exclude costs not directly associated with the project. Ineligible costs include:

purchase of land

legal costs

in kind contributions

official opening expenses

ongoing operational and management costs.

5.5 Subsidy rate

For projects approved funding under the LGFRS, funding will be allocated based on a subsidy rate of up to 40 per cent of the eligible project costs. The Minister may determine an alternative subsidy rate for an approved project.

Under the LGFRS, eligible project costs are the total project costs less any other funding contributions to the project.

6. Assessment criteria Under the LGFRS, applications will be assessed against how the proposed project meets the

2013–14 state’s funding priorities

LGFRS aims and objectives, including how the project is linked to and will deliver outcomes to support relevant recommendations of the Floods Commission of Inquiry

flood mitigation assessment criteria detailed in section 2.5 of the joint application package.

DLGCRR will consult with other agencies in assessing and prioritising the allocation of funding.

7. Successful applications Successful applicants are required to enter into a funding agreement with DLGCRR before commencing the project and making claims for payments.

226

16

Where the proposed project is approved funding under more than one program in the Queensland flood mitigation and resilience funding package, one streamlined funding agreement will be prepared for execution between the applicant and the relevant state agencies.

8. Funding period The funding period for an approved project is a maximum of 12 months from the date of approval. The grant recipient must ensure that:

- all project works are completed within the funding period

- all final reporting and claims for payment are submitted to the DLGCRR within one month after the project completion date.

9. Claims for payment The funding agreement provides details of the payment schedule for each project. The LGFRS funding is administered on a 10:80:10 model.

A first payment equal to 10 per cent of the approved funding will be made following the execution of the funding agreement for the project by the funding recipient and DLGCRR. In particular circumstances, the DLGCRR may approve a different payment schedule.

Once the first payment has been expended and acquitted, the funding recipient can then submit claims for progress payments at the approved subsidy rate against works completed (up to 90 per cent of approved funding), in accordance with the funding recipient’s payment forecasts and project plan.

Each claim for payment must be made on the prescribed form, with certification by the funding recipient that the works have been completed satisfactorily, and that expenditure of the amount stated has been properly incurred on the work for which funding was approved in accordance with these guidelines and the funding agreement. Certification must be made by an appropriately delegated officer of the funding recipient, or other persons as agreed by DLGCRR.

The prescribed form for claiming payments is available on DLGCRR’s website: www.dlgcrr.qld.gov.au

10. Resources and contact Resources:

Department of Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience

Queensland Reconstruction Authority - Floodplain maps

Queensland Reconstruction Authority

Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry

Contact:

For more information on the LGFRS, contact the Department of Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience.

Brisbane Office email: lgfundingunit@dlgcrr.qld.gov.au phone: 13 QGOV (13 74 68)

Northern Region: 07 4799 7378 Southern Region: 07 3225 2473

227

Schedule 3—Natural Disaster Resilience Program 2013–14

1. Program outline The Natural Disaster Resilience Program (NDRP) is a disaster mitigation and community resilience building competitive grants program. The program funds project proposals addressing all hazards mitigation and resilience project proposals.

The NDRP is a jointly funded by the Queensland and Commonwealth Governments under the National Partnership Agreement on Natural Disaster Resilience.

It should be noted that the Australian and Queensland Governments are currently negotiating continued NDRP funding for the 2013–14 and 2014–15 financial years. Funding under the 2013–14 and 2014–15 NDRP will be dependent upon agreement between the governments.

2. Program objectives To reduce Queensland communities’ vulnerability to natural hazards by supporting local governments and other stakeholders to build community resilience by:

reducing community vulnerability to natural hazards

focusing on building partnerships between sectors, supporting volunteering, encouraging a regional or catchment area approach to mitigation

ensuring that NDRP funding is used in an efficient way.

3. Funding NDRP projects are funded on a cost sharing basis with the applicant, Queensland Government and the Australian Government each contributing an equal share (one-third each) to the total project value.

Consideration may be given to approving a project with a lower applicant contribution in cases of councils with low capacity or other organisations. The Application Advisory Group will consider the rationale for the request and other relevant matters (e.g. a council’s low rate base or lack of operating cash for an NGO) in deciding whether to grant the increase.

4. National Strategy for Disaster Resilience Funding made available to projects under the NDRP is to contribute towards the fulfilment of the National Strategy for Disaster Resilience (NSDR), adopted nationally in 2011. Applicants are required to familiarise themselves with the strategy. Applications should demonstrate a contribution to at least one of the seven key action themes of the strategy:

leading change and coordinating effort

understanding risks

communicating with and educating people about risks

partnering with those who effect change

empowering individuals and communities to exercise choice and take responsibility

reducing risk in the build environment

supporting capabilities for disaster resilience.

Specific priorities of the NDRP include:

target NDRP funding to Queensland’s highest natural hazard risks (in order of highest risk): flooding, storm tide/surge, cyclone, severe storm and bushfire

228

enhance community preparedness for natural events through community education and awareness raising

strategic targeting to increase resilience across sectors.

4. Eligibility 4.1 Eligible applicants

Organisations considered eligible for NDRP funding are:

local Government agencies as defined in the Local Government Act 2009 and City of Brisbane Act 2010

Regional Organisations of Councils (ROCs)

River Improvement Trusts

government owned corporations

other government bodies, including Queensland Government departments and other state agencies within Queensland

incorporated non-government organisations (NGOs) (including volunteer groups), and Queensland-based not for profits.

Note: An eligible organisation may submit an application for NDRP funding in partnership with ineligible organisations. Ineligible organisations include: small businesses, for-profit volunteer groups, organisations based outside of Queensland, and any other group not specified as eligible in these guidelines.

4.2 Eligible projects

To be considered eligible, the proposal should demonstrate that it addresses one or more of Queensland’s highest natural hazards listed under the NDRP Priorities (1).

Examples of eligible projects include:

Flood mitigation

flood mitigation works (including levees, detention basins)

flood studies and flood management studies

reports and modelling

flood mapping.

All hazards

natural hazard risk assessments and studies

research and/or development projects

community preparedness, education and training programs

evacuation plans

local volunteer capacity building.

4.3 Ineligible projects

Proposals that:

cannot be completed within 12 months of funding approval

projects that are for on-going maintenance / upkeep of existing measures

fail to address one or more of Queensland’s highest natural hazards listed under the NDRP Priorities

229

fail to meet NDRP objectives

projects that seek reimbursement for works or measures already undertaken

duplicate existing initiatives, or roles and responsibilities of other organisations

projects that are regarded as core business for an organisation

projects that seek funding to purchase capital equipment such as motor vehicles, office equipment etc.

5. Assessment criteria Eligible applications will be assessed and prioritised, according to the extent that they meet the following criteria.

address one or more of the NDRP objectives

address one or more of Queensland’s highest natural hazards risks

demonstrates a contribution to al least one of the seven key action themes of the Strategy

the project demonstrates a regional or catchment area approach to mitigation

evidence that consultation has occurred with neighbouring councils

enhance community resilience by building partnerships between sectors/regional or catchment areas

the project provides value-for-money

the project is ready to proceed and can be delivered with approved timeframes

the applicant has the capability to delivery the project, such as appropriate staff expertise and capacity to manage the implementation of the project (capability may be sourced externally)

the project has demonstrated community support and provides evidence of priority need and clear benefits to the community

The applicant’s proven ability to delivery previous Queensland Government funded projects, where applicable.

6. Successful applications Successful applicants will be required to enter into a funding agreement with the Department of Community Safety. The successful applicant will receive the first 20 per cent of the NDRP cash contribution to the project on execution of the funding agreement; further payments will be made as milestone reporting requirements are completed.

7. Funding period The funding period for the approved project will be a maximum of 12 months from the date of formal advice of funding approval.

The grant recipient must ensure that:

- all aspects of an approved project are completed within the approved funding period

- all final reporting documentation and claims for payment are submitted within one month following the completion date of the approved project outlined in Schedule 1 of the Funding Agreement.

The funding for 2013-2014 NDRP projects will lapse upon the expiration of the approved funding period, at which point the unclaimed funding will be forfeited. In addition, funding paid to date may be recovered where claims for payment are not received upon completion of the project.

Requests for extension of time may be considered and approved by submitting a request for extension with the reasons for the extension in writing before the approved milestone due date or project completion date.”

230

20

8. Claims for payment The funding agreement provides details of the payment schedule for each project.

A first payment equal to 20 per cent of the approved funding will be made following the execution of the funding agreement for the project by the funding recipient and the department. In particular circumstances, the department may approve a different payment schedule.

Once the first payment has been expended and acquitted, the funding recipient must then submit the progress report to claim for the progress payments against works completed (up to 60 per cent of approved funding), in accordance with the funding recipient’s payment forecasts and project plan.

A minimum of 20 per cent is required at the last milestone.

Milestone Progress Payments

At completion of each milestone, the grant recipient will be expected to submit the completed reporting documents against the relevant milestone no later than 30 days after the completion date to be eligible for the next payment, in accordance with the project plan and Funding Agreement.

Each milestone report must be completed on the reporting templates distributed with the approved funding advice letter, with certification by the grant recipient that the milestone has been completed satisfactorily, and that expenditure of the amount stated has been incurred on the work for which funding was approved in accordance with these guidelines and the funding agreement. Approval and certification must be made by an appropriately delegated officer of the grant recipient, or other persons as agreed by the DCS.

Final Payment

Upon completion of the project, the grant recipient must submit the completed reporting documents no later than 30 days after the completion date for the Final Report, in accordance with the Funding Agreement.

Following completion and submission of the Final Report, the grant recipient must submit the completed audited acquittal certified by an independent auditor no later than 30 days after the completion date for the Audited Acquittal, in accordance with the Funding Agreement.

The prescribed form for claiming payments is available via email at emqgrants.subsidies@dcs.qld.gov.au or on the department’s website: www.emergency.qld.gov.au

9. Resources and contacts More information can be obtained from the:

NDRP Senior Program Officer Department of Community Safety Telephone: 13 QGOV (13 74 68) Email: emqgrants.subsidies@dcs.qld.gov.au Website: www.communitysafety.qld.gov.au/ndrp

231

Schedule 4—General conditions of funding Queensland Government flood mitigation and resilience funding

Minister retains rights and powers

The relevant Minister retains all rights and powers to make all decisions and actions that the Minister sees fit in order to achieve the priorities and objectives of the relevant Queensland Government funding program.

The relevant Minister may require funding recipients to provide all such documents or to remedy irregularities, as deemed necessary, to demonstrate the appropriate management and use of state and/or Commonwealth funds.

The relevant Minister may delegate, either generally or in specific cases, their powers and duties under the relevant funding program, where appropriate.

Risk management

At the time of making an application, all applicants are required to demonstrate that they have considered the risks inherent in the proposed project. Funding recipients will be required to develop and implement a risk management plan as part of their obligations under the funding agreement.

Funding period

The funding period for all approved projects will be specified within the relevant funding agreement.

The funding recipient must ensure that: all aspects of an approved project are completed within the approved funding period all claims for payment are submitted within one month following the completion date

of the approved project funding approvals will lapse upon the expiration of the approved funding period, at

which point the relevant department’s commitment to the relevant Queensland Government flood mitigation funding payments will be discharged and unclaimed funding will be forfeited.

Funding recipients may request an extension of time (see extensions of time section below).

Approval prior to commencement of works

Prior to commencing works on an approved project where funding has been granted, recipients must:

obtain confirmation of Queensland Government funding approval for the project enter into a funding agreement with the relevant department. works are considered to have commenced once:

actions incurring physical changes to a proposed project site have been instigated

the funding recipient enters into a contract or tender for the project.

Funding agreement

Successful applicants are required to enter into a funding agreement with the relevant department before commencing the project and making claims for payments.

232

Forecasts of cash flows

Funding recipients are required to provide forecasts of cash flows and milestones at the time of executing the funding agreement for a project. This will align with the project plan and indicate dates when payment claims are expected to be lodged with the relevant department.

Should project expenditures or timeframes vary following commencement, the funding recipient must provide updated cash flow forecasts and revised project timeframes to the relevant department within 10 working days of these variances being identified.

Regulatory requirements

Queensland Government flood mitigation funding approvals and payments are conditional on the funding recipient observing all relevant laws and state or Commonwealth policies. The Queensland Government provides funding assistance only and does not relieve a funding recipient from:

performing or observing all conditions and duties that may apply to the works under any Act, Law or Regulation

having due regard to any relevant state or Commonwealth policies.

Approval of funding under Queensland Government flood mitigation funding process does not imply that any necessary licences or approvals will be granted, or that agencies will make favourable policy decisions. Funding recipients must independently obtain all necessary permits, licences, consents, or a clear statement of requirements, from relevant parties prior to commencement of projects.

Following the completed construction of an approved project, the funding recipient must independently obtain all relevant approvals and certifications as required by any Acts, Laws or Regulations.

Where licences cannot be obtained prior to completion, the final 10 per cent of the approved assistance may be withheld by the Queensland Government until licences are obtained.

Third party contributions

Applicants may seek funding contributions for the proposed project from other sources.

Project costs

State subsidies and financial assistance are intended only to assist with the direct costs of approved projects, as detailed in the application for funding.

Roles and responsibilities

The funding agreement clearly specifies the roles and responsibilities of the parties in relation to the funding allocated.

Reporting and evaluation

The funding agreement provides details of reporting and evaluation requirements for the approved project. Funding recipients must submit project progress reports and post completion reports and the results of the project evaluation to the relevant department.

If a funding recipient does not comply with these requirements for an approved project, the final 10 per cent of the approved funding may be withheld until all relevant reporting is submitted to the relevant department.

Goods and services tax

For all approved projects, approved applicants are subject to the Australian Government taxation legislation and associated tax rulings with respect to the goods and services tax (GST). Where the grant funding paid to the organisation by the state is a “taxable supply” of services within the meaning of the GST Act, the organisation must issue a valid tax invoice for the supply of the service. The ‘service’ is the delivery of the approved project.

233

Claims for payment

The funding agreement provides details of the payment schedule for each approved project.

Final claim for payment

Within one month after the completion of an approved project, the funding recipient must submit a certified claim for final payment along with the relevant completion documentation.

As outlined in the funding agreement, a post-completion report must be submitted with the final claim for payment.

Where the funding recipient does not comply with established reporting requirements, the final 10 per cent of the approved funding may be withheld until all relevant reporting is submitted to the relevant department.

Once the certified claim for final payment has been submitted, additional funding requests for the approved project will not be considered.

Extensions of time

In exceptional circumstances, the Minister(s) or their delegate(s) may approve a request for an extension of time to complete a project. A request for an extension of time should be submitted to the relevant department before the approved project completion date.

Suspension of works

Where project works have been delayed for any reason, the funding recipient must immediately notify the relevant contact officer, as specified in the funding agreement, indicating reasons for the delay and the anticipated date of recommencement of works.

Incomplete projects

Where a funding recipient determines that work on a project will cease and will not be completed, the funding recipient may be required to repay all or part of the financial assistance received as outlined in the funding agreement executed for the project.

Retention money

Retention money held by the funding recipient may be included as part of the final project costs when submitting a certified claim for final payment.

Rights to site inspections

The relevant Minister, or any person/s authorised by the Minister, may inspect the site of any project prior to, during and/or after completion of works.

All reasonable requests by the relevant Minister or by authorised person/s for access to the site of an approved project must be complied with by the funding recipient.

Acknowledgment of the funding

Funding recipients must acknowledge the contributions of the state or Australian Government funding. For capital works projects, this may include:

erection of signage at construction sites placement of a plaque or sign once construction is finished acknowledgment in publicly made statements, or relevant documentation.

Further information on acknowledgement requirements including the use of the Queensland Government logo can be found within the funding agreements for each funding program.

234

Privacy and confidentiality

The use and disclosure of information provided by applicants for the program is regulated by the relevant provisions and penalties of the Right to Information Act 2009 and the Information Privacy Act 2009 and the general laws of the State of Queensland.

The information contained in applications will be regarded as private and confidential and will be treated as such by the relevant department. This is subject to the operational need to provide applications to assessors, and any statutory or legal requirements to provide information to the Parliament and other organisations, for audit, law enforcement, investigative or other purpose.

As part of the assessment of an application, the relevant department may need to consult with, and provide material from the application to, other government agencies or bodies, other organisations and/or relevant individuals, in order to substantiate any claims or statements made in the application form, or to otherwise assist in the assessment of the application. If this occurs, the relevant department will endeavour to ensure that the parties who are consulted observe appropriate confidentiality provisions.

Following approval of an application, the broad details of an application (e.g. the identity of the successful applicant, the funding amount awarded, and a brief description of the project) may be disclosed by the relevant department for purposes such as promoting the program and reporting on the program’s operation and policy development.

235

25

Schedule 5—Legal requirements

Confidentiality

The Queensland Government collects information for the purpose of evaluating applications for Queensland Government flood mitigation funding.

The Queensland Government may also disclose information to promote the incentive through the release of the recipient’s name, the amount of financial assistance and general details of the project. The Queensland Government is committed to maintaining the confidentiality of information of a commercially sensitive nature.

By agreeing to the conditions in these program guidelines, applicants agree that where the project may be deemed potentially eligible for Royalties for the Regions funding, the information supplied as part of the funding application process may be shared with program stakeholders (including LGAQ, QRC, APPEA and others) for the purpose of ensuring the emerging package of projects is consistent with the overall direction and development of the industry and communities. Commercial-in-confidence information will not be shared with these external bodies.

Privacy

Information collected is also subject to the Right to Information Act 2009 and the Information Privacy Act 2009. The information provided may be publicly released and or provided to third parties (including LGAQ, QRC, APPEA and others) and other government agencies—but only for the purposes for which the information is being collected. The applicant's personal information will be stored on the relevant department’s files and may be disclosed for purposes relating to the funding program or as authorised or required by law.

Funding agreements

Organisations accepting offers of financial assistance through Queensland Government flood mitigation funding programs are required to enter into a formal funding agreement with the Queensland Government or its nominated agents.

Funding agreements must be signed by the organisation within three months of notification of funding approval.

The agreement provides details on general and specific conditions of funding associated with delivery of the funding program.

More information on funding agreements and conditions of funding is available upon request.

236

Schedule 6—Glossary

assistance a monetary allocation under the Queensland Government flood mitigation funding program approved by the relevant Minister(s) provided to assist to conduct approved projects

approved or approval the approval by the relevant Minister(s) or Executive Council

approval date the date which a proposed project receives approval by the relevant Minister(s) or Executive Council

approved applicant a council or other entity for whom funding is approved by the relevant Minister(s) under a specified program

authorised person an officer or employee of a government department or other person authorised by the relevant Minister(s) to perform a specific function or duty

capital works works of a lasting nature to be used by or to provide services to people. The term, where necessary, includes land, buildings, major items of plant, machinery or other equipment, but does not include component replacement or periodic maintenance

chief executive officer the head of an organisation

council or councils a local government body

eligible project costs eligible project costs equals the total project costs as per application/approval:

less any other contributions to the approved project and/or

less any ineligible costs

extension of time the approval by the relevant Minister, or their delegate of additional time in which the funding recipient can complete the approved project

funding agreement a head of agreement and sub-agreement forms the formal funding arrangement between the recipient and the relevant department for the project

funding period the period from the approval date to the project completion date as stipulated in the funding agreement

funding recipient or recipient

an eligible organisation in receipt of a subsidy for an approved project.

lapsing the discharging of a commitment to provide funding assistance to an approved project

mayor the mayor of a council or in the case of Brisbane City Council, the Lord Mayor

Minister/s the relevant Ministers responsible for the respective Queensland Government flood mitigation funding programs under the following portfolios:

State Development Infrastructure and Planning

Local Government, Community Recovery and Resilience

Community Safety

prescribed form a form issued by the relevant department

project a discrete set of activities, producing a defined range of infrastructure or other defined outputs, within a specified timeframe

project completion date the date by which approved project works must be completed, as stipulated in the funding agreement.

237

27

retention money is money held by the funding recipient to ensure that a contractor makes good any defects identified following completion of the project, as per the agreed contract

round the period of time when requests for funding applications are open to councils

sub-agreement a sub-agreement that forms part of the formal funding agreement executed by the recipient and the relevant department providing details of the funding approved, approved project and conditions related to the specific funding program

tender means an offer specifying prices, costs and other details under which a person will enter into a contract with an approved applicant

third party contributions funding contributions to the project received from other sources e.g. other state agencies, Australian Government or the private sector

total project costs those costs are directly attributable to the proposed project as at the time of application or approval

work or works means identifiable part/s of a project

238

Schedule 7—Guide for structural works

It is important that any applications for Queensland Government flood mitigation funding include evidence of the need and community benefits of the proposed Queensland Government investment. Where structural works are involved, it is also important that project proposals are supported by appropriate flood studies or investigations. This document provides guidance for developing appropriate flood studies or flood management studies.

A flood study is a technical assessment of the nature and extent of flooding and flood related issues. A floodplain management study evaluates management options for the floodplain giving consideration to hydraulic, environmental, social and economic issues.

Developing options A floodplain management study should include an evaluation of option/s and a cost-benefit analysis of proposed option/s. It is recommended that the following steps be undertaken prior to submitting applications for Queensland Government flood funding for structural works. 1) Prepare a matrix of options, which involves consideration of the following:

flood modification measures—how the proposed project modifies the floods physical behaviour (depth, velocity and redirection)

infrastructure modification measures—adopting appropriate road and bridge design levels, relocation of services to appraise levels and localities.

property modification measures—modify land use and development controls via strategic planning, building regulations, flood proofing, voluntary purchase.

response modification measures—modify the communities response to flood hazard by educating flood affected owners about the nature of flooding so that they can make informed decisions e.g. flood warning, emergency services, improved information awareness and education, provision of insurance.

2) Following the short listing of proposed options, undertake a cost benefit analysis for each

proposed option. The following elements are desirable in the preparation of the economic evaluation:

definition of the study area preparation of stage-damage curves based on empirical data estimation of an average annual damage value derived from damage curves and

loss-probability data (see definitions) cost estimation for flood mitigation measures use of discounted cash flow analysis (over 20 year period) @ seven per cent real

discount rate calculation of measures of net economic worth – NPV and BCR description of other factors to further inform the analysis.

The economic analysis will consider the following categories of flood damage:

direct (tangible) damages—physical impact damages – building structures and contents etc

indirect (tangible) damages—losses associated with disruption of economic and social activities due to the physical impacts e.g. emergency services, clean up costs etc

239

intangibles (‘non market’ effects)—damages measurable but not by market prices e.g. loss of biodiversity and personal stress etc

The cost benefit analysis will be used to compare each proposed option to determine the preferred option(s). 3) Provide full details of the proposed option(s) including a flood study, technical reports,

civil engineering cost estimates and relevant approvals, etc.

Additional information for levees Where an application includes a funding request for a levee, the following information should also be included with supporting documentation with the project application: details about why the levee is the most effective flood mitigation option recommended

project-specific information on operation, maintenance and exercise drills, monitoring, and asset management plans to document how the levee:

is to be monitored (including the inspection regime) is to be maintained, including the replacement of components when they deteriorate below acceptable standards and cannot fulfil their design function the equipment required to carry out the maintenance (and if available) operation during a flood event (and equipment required).

Detailed project plans

Should an application be approved for funding, an updated detailed project plan will be required for projects involving structural works. The requested information may include: a) the design aspects of the proposed infrastructure including the location, type, access

requirements, drainage systems and intended level of immunity b) the construction aspects of the proposed infrastructure including standard and/or varying

approaches to suit the project and contractual arrangements c) the associated or ancillary works of the proposed infrastructure including fencing, vehicle

crossings, involvement with other services and pipelines d) the maintenance aspects of the proposed infrastructure including the operational

manuals, inspections, batter maintenance, batter slumping, crest maintenance, drainage system

e) the emergency works aspects of the proposed infrastructure including response arrangements, support arrangements, recovery arrangements, community education and awareness programs

f) any supporting measures to be provided g) detailed costing of the proposed infrastructure including all costs associated with the

delivery of the infrastructure, i.e. construction costs, design costs, surveying costs, project management costs, land compensation costs, etc.

h) details about the entity that will have ultimate ownership and responsibility of the infrastructure

i) details about the land tenure and ownership of the land which encompasses the proposed infrastructure

j) additional reports that may be required to address particular aspects of the infrastructure i.e. Geotechnical Report, Structural Report, Environmental Report, etc

k) a peer review of the technical documents that may be required due to the complexity of the proposed infrastructure.

Definition of Average Annual Damage:

The total damaged caused by all floods over a long time divided by the number of years in that period.

240

30

If the damage associated with various annual events is plotted against their probability of occurrence, the Average Annual Damage (AAD) is equal to the basis for comparing the economic effectiveness of different management measures. (Floodplain management in Australia: best practice principles and guidelines, SCARM Report 73, pg.96). This guide will be replaced by a new guide in late 2013: Managing the Floodplain: a guide to best practice in flood risk management in Australia. Reference materials should include where relevant: site designs, maps and photos. Cost benefit analysis guidelines

In relation to the cost benefit analysis, please ensure compliance with Queensland Government guidelines as per the Project Assurance Framework – Cost Benefit Analysis guidelines, which can be downloaded from Queensland Treasury’s website.

241

Certification form To be completed, signed, scanned and submitted with each application for funding.

Organisation name

Project title

All sections of the relevant application form are completed and attached

Flood mitigation projects application OR All hazards projects application (excluding flood mitigation)

Certification form Certification form Section 1 Application snapshot/applicant details Section 1 Application snapshot/applicant details Section 2 Flood mitigation projects Section 2 All Hazards (excluding flood mitigation)

Section 3 Proposed project budget Section 3 Proposed project budget Section 4 Breakdown of project costs Section 4 Breakdown of project costs Section 5 Supporting documents Section 5 Supporting documents Project plan (meets Project plan outline Appendix 1 ) Project plan (meets Project plan outline Appendix 1 )

I certify that:

I am authorised by the applicant organisation to submit this application for funding I have read the application package which contains the program guidelines I understand that submission of an application does not guarantee funding approval for either all or part of the

funding being sought. applicant organisation has endorsed this application for funding the details in this application, including any attachments are true and correct all supporting documents are listed in the table provided and attached to the application the applicant organisation will deliver the project within the required timeframe the project will comply with all relevant Acts, Laws, Regulations, Queensland or Australian Government policies

and Industrial Agreements and Awards ongoing operation, maintenance, management and replacement costs for the project will be met by organisation applicant organisation consents to the release of information in this application (excluding personal details) for

non-commercial public information purposes should this application be successful, I confirm that the project will not commence until after funding has been

approved and a funding agreement has been executed with the relevant state agency. Local government or ROC certification Local governments—to be signed by both the mayor and the chief executive officer (CEO) of the local government Regional organisation of councils—to be signed by both the chair and the CEO.

Given name Surname

Phone Mobile Mayor or chair Signature Date

Given name Surname

Phone Mobile

Email CEO

Signature Date

Other organisations – certification (to be signed by an authorised officer)

Given Name Surname

Phone Mobile

Email

Signature Date

Position

Scan this signed certification form and email with your completed application form and supporting documents. Email to lgfundingunit@dlgcrr.qld.gov.au by the closing date.

242

All Hazards Projects (excluding floods) Application form 2013–14 Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding under the:

– Royalties for the Regions (R4R) flood mitigation projects (Queensland Government funded)

– Local Government Floods Response Subsidy (LGFRS)

(Queensland Government funded)

– Natural Disaster Relief Program (NDRP) (joint Queensland and Australian Government funded).

243

All hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 1

Instructions To apply for funding for all hazards projects (excluding floods), complete one certification form and one all hazards projects application form.

Please refer to the joint application package – information pack Queensland Disaster Mitigation and Resilience when preparing your application.

Each application will be considered for funding under the three programs:

– Royalties for the Regions (R4R) flood mitigation projects (Queensland Government funded)

– Local Government Floods Response Subsidy (LGFRS) (Queensland Government funded)

– Natural Disaster Relief Program (NDRP) (joint Queensland and Australian Government funded).

.

244

All hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 2

Section 1—Application snapshot and applicant details To be completed and submitted for each application for funding.

1. Organisation name for joint applications, this should be the lead organisation

2. Project title brief title - maximum 10 words

3. Project description Summarise what you will be doing - maximum 60 words

4. Which best describes the proposed disaster mitigation or resilience project?

Studies and mapping Infrastructure

Education / training / capacity building (Enhancing community preparedness/ resilience)

Bushfire management study Other disaster related infrastructure: provide details

Community education

Hazard risk map Volunteer capability building

Other: provide details

Resilience building tools and training

Other: provide details

5. Project location e.g. town, region, catchment area– provide more details in Section 2

6. Total estimated project cost (ex GST) $

7. Total funding sought in this application (ex GST) $

8. Total other funding contributions to project (excluding 1.7 above) (ex GST) $

9. Project priority—Are you submitting more than one application in this round? If so, enter the priority for this application below (e.g. Priority 1 of 3 applications)

Yes – Priority of applications

No

10. Principal contact person This person will be contacted about the application.

Title: Position:

Given name: Surname:

Phone: Mobile:

Email: Fax:

245

All hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 3

11. Organisation details For joint applications, the should be the lead organisation

Organisation ABN

Organisation type ()

Local government - continue from 1.12

Other – specify: Provide address details below:

Physical Address: Street number Street name

Town / suburb Postcode QLD

Postal Address:

Number Street/post office

Town / suburb Postcode QLD

12. Is this a joint funding application? ()

Yes Use the table below to list all partner organisations involved in the project

No

Details of partner organisations: joint applications only

1 Partner organisation name

Organisation type () Local government

Other – specify:

Contact title: Position:

Given name: Surname:

Phone: Mobile:

Email: Fax:

2 Partner organisation name:

Organisation type () Local government

Other – specify:

Contact title: Position:

Given name: Surname:

Phone: Mobile:

Email: S Fax:

3 Partner organisation name:

Organisation type () Local government

Other – specify:

Contact title: Position:

Given name: Surname:

Phone: Mobile:

Email: Fax:

246

All hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 4

Section 2—All hazards projects (excluding flood mitigation) To be completed for all hazards projects (excluding flood mitigation) e.g. bush fire management study, all hazards plan, disaster resilience training, education or capacity building, disaster resilience infrastructure etc.

1. Project title Brief title – maximum 10 words

2. Project description Summarise the main features, activities and outputs – maximum 60 words

3. Hazard category ()

All hazards Flood (e.g. floods related training )

Storm/tide surge Cyclone

Severe storm Bushfire Other – specify:

4. Summarise the nature of the hazard issue and the identified need being addressed by this project Include nature of hazard, identified need (quantify scale of need where possible) and the issue the project will address; incidence and severity of past events (damages and losses incurred), likelihood of recurrence; geographic location and topography of the project area. For flood related projects, include the source of the flooding (e.g. river, storm surge, overland flow and flash flooding).

5. Outline how the proposed project will:

- build resilience and help to reduce the impact of future disasters

- benefit the community

- benefit / enhance self-reliance within the community and reduce demand for government services.

Include: how the proposed project will assist; if the project is an element of a larger mitigation scheme or activity; details of complementary measures planned (e.g. community education and awareness campaigns); and for studies and research projects, the methodology to be adopted.

6. Details of other options that were considered when developing this project proposal. Provide details of other options and why this particular option was chosen.

247

All hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 5

7. Details of any existing works, measures or related activities that address the hazard. For example, research activities, planning measures and controls or existing mitigation structures. Include comment on their effectiveness taking into account issues such as capacity and limitations, age and state of repair. Provide information also about existing emergency management measures, if any exist. Also include details and evacuation routes, refuge areas, evacuation and/or emergency management plans.

8. Previous studies or training undertaken Use the table below to provide details of relevant studies, research or training previously undertaken into the identified hazard and proposed project.

Title Author Year Attached ()

Explain how this supports the proposed project

9. How will the proposed project build local volunteer capacity?

10. Describe how the proposed project will promote community education and awareness of natural hazards.

11. Project evaluation – provide details of the indicators and quantitative measures you will use to assess and report on the effectiveness of the completed project.

12. Provide information to demonstrate that the project is ready to proceed. The project is required to commence immediately following the announcement of successful applicants.

Project commencement date:

Project completion date:

13. Project plan completed and attached (Refer to the project plan outline at Appendix 3)

Yes – documents are attached

248

All hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 6

14. Is this application for an all hazards infrastructure project?

Yes – continue below No

15. Project type

New infrastructure Upgrade to existing infrastructure Replacement of existing infrastructure Other – specify:

16. Project location Actual site address

Street number/ location

Street name

Town/suburb Postcode QLD

17. Who owns the land where the project will be located?

Applicant

Queensland Government

Specify the agency responsible for the land, type of land (e.g. Crown, road reserve) and attach and list supporting documents:

Other – specify:

If the applicant does not own the land, please provide details (e.g. land acquisition by purchase, land use through lease or deed, or permission from owner/s, etc):

18. Details of approvals and/or licences required for this project

Using the table below, list approvals and/or licences required to deliver this project and indicate current status:

Licence/Approval required Regulatory agency

Current status () Comments Approved Not yet

approved

249

All hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 7

Section 3—Proposed project budget To be completed and submitted for each application for funding.

1. Proposed project budget – funding contributions to the proposed project (all figures to be GST exclusive)

Total funding sought in this application (ex GST) A $

Other funding contributions (if applicable)

Source Program title Approved Y/N

Amount (ex GST)

$ $ $ $

Total other contributions (GST exclusive) B $

Applicant’s own contributions (for joint applications list lead organisation followed by each partner organisation) $ $ $ $

Total own contributions (ex GST) C $

Total project costs A+B+C = D D $

Eligible project costs (D – B = E) E $

Subsidy Percentage sought (A/E%) %

2. Project cost breakdown completed and attached (complete section 4)

Yes - attached

3. How have you determined costs for this project and in what way is this project good value for money?

4. Has the Queensland Government previously funded any component of this project?

Yes – provide details (the department/agency the funding was provided by, program, amount, date approved, purpose etc.

No

250

All hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 8

Section 4—Breakdown of project costs To be completed and submitted for each application for funding. Project items Funding

sought Own source contribution

Other contributions

Total item cost

Project implementation $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Project management $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Wages (project personnel only)

$ $ $ $ Construction $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Building escalation (if not included in quotes) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Professional fees $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Statutory fees and charges $ $ $ $ Other (please specify) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Contingency (allow maximum 15%) $ $ $ $

Total project cost $ $ $ $

251

All Hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 9

Section 5—Supporting documents List all supporting documents attached to this application. To be completed and submitted for each application for funding.

Number and name of each supporting document. Attached

()

1. Project cost breakdown (section 4)

2. Project plan (use outline at Appendix 1)

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

252

All Hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 10

Appendix 1—Project plan outline

Applicant’s detailed project plan is to include the following: Project title Executive summary List of technical terms and acronyms Project scope of works including:

- outputs (list items that will be produced by the project) - outcomes (what the project aims to achieve)

Project management, including: - key project personnel - project manager, including their expertise, skills and contact details - specialist expertise - project constraints - key performance indicators - project deliverables and expenditure milestones provided in a table similar to below:

Project stage or major task Start date

End date

Milestone Estimated expenditure

Required project budget (including assumptions) for construction period and initial operating period Required project cash flows Project risk management plan – identify and describe how project risks will be mitigated or managed (sample

provided over page) A completed cost benefit analysis (CBA)* involving a comprehensive economic evaluation of all the costs and

benefits associated with the project, including: - cost-effectiveness (where benefits cannot be identified and quantified) - social benefits/impacts - environmental benefits/impacts - assessment

* In relation to the CBA, please ensure compliance with Queensland Government guidelines as per the Project Assurance Framework – Cost Benefit Analysis guidelines which is available from Queensland Treasury.

Reference materials, where relevant, such as site designs, maps and photos Flood management study for infrastructure projects only Key project personnel for infrastructure projects only

The key project personnel must have the capabilities, skills and expertise to successfully deliver the project. Please provide relevant details of key personnel below. Please note, this information is being requested for due diligence purposes also.

Full name Date of birth

Role Key skills

253

All Hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 11

Sample risk register Risk identification – identify major factors which could significantly influence the timing, cost or scope of the work, and assign each a rick level and likelihood rating. Identify strategies to mitigate these risks. Risk level: high (H), medium (M), low (L) Likelihood: likely (L), possible (P), unlikely (U)

Risk

Ris

k le

vel

Like

lihoo

d

Mitigation strategy

Example risks are as follows:

Commencement of project

Capability to deliver within timeframes

Site risk

Construction delays

Construction damages and other risks

Contractor/sponsor risks

Operational risks

Market/demand risks

Force majeure

Timing

254

All Hazards projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 12

Appendix 2—Applicant checklist Certification form Certification completed and signed in the space provided by delegated officer

For local governments – mayor and chief executive officer

For a regional organisation of councils – chair and chief executive officer

For other applicants – the delegated officer

Scanned signed certification page attached to completed application email

Section 1 Application project snapshot complete

Project prioritised

Principal applicant details provided

Partner organisations listed and attached joint applications only

Section 2

All hazards projects

All hazards project details provided and all questions answered

Project plan completed (refer outline sample Appendix 1)

Project plan attached

Section 3

Proposed project budget

Funding contributions provided

Value for money information provided

Section 4

Project cost breakdown completed

Project cost breakdown attached

Section 5

All supporting documents listed

All supporting documents attached to application

Email the following to lgfundingunit@dlgcrr.qld.gov.au by the closing date

electronic copy of the application form and

scanned signed certification form and

named and numbered supporting documents for the application.

255

Flood Mitigation Projects

Application form 2013–14 Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding under the:

– Royalties for the Regions (R4R) flood mitigation projects (Queensland Government funded)

– Local Government Floods Response Subsidy (LGFRS)

(Queensland Government funded)

– Natural Disaster Relief Program (NDRP) (joint Queensland and Australian Government funded).

256

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 2

Instructions To apply for funding for all hazards projects (excluding floods), complete one certification form and one all hazards projects application form.

Please refer to the joint application package – information pack Queensland Disaster Mitigation and Resilience when preparing your application.

Each application will be considered for funding under the three programs:

– Royalties for the Regions (R4R) flood mitigation projects (Queensland Government funded)

– Local Government Floods Response Subsidy (LGFRS) (Queensland Government funded)

– Natural Disaster Relief Program (NDRP) (joint Queensland and Australian Government funded).

.

257

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14

Section 1—Application snapshot and applicant details To be completed and submitted for each application for funding.

1. Organisation name for joint applications, this should be the lead organisation

2. Project title brief title - maximum 10 words

3. Project description Summarise what you will be doing - maximum 60 words

4. Which best describes the proposed disaster mitigation or resilience project?

Studies and mapping Infrastructure

Flood mapping Flood mitigation – e.g. levees, detention basins,

floodgates

Flood management study Flood mitigation to manage overland water flow – e.g.

backflow devices

Bushfire management study Flood mitigation to protect essential infrastructure –

e.g. relocating electrical components of treatment plants

Hazard risk map Other disaster related infrastructure: provide details

Other: provide details

5. Project location e.g. town, region, catchment area– provide more details in Section 2

6. Total estimated project cost (ex GST) $

7. Total funding sought in this application (ex GST) $

8. Total other funding contributions to project (excluding 7 above) (ex GST) $

9. Project priority—Are you submitting more than one application in this round? If so, enter the priority for this application below (e.g. Priority 1 of 3 applications)

Yes – Priority of applications

No

10. Principal contact person This person will be contacted about the application.

Title: Position:

Given name: Surname:

Phone: Mobile:

Email: Fax:

258

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14

11. Organisation details For joint applications, the should be the lead organisation

Organisation ABN

Organisation type ()

Local government - continue from Q12.

Other – specify: Provide address details below:

Physical Address: Street number Street name

Town / suburb Postcode QLD

Postal Address:

Number Street/post office

Town / suburb Postcode QLD

12. Is this a joint funding application? ()

Yes Use the table below to list all partner organisations involved in the project

No

Details of partner organisations: joint applications only

1 Partner organisation name

Organisation type () Local government

Other – specify:

Contact title: Position:

Given name: Surname:

Phone: Mobile:

Email: Fax:

2 Partner organisation name:

Organisation type () Local government

Other – specify:

Contact title: Position:

Given name: Surname:

Phone: Mobile:

Email: S Fax:

3 Partner organisation name:

Organisation type () Local government

Other – specify:

Contact title: Position:

Given name: Surname:

Phone: Mobile:

Email: Fax:

259

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14

Section 2—Flood mitigation projects To be completed for flood mitigation projects only. For example, flood management studies and mapping, or flood mitigation infrastructure such as levees and detention basins.

1. Project title Brief title - maximum 10 words

2. Project description Summarise the main features, activities and outputs - maximum 60 words

3. Summarise the nature and history of the flood issue and the identified need being addressed by this project. Include identified need (quantify scale of need), incidence and severity of past events (damages and losses incurred), likelihood of recurrence and source (e.g. catchment, storm surge, overland flow or flash flooding.)

4. Outline how the proposed project will build resilience and help to reduce the impact of future flooding, and benefit the community? Include how the proposed project will assist; if the project is an element of a larger mitigation activity; details of complementary measures planned and for studies and research projects, proposed methodology and outputs. For example, the flood study will include products to meet future land use planning and disaster management needs.

5. Details of catchment-wide considerations incorporated into the proposed project. Include details of catchment-wide consultation undertaken and the resulting considerations, strategies and evidence of support from catchment partners.

6. Details of other options that were considered when developing this project proposal and why this particular option was chosen.

260

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14

7. Details of any existing works, measures or related activities that address the flood risk. For example, research activities, planning measures and controls or existing mitigation structures. Please include comments on their effectiveness taking into account issues such as capacity and limitations, age, state or repair. Please also provide information about existing emergency management measures (e.g. evacuation routes, refuge areas, evacuation / emergency management plans).

8. Previous studies undertaken Use the table below to provide details of studies or research previously undertaken into the flood risk / proposed project.

Title Author Year Attached

()

Explain how the study supports the proposed project

9. Project evaluation – details of the indicators and quantitative measures you will use to assess and report on the effectiveness of the completed project?

10. Proposed project delivery timeframe

What stage has the project reached? ()

detailed design

contractual stage

tender stage

ready to commence

Proposed commencement date:

Proposed completion date:

11. Are there any issues to be addressed that may impact on the commencement and completion of this project? e.g. licences, project site, road reserve, native title, cultural heritage or strategic cropping land issues

Yes Detail issues and how they are being addressed or resolved. Please attach supporting documents.

No

12. Project plan completed and attached (refer to the project plan outline at Appendix 3)

Yes, documents are attached

261

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14

13. Is this application for an infrastructure project? (e.g. levee, detention basin, backflow devices)

Yes - continue below

No - Section 2 is completed

14. Is the proposed mitigation infrastructure supported by a flood management study?

Yes – attached

No – please outline the reason for this:

15. Project type

new infrastructure upgrade to existing infrastructure replacement of existing infrastructure other – please specify:

16. Project location actual site address

Street number/location Street name

Town/suburb Postcode QLD For GIS spatial mapping purposes, please attach one of the following:

ESRI Shape file attached - reference number or

MapInfo TAB file attached - reference number or

real property description of the project site details are provided below: Lot number Parish Registered plan County Title reference Longitude start Finish Latitude start Finish

17. Who owns the land where the project will be located?

applicant

Queensland Government – please specify the agency responsible for the land or the type of land (e.g. Crown, road reserve): Please attach supporting documentation.

Other – details:

If applicant does not own the land: Provide details (e.g. land acquisition by purchase, land use through lease or deed, or permission from owner/s etc):

Please attach supporting documentation.

18. What impact will this project have on the economy? For example, job generation, new industry opportunities

262

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14

19. Provide details of community and or regional support for the project. Include results of community/regional consultation. Please attach evidence, or for on-line evidence, provide relevant hyperlinks.

20. Does this project link to: If yes, provide details, including title and relevant reference page number/s.

Community infrastructure mitigation strategy from a major project environmental study?

Yes Details:

No

Planning processes or regional plans? Yes Details:

No

21. Details of approvals and/or licences required for this project

List approvals and/or licences required to deliver this project and indicate current status.

Licence/approval required Regulatory agency

Current status Comments Approved Not yet

approved

22. Confirmation of commitment to the ongoing operation and maintenance of the proposed infrastructure project, post completion.

Will the completed infrastructure project be included in the organisation’s asset management plan where relevant?

Yes Not applicable

Will recurrent operation and maintenance costs for the completed project be included in annual budgets?

Yes

23. Local industry participation Provide details of how local participation policy expectations have been met, for example, consideration during procurement process of local contractors or workforce.

263

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14

Section 3—Proposed project budget To be completed and submitted for each application for funding.

1. Proposed project budget – funding contributions to the proposed project (all figures to be GST exclusive)

Total funding sought in this application (ex GST) A $

Other funding contributions (if applicable)

Source Program title Approved Y/N

Amount (ex GST)

$ $ $ $

Total other contributions (GST exclusive) B $

Applicant’s own contributions (for joint applications list lead organisation followed by each partner organisation) $ $ $ $

Total own contributions (ex GST) C $

Total project costs A+B+C = D D $

Eligible project costs (D – B = E) E $

Subsidy Percentage sought (A/E%) %

2. Project cost breakdown completed and attached (complete section 4)

Yes - attached

3. How have you determined costs for this project and in what way is this project good value for money?

4. Has the Queensland Government previously funded any component of this project?

Yes – provide details (the department/agency the funding was provided by, program, amount, date approved, purpose etc.

No

264

Flood Mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14 10

Section 4—Breakdown of project costs To be completed and submitted for each application for funding. Project items Funding

sought Own source contribution

Other contributions

Total item cost

Project implementation $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Project management $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

Wages (project personnel only)

$ $ $ $ Construction $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Building escalation (if not included in quotes) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Professional fees $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Statutory fees and charges $ $ $ $ Other (please specify) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Contingency (allow maximum 15%) $ $ $ $

Total project cost $ $ $ $

265

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14

Section 5—Supporting documents List all supporting documents attached to this application. To be completed and submitted for each application for funding.

Number and name of each supporting document. Attached

()

1. Project cost breakdown (section 4)

2. Project plan (use outline at Appendix 1)

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

266

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14

Appendix 1—Project plan outline

Applicant’s detailed project plan is to include the following: project title executive summary list of technical terms and acronyms project scope of works including:

- outputs (list items that will be produced by the project) - outcomes (what the project aims to achieve)

project management, including: - key project personnel - project manager, including their expertise, skills and contact details - specialist expertise - project constraints - key performance indicators - project deliverables and expenditure milestones provided in a table similar to below:

Project stage or major task Start date

End date

Milestone Estimated expenditure

required project budget (including assumptions) for construction period and initial operating period required project cash flows project risk management plan – identify and describe how project risks will be mitigated or managed (sample

provided over page) a completed cost benefit analysis (CBA)* involving a comprehensive economic evaluation of all the costs and

benefits associated with the project, including: - cost-effectiveness (where benefits cannot be identified and quantified) - social benefits/impacts - environmental benefits/impacts - assessment

* In relation to the CBA, please ensure compliance with Queensland Government guidelines as per the Project Assurance Framework – Cost Benefit Analysis guidelines is available from Queensland Treasury.

reference materials, where relevant, such as site designs, maps and photos flood management study for infrastructure projects only key project personnel for infrastructure projects only

The key project personnel must have the capabilities, skills and expertise to successfully deliver the project. Please provide relevant details of key personnel below. Please note, this information is being requested for due diligence purposes also.

Full name Date of birth

Role Key skills

267

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14

Sample risk register Risk identification – identify major factors which could significantly influence the timing, cost or scope of the work, and assign each a rick level and likelihood rating. Identify strategies to mitigate these risks. Risk level: high (H), medium (M), low (L) Likelihood: likely (L), possible (P), unlikely (U)

Risk

Ris

k le

vel

Like

lihoo

d

Mitigation strategy

Example risks are as follows:

Commencement of project

Capability to deliver within timeframes

Site risk

Construction delays

Construction damages and other risks

Contractor/sponsor risks

Operational risks

Market/demand risks

Force majeure

Timing

268

Flood mitigation projects application form Joint application package for Queensland disaster mitigation and resilience funding 2013–14

Appendix 2—Applicant checklist Certification form Certification completed and signed in the space provided by delegated officer

For local governments – mayor and chief executive officer

For a regional organisation of councils – chair and chief executive officer

For other applicants – the delegated officer

Scanned signed certification page attached to completed application email

Section 1 Application project snapshot complete

Project prioritised

Principal applicant details provided

Partner organisations listed and attached - joint applications only

Section 2

Flood mitigation projects

All Flood mitigation projects details provided and all questions answered

Evidence off support from catchment partners attached

Issues to be addressed – supporting documents attached

Project plan completed (refer outline sample Appendix 1)

Project plan attached

Flood mitigation infrastructure projects only:

Flood management study attached

Land ownership supporting documents attached

Evidence of support for the proposed project - attached

Section 3

Funding contributions provided

Value for money information provided

Section 4

Project cost breakdown completed (use Appendix 2)

Project cost breakdown attached

Section 5

All supporting documents listed

All supporting documents attached to application

Email the following to lgfundingunit@dlgcrr.qld.gov.au by the closing date

electronic copy of the application form and

scanned signed certification form and

named and numbered supporting documents for the application.

269

SOCIAL 3 07.2013

2014 AUSTRALIAN OF THE YEAR AWARDS File: 3.1.02 Responsible Officer: Andrew Jackson – Director of Community and Cultural Services Report prepared by: Tracey Wilson – Media / Grants Officer 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to provide information on the 2014 Australian of the Year Awards. 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The National Australia Day Council (NADC) is calling for public nominations for the Australian of the Year Awards 2014. Nominations are being sought in the four award categories: - Australian of the Year; - Senior Australian of the Year (60 years and over); - Young Australian of the Year (16-30 years); - Australia's Local Hero. Nominations can be made online at www.australianoftheyear.org.au or call 1300 655 193 for more information. Nominations close on Friday, 2 August 2013. 3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN In accordance with Operational Plan – Outcome 4 – Community Cohesion and Identity – 4.3 – Community Relationships 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Nil

270

6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Nil 7 RISK MANAGEMENT Nil 8 CONSULTATION Nil

9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER Nil 10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION Nil 11 ATTACHMENTS InfoXpert Doc ID 440189 – 2014 Australian of the Year Awards RECOMMENDATION 1. That the 2014 Australian of the Year Awards report as presented be received. 2. That Council nominate (Insert Name) in the category of (Insert Category) for the 2014 Australian of the Year Awards. Further, that information on the nominee be forwarded to Council’s Media/Grants Officer to allow preparation of the nomination form for submission prior to Friday, 26 July 2013, should a suitable nominee be forthcoming.  

271

2" " "a Premier of QueenslandFor reply pleasequate.· EC/JF-

TF/13/10211- DOC/13/81171

13 June 2013

Councillor Don WaughMayorNorth Burnett RegionalCouncilPO Box 390GAYNDAH QLD 4625

Executive Building100 GeorgeStreetBrisbanePO Box 15185 City East

Queensland 4002 AustraliaTelephone+61732244500Facsimile+61732213631EmailThePremier@premiers.qld.gov.auWebsite www.thepremier,qld.gov.au

Dear CouncillorWaugh

I am delighted to announce that the 2014 Australian of the Year Awards are now open fornomination. I call on all Queenslandersto shine a light on someone you admire and nominatethem for these renowned awards.

Your nominee may be a friend, family member, work colleague or even someone famous--in fact any Queenslanderwho deserves state and national recognition.

Nominees can be entered in one of the followingcategories:? QueenslandAustralianof the Year? QueenslandSenior Australian of the Year? QueenslandYoung Australian of the Year? QueenslandLocal Hero.

Queenslandholds a strong tradition of national finalists across all nomination categories.Some past recipients include Ms Sally Goold OAM, Ms Cathy Freeman OAM, Professor IanFrazerAC and Mr Patrick Rafter.

The prestigious year round program culminates in the announcement of the national awardrecipients in Canberra on the eve ofAustralia Day.

Visit the website at www.australianoftheyear.org.au for further information on previousaward recipients or to nominatesomeoneonline. You may also contact EventsCoordination,Department of the Premier and Cabinet, by email at australiaday@premiers.qld.gov.auor ontelephone (07) 3405 5215. Nominationsclose at midnighton 2 August 2013.

I thank you for your support of this important national awards program and hope yournominee has an opportunity to shine for all Queenslanders.

Yours sincerely RECEIVED (Records)Tau oonaa a

CAMPBELLNEWMANDoc ID:....

Retention Ref: d9 .

N CP) F A ID t Þ C C W)272

Nomination Form Australian of the Year Awards 2014

For faSter proceSSing, pleaSe nominate online at auStralianoftheyear.org.au

Your nominee will automaticallybe enteredforAustralianof the Year and forAustralia's Local Hero. If he/she is eligible please tick the Senior Austrafian of theYear category (60years and over)or YoungAustralian of the Year category (16to 30 years).Australianof the Year v' Senior Australianof the Year Young Australianof the Year Australia'sLocal Hero

NOMIN EE (the person you are nominating)Title First Name Surname M F

Organisation/Position

Address

Suburb State Postcode

Tel (H) Tel (W) Tel (M)

Email

Age/DOB Exact Estimate Unknown Aboriginalor Torres Strait Islander

lnwhatarea(s)hasyournomineeexcelled?e.g.medicine,environment,business,charity,thearts,lndigenousservices,sportetc

Tell us about your nominee: Pleaseprovide as much detail as you can and considerthe selection criteria.You can attach extra pages andsupporting material

In what ways have they demonstrated excellence?

How have theycontributedto theircommunityand to Australia?

Howare theyan inspirationalrole model?

REFEREE (optional)

-Sometimeswe contact refereesforfurtherinformation if a nominee is shortlisted.

Title First Name Surname

Organisation/Position

Tel (H) Tel (W) Tel (M)

Email

NOM fNATO R (your details)

Title First Name Surname M F

Organisation/Position

Address

Suburb State Postcode

Tel (H) Tel (W) Tel (M)

Email

Yourage Under18 18-24 25-34 35-49 50-64 65+ AboriginalorTorresStraitislander

tsyournominee afamilymember colleague friend other

Whereor how did you obtain this nomination form?

I do not wish my nomineeto know I nominated them

273

SOCIAL 4 07.2013

Royalties for the Regions – Round 2 – EOI Applications File: 14.3.07 Responsible Officer: Andrew Jackson – Director of Community and Cultural Services Report prepared by: Tracey Wilson – Media / Grants Officer 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to obtain guidance from Council regarding a proposed project for the Royalties for the Regions, Rounds 2 Expression of Interest Application. 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND The Queensland Government is giving back to the communities that support resource projects through its Royalties for the Regions initiative. Over a four year period starting 2012, the program will invest $495 million in new and improved community infrastructure, roads and floodplain security projects that benefit those who live, work and invest in our resource regions. In future years there will be an ongoing commitment of $200 million each year. Round 2 information Expression of Interest applications for Royalties for the Regions Round 2 opened on 15 July 2013 and all regional councils outside South-East Queensland are now eligible to apply for funding. A total of $95 million is available to fund key community infrastructure and roads projects in Round 2. However, $46 million of this funding has been pre-committed to crucial road projects, including Blakey's Crossing in Townsville and the CBD ring road and West Creek Rail Bridge in Toowoomba. The program is designed to ensure that regional communities receive real, long term royalty benefits through investment in infrastructure. The focus for Round 2 remains on supporting infrastructure projects that respond to critical community needs that have resulted in resource sector activity. Enquiries For all enquiries regarding the Royalties for the Regions program - please contact the Royalties for the Region team at 3404 3670 or 13 QGOV (13 74 68). Further information can be found at http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/grants-and-funding/royalties-for-the-regions.html

274

Advice has been received that Expressions of Interest will need to be submitted by Friday, 16 August 2013. Application Forms will be available as of Monday, 15 July. 3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN In accordance with the 2013-2018 Corporate Plan: - Outcome 1 – Infrastructure - Outcome 5 – Governance – 5.03 - External Funding In accordance with Operational Plan: - Outcome 1 – Community Infrastructure - Section 1.3 Infrastructure Delivery - Outcome 1 – Community Infrastructure - Section 1.4 Infrastructure Funding - Outcome 3 – Organisational Capability - Section 3.7 Sourcing External Funds

275

4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS Nil 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Nil 6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Royalties for the Region does not require a minimum local government contribution. However, a financial contribution from council demonstrates a local commitment to the project and will be considered favourably. 7 RISK MANAGEMENT Nil 8 CONSULTATION Nil

9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER Consider this report and accept, reject or amend recommendations. 10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION Nil 11 ATTACHMENTS Doc ID 457537 – R4R Round 2 – Roadshow Meeting / Funding Announcement Doc ID 457555 – R4R Round 2 – Fact Sheet Doc ID 457556 – R4R Round 2 - Frequently Asked Questions Doc ID 457557 – R4R Round 2 – Program Guidelines RECOMMENDATION That: 1) The Royalties for the Regions – Round 2 Expression Of Interest Applications Report as presented be received. 2) Council endorse the (Insert Name of Project) Project for submission as an Expression of Interest to the Royalties for the Regions, Round 2.

276

Acting Premier

The Honourable Jeff Seeney

Royalties for the Regions - Open to all regional councils

All regional councils outside South East Queensland can participate in Round Two of the Royalties for the Regions

(R4R) program.

Acting Premier Jeff Seeney announced the expansion of the R4R program in Townsville today.

Round Two of R4R will open on July 15 with a total of 64 councils across regional Queensland, including

Toowoomba, now eligible to apply for funding.

A total of $95 million is available to fund key community infrastructure and roads in Round Two. Forty six million

dollars of this funding has been pre-committed to crucial road projects - Blakey’s Crossing in Townsville and the

CBD ring-road and West Creek Rail Bridge in Toowoomba.

Mr Seeney said Royalties for the Regions had been confined to 14 councils in the initial pilot round and the

government had decided to now extend it to all regional councils supporting the resource sector.

“The main focus of Royalties for the Regions, however, remains on supporting infrastructure projects that respond

to the most critical community needs that have resulted from resource sector activity,” he said.

“My department will be going out to brief eligible councils on funding priorities and eligibility criteria for this next

round over the coming weeks to help ensure councils submit priority projects with the best chance of success.

“Royalties for the Regions is a $495 million four year initiative to support Queensland’s regions to provide critical

community infrastructure, roads and flood mitigation projects.

“This will be followed by annual Royalties for the Regions Program commitment of $200 million.”

Mr Seeney said the results of Round One in 2012 were 18 successful projects across the state – six for community

infrastructure, two for flood mitigation and 10 for road projects.

“Importantly Round One projects secured contributions of $9.7 million from industry, $6.7 million from councils and

$12.4 million from other state and Commonwealth agencies,” he said.

“These projects will ultimately improve the liveability of those resource communities and help ensure they thrive and

grow.”

Mr Seeney said after Round Two opens later this month, councils would have until early September to lodge

Expressions of Interest for funding.

A shortlist of eligible projects for which detailed business cases will be needed will be compiled and approved by

the end of the year.

[ENDS] 3 July 2013

Media Contact: John Wiseman – 0409 791 281 or Kate Haddan – 0418 373 516

Page 1 of 1Royalties for the Regions - Open to all regional councils - The Queensland Cabinet an...

3/07/2013http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2013/7/3/royalties-for-the-regions--open-to-all-r...

277

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

The resources sector is one of the key pillars of Queensland’s economy. Communities across regional Queensland, impacted by resources growth, will be presented with new opportunities and new challenges.

The Queensland Government is supporting regional Queensland through the Royalties for the Regions program. Started in 2012, the program will invest $495 million over four years and $200 million each year beyond that to help regional communities meet critical infrastructure needs and deliver new and improved community infrastructure, roads, and flood mitigation projects.

The program is designed to ensure that regional communities receive real, long-term royalty benefits through investment in infrastructure. The program is helping communities better manage the impacts of resources sector development and ensure they remain liveable and sustainable well into the future.

The Royalties for the Regions program has been designed to:

• improve the liveability and amenity of regional communities, making these communities more attractive places in which to live and work

• help regional communities become more economically sustainable and resilient

• support development that reflects the aspirations of regional communities; and

• attract additional funds from all levels of government and the private sector for critical infrastructure projects and encourage greater private sector investment in the regions.

In 2013-14, $95 million is available under Royalties for the Regions Round 2 for key community infrastructure, roads and flood mitigation projects in regional Queensland. A number of roads pre-commitments will be funded under this round.

Who can apply?Royalties for the Regions Round 2 is open to all local councils in regional Queensland. For the purposes of the program, regional Queensland comprises all local government areas outside of South East Queensland, but including Toowoomba1.

In addition, as a result of flood events in early 2013, eligibility to apply for flood mitigation infrastructure funding has been extended to the Lockyer Valley Regional Council.

Application processApplications will be called for community and roads projects. Councils should consider projects which demonstrate critical need arising from resource sector growth, and focus on core infrastructure.

The application process will involve two-stages:

• expression of interest (EOI)—information required will focus on project eligibility, demand or need for the project, and its strategic merit

• business case—detailed project information will be required including project costs, deliverability, risk management and the financial case.

Applications are prioritised against a number of criteria which include: addressing issues arising from rapid resource sector growth; improvements to community or economic infrastructure; the scale of community benefits; alignment with state and regional planning priorities; value for money; ongoing viability and demonstrated community support.

To apply and view application guidelines visit www.qld.gov.au/royalties

Great state. Great opportunity.

Royalties for the RegionsRound 2

Royalties for the Regions

RED_0274_002_De R4R_Fact Sheet-Round 2_5.indd 1 5/07/13 9:47 AM

278

Community infrastructure and road projects

Timetable for the two-stage application process

Date Phase

15 July 2013 EOIs open

16 August 2013 EOIs closed

September 2013 Shortlisted projects announced

November 2013 Business cases for shortlisted projects due to be submitted by local governments

From December 2013 Round 2 approved projects announced

Note: dates are indicative and subject to change. Visit www.qld.gov.au/royalties for further information

Flood mitigation projects

Timetable for the single-stage application process

Date Phase25 June 2013 Applications open

19 July 2013 Applications closed

August 2013 Round 2 approved flood mitigation projects announced

Note: dates are indicative and subject to change. Visit www.qld.gov.au/royalties for further information

1 South East Queensland generally consists of the following regions: Brisbane, Ipswich, Logan, Moreton Bay, Redland, Gold Coast, Sunshine Coast, Toowoomba, Scenic Rim, Somerset and Lockyer Valley.

Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning

For more informationPO Box 15009, City East QLD 4002tel +61 7 3404 3670 or 13 QGOV (13 74 68)royalties@dsdip.qld.gov.au

www.qld.gov.au/royalties

Flood mitigation projectsApplications for flood mitigation projects will be managed separately through a whole of government coordinated flood funding process. This will be a single-stage application process which will combine EOI and Business Case information requirements. Applications for flood mitigation funding will be called through a separate process.

RED_0274_002_De R4R_Fact Sheet-Round 2_5.indd 2 5/07/13 9:47 AM

279

 

 

Royalties for the Regions—Round 2  

Frequently asked questions  

What is Royalties for the Regions?  

Royalties for the Regions is a Queensland Government funding program for local governments that will invest $495 million over four years (2012–13 to 2015–16) and $200 million each year beyond that, to help regional communities meet critical infrastructure needs that have arisen as a result of resource sector activity. The program will deliver new and improved community infrastructure, roads and flood mitigation projects.

 What funding is available under Royalties for the Regions this year?

 

$95 million was allocated for Round 2. This includes some pre-committed roads projects. Approximately $50 million is available for applications from eligible local councils.

 Who can apply for funding under the Royalties for the Regions program?

 

Royalties for the Regions Round 2 is open to all local councils in regional Queensland. For the purposes of the program, regional Queensland comprises all local government areas outside of South East Queensland, but including Toowoomba.

As a result of flood events in early 2013, eligibility to apply for flood mitigation infrastructure funding has been extended to the Lockyer Valley Regional Council for this Round.

 Why can only local government apply?

 

Royalties for the Regions is about empowering local government to take greater control of their infrastructure requirements. Local government will have a central role in prioritising infrastructure requirements and then managing the delivery of that infrastructure.

 How much will each local government be entitled to?

 

Royalties for the Regions is a competitive funding program and so not every council may receive funding. Projects will be assessed on their strategic merit.

 

To gain funding, projects must demonstrate that they respond to a critical community need arising from resource sector activity.

 

Project limits for funding do apply and the maximum amount of funding available for any one project is $10 million. With the exception of flood mitigation projects, the minimum amount of funding available is $250 000.

 What kinds of projects will be eligible?

 Royalties for the Regions can provide funding for all types of infrastructure projects; such as water and sewerage, roads, social and community infrastructure and flood mitigation projects. However, only projects that respond to critical community needs that have resulted from resource sector activities will be considered eligible for Royalties for the Regions funding.

280

 

  

For specific criteria and guidelines on project eligibility please refer to the program guidelines. Please note that separate priorities and guidelines exist for flood mitigation projects.

 The Royalties for the Regions program guidelines for Round 2 will be available at www.qld.gov.au/royalties

 Are we able to submit an application for more than one project?

 

Yes, there is no limit to the number of projects that may be submitted. However, projects must be endorsed by council and prioritised. A project must demonstrate it addresses a need linked to resource sector growth and must be ready for construction within six months of signing the funding agreement, if approved. It is important local governments consider their capacity to deliver multiple projects, if funding is awarded.

 What percentage of a project’s costs will be funded under Royalties for the Regions?

 

In rare circumstances, Royalties for the Regions can provide up to 100 per cent of project costs. The program is designed to encourage collaboration so applications that include financial contributions from local governments, industry proponents and/or other contributors will be considered favourably.

The maximum available for any one project is $10 million.  

What contribution to a project will be required of council?  

Royalties for the Regions does not require a minimum local government contribution. However, a financial contribution from council, industry proponents and/or other contributors demonstrates a local commitment to the project and will be considered favourably.

 

 Will water and sewerage infrastructure proposals be eligible for funding under this program?

 

Yes. The Queensland Government recognises that these types of projects are core infrastructure and essential to the functioning and quality of life of communities, and to enable growth. To be eligible for Royalties for the Regions funding, applicants must demonstrate that the project responds to a critical community need arising from growth of resource sector activity.

 Does Royalties for the Regions fund the planning stages of projects?

 

No. Royalties for the Regions does not fund feasibility or planning studies. Projects funded under Royalties for the Regions must be ready for construction within six months of signing the funding agreement.

  

How will I know when applications are open?  

Funding round dates will be announced by the Deputy Premier, Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning and eligible councils will be notified.

 

Once an announcement has been made key dates for Round 2 will posted on the Royalties for the Regions website at www.qld.gov.au/royalties

 How do I apply?

 

Eligible local governments will be invited to apply once the round is open. Applications will be able to be submitted electronically through an online portal. Eligible councils will be provided instructions and assigned a login to the Royalties for the Regions portal.

 

There will be a separate process and guidelines for flood mitigation projects. Information on this process will be available at www.qld.gov.au/royalties

281

 

 

 How will projects be assessed for funding?

 

All projects submitted for funding through the Royalties for the Regions application process will undergo a two-stage competitive assessment process. Applicants are required to submit an expression of interest for each project, and where projects are shortlisted, applicants will be required to submit a full business case.

 

Applications will be assessed against specific criteria, clear need arising from resource sector growth, value for money, scale of benefits, evidence of demand and stakeholder support, and ongoing viability.

 

There will be a separate assessment process and guidelines for flood mitigation projects. Information on this process will be available at www.qld.gov.au/royalties

 When will I know the outcome of my application?

 Once applications are closed they will be assessed and submitted to the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning for consideration. Once a decision on successful projects has been made, local governments will be notified in writing of the outcome of their application(s).

 Who can I contact for more information?

 

If you have any further questions or need assistance, please contact any of the Royalties for the Regions team on 3404 3670 or 13 QGOV (13 74 68) or send an inquiry to the Royalties for the Regions mailbox: royalties@dsdip.qld.gov.au

 

General information on the Royalties for the Regions program is available at www.qld.gov.au/royalties

 

                                 

282

Program guidelines

Round two

June 2013

283

The Department State Development, Infrastructure and Planning is responsible for driving the economic development of Queensland.

© State of Queensland, Department State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, June 2013, 100 George Street, Brisbane Qld 4000. (Australia)

Licence: This work is licensed under the Creative Commons CC BY 3.0 Australia licence. To view a copy of this licence, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. Enquiries about this licence or any copyright issues can be directed to the Senior Advisor, Governance on telephone (07)

3224 2085 or in writing to PO Box 15009, City East, Queensland 4002

Attribution: The State of Queensland, Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of information. However, copyright protects this publication. The State of Queensland has no objection to this material being reproduced, made available online or electronically but only if it is recognised as the owner of the copyright and this material remains unaltered.

The Queensland Government is committed to providing accessible services to Queenslanders of all cultural and linguistic backgrounds. If you have difficulty understanding this publication and need a translator, please call the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) on telephone 131 450 and ask them to telephone the Queensland Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning on telephone (07) 3227 8548.

Disclaimer: While every care has been taken in preparing this publication, the State of Queensland accepts no responsibility for decisions or actions taken as a result of any data, information, statement or advice, expressed or implied, contained within. To the best of our knowledge, the content was correct at the time of publishing.

An electronic copy of this document is available on the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning’s website at www.dsdip.qld.gov.au To obtain a printed copy of this document, please contact us via the contact details provided at the end of this document.

RED_0274.012_Pu

284

Contents Contents ......................................................................................................... iii Tables ............................................................................................................ iii 1. Program summary ................................................................................. 4

444

66666777

8889

111112

131313131414

151515

16

5

Program outline ................................................................................................. Program objective ............................................................................................. Key dates ..........................................................................................................

2. Eligibility criteria ..................................................................................... Eligible applicants.............................................................................................. Eligible projects ................................................................................................. Eligible costs ..................................................................................................... Other requirements ........................................................................................... Ineligible projects............................................................................................... Ineligible costs................................................................................................... Local prioritisation and project development .....................................................

3. Submission of applications .................................................................... Application advice and assistance .................................................................... Expressions of interest ...................................................................................... Business cases .................................................................................................

4. Assessment criteria.............................................................................. Criteria............................................................................................................. Higher priority projects ....................................................................................

5. Legal requirements .............................................................................. Confidentiality.................................................................................................. Privacy............................................................................................................. Funding agreements .......................................................................................

GST requirements.................................................................................. Funding acknowledgement and branding .......................................................

6. Industry involvement ............................................................................ Local Industry Participation Plans ................................................................... Industry support...............................................................................................

7. More information ..................................................................................

Tables Table 1 Round two key dates................................................................................

285

1. Program summary

Program outline Royalties for the Regions is a Queensland Government initiative investing $495 million over four years (2012–13 to 2015–16) in regional community infrastructure, roads and floodplain mitigation projects.

Funding is allocated in rounds. Eligible applicants are invited to apply at the start of each round for project funding from $250 000 to $10 million.

Royalties for the Regions funding is designed to be flexible and responsive to emerging local government and regional development priorities. It provides support to local governments in responding to critical needs arising from resources sector growth.

The program is a competitive grants program with no guarantee that all eligible local governments will receive funding.

These guidelines cover funding applications for community and roads infrastructure only. Applications for funding for floodplain mitigation projects will be considered under the Queensland Disaster Mitigation and Resilience Funding 2013–14 Application Package. Guidelines specifically for Royalties for the Regions flood funding are included as part of that application package.

Program objective The program helps regions receive genuine long-term royalty benefits through improved planning and targeted infrastructure investment.

The Royalties for the Regions program focuses on building the capacity of resource communities to deal with the impacts of resource development.

The program contributes to building community capacity and economic sustainability through:

infrastructure that improves the liveability and amenity of regional communities, making places more attractive for people to live and work

economic development and resilience of regional communities development consistent with Queensland regional economic or planning priorities increased private sector investment in resource communities.

Key dates Successful projects for Royalties for the Regions funding are identified through a two-stage process—an expressions of interest stage, followed by submission of business cases for shortlisted projects.

286

Table 1 Round two key dates

Date Stage

15 July 2013 Expressions of Interest (EOIs) for round two open

16 August 2013 Deadline for submission of EOIs

September 2013 Notification of shortlisted EOIs

November 2013 Deadline for submission of business cases

From December 2013 Announcement of approved projects for 2013–14

The Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (DSDIP) will inform local governments if there is a change in the dates.

287

2. Eligibility criteria

Eligible applicants Applications can be made by all local governments in regional Queensland, including Toowoomba.

Refer to Section 7 for a list of eligible local governments.

Only eligible local governments may apply and if a consortium is involved, local government must be the lead partner and be responsible for project delivery.

Eligible projects For an application to be considered eligible for Royalties for the Regions funding, the project must respond to critical community infrastructure needs that have resulted from resources sector activity.

Royalties for the Regions can provide funding for all types of infrastructure projects. However, priority is given to core, community infrastructure projects that are essential to the functioning and quality of life of communities in regional Queensland.

Local roads that are being impacted by resource development and are used extensively by the community and other industries will also be eligible.

Eligible costs Eligible costs may include:

construction costs remuneration of technical, professional and/or administrative staff for time directly

related to managing the construction of approved works, but excluding executive duties and overhead charges

contingencies of up to 15 per cent.

Other requirements Projects must be ready to commence construction within six months of signing the

funding agreement. As a guide, it is expected that funding agreements will be signed within three months of funding announcements. Where projects are not expected to be ready to proceed within this timeframe, then councils should apply in later rounds.

Local governments are required to coordinate any necessary regulatory approvals. The Queensland Government may assist where its powers under existing legislation such as the State Development Public Works Organisation Act 1971 or the Queensland Reconstruction Authority Act 2011 are relevant.

288

Proposals that relate to Queensland Government infrastructure may be considered if there is evidence of increased community need, the relevant agency is supportive and local government (s) consider if a high priority. For example, proposals could include: – upgrading existing infrastructure (e.g. upgrade to health facilities due to increased

demand from resources sector growth) – bringing forward planned infrastructure to meet growth demand.

If the project is on Queensland Government owned land and/or facilities, the application must be supported by the relevant Queensland Government agency.

Ineligible projects Ineligible projects include:

works constructed on non-council or non-government owned land or controlled land feasibility and planning studies projects that would normally be funded through an existing Queensland Government

program, except as noted in ‘other requirements’ section.

Ineligible costs Ineligible costs include those related to:

activities that commence prior to the signing of a funding agreement, including pre-construction costs

legal expenses temporary works, other than those required as part of the completion of the

proposed project official opening expenses ongoing costs for local government administration, operation, maintenance or

engineering vehicle purchasing or leasing costs of preparing a business case or other Royalties for the Regions application

material.

This list is not intended to be either prescriptive or comprehensive. If there is any doubt about eligible projects or costs, please contact the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning (refer to the ‘more information’ section for contact details).

Local prioritisation and project development Local governments are encouraged to identify a pipeline of strategic infrastructure priorities. This will assist local governments in preparing project applications for future funding rounds and to capitalise on other funding opportunities.

Projects that might not be ready for construction for the current round could be further developed for future rounds.

289

3. Submission of applications Royalties for the Regions funding is awarded through a two-stage, competitive assessment process, which includes submission of an EOI and, if shortlisted, a business case.

The EOI stage will consider the eligibility and the strategic merit of proposed projects.

The business case stage helps assess the project in more detail, confirming strategic merit and local government capacity to deliver the project, assessing risk and financial soundness.

All project proposals are subject to due diligence, including financial and economic assessments. Further information may be requested from applicants for this purpose.

EOI and business case submissions must be received by the relevant closing dates. Late submissions will not be accepted.

All applicants will be notified in writing of the outcome of their applications.

Application advice and assistance The Royalties for the Regions program is managed by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning.

Departmental officers are available to assist local governments. Refer to the ‘more information’ section for departmental contact details.

If an application includes a Queensland Government owned or controlled facility, local governments should consult with the relevant Queensland Government agency prior to submission.

Expressions of interest The round opens with the call for eligible local governments to submit EOIs. EOIs are submitted online through the Royalties for the Regions portal. EOIs may

be submitted via email or post where submission through the portal is not practical. Local governments submitting multiple projects must complete a separate EOI for

each project and identify an order of priority for all projects submitted. Applications seeking funding for roads projects must include confirmation of the

support of the relevant regional road group. At the EOI phase, applicants must provide:

– a completed EOI form – a signed certification form confirming authorisation to lodge the application and

acceptance of application conditions. Where an applicant is submitting more than one EOI, the certification must identify a priority order of submitted projects. Only one certification form is required per applicant

– letter of support from the regional road group (for road projects)

290

– any other documentation required as part of the EOI form. Receipt of EOIs will be confirmed by the Royalties for the Regions Secretariat. DSDIP assesses projects based upon eligibility requirements and assessment

criteria. Relevant government agencies may be consulted as part of the assessment

process. Once assessed, projects are provided to the Deputy Premier and Minister for State

Development, Infrastructure and Planning for consideration and shortlisting. Letters are sent notifying applicants that projects are either shortlisted or

unsuccessful. Feedback on unsuccessful projects is available upon request.

Peak bodies will not be formally involved in the assessment of proposals. However, comment may be sought from peak bodies on eligible applications to confirm that the emerging package of projects is consistent with the overall direction and development of industry and communities.

Peak bodies may include the Local Government Association of Queensland (LGAQ), Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Ltd (APPEA) and the Queensland Resources Council (QRC). These organisations will be required to agree to non-disclosure and confidentiality requirements.

Business cases Local governments with shortlisted projects will be invited to submit a business case

for each shortlisted project. Business cases may be prepared in consultation with project partners, including

Queensland Government agencies where relevant. For the business case, applicants must provide:

– a completed business case form – a detailed project plan covering at a minimum, information identified in the project

plan template and checklist (available to applicants online) – evidence of support of any partners, providing financial or in-kind commitments to

the project – evidence of support of the relevant Queensland Government agency, where the

project relates to a Queensland Government infrastructure program or facility – assurance that the project satisfies all legislative and regulatory standards (e.g.

environmental, health and building requirements) – evidence of the council’s commitment and support for the application and project,

such as minutes of the relevant council meeting, a letter from the mayor or some other appropriate documentation

– any other documentation required in the business case form, for example project budget and assumptions, cash flow, etc

– a signed certification form confirming authorisation to lodge the business case. Where an applicant is submitting more than one EOI, the certification must

291

identify a priority order of submitted projects. Only one certification form is required per applicant.

Receipt of business cases will be confirmed by the Royalties for the Regions Secretariat and will be assessed as per the EOI process.

Due diligence will be undertaken and may include financial and economic assessments

Once assessed, projects are submitted to the Deputy Premier and Minister for State Development, Infrastructure and Planning for consideration and approval.

Applicants will be notified whether projects have been awarded funds. Feedback on unsuccessful projects will be available upon request.

292

4. Assessment criteria Royalties for the Regions funding decisions take into consideration the relative strategic merit and priority order of eligible projects.

Strategic merit is assessed through criteria. It is not expected that every project funded under Royalties for the Regions will meet every criteria.

The Royalties for the Regions program objectives are reflected in the assessment criteria. The objectives that are of a higher priority to the government have a higher weighting in the assessment criteria. Individual weightings are included with the criteria below.

Criteria (1) The project will respond to a need that has resulted from resources sector

activity (weighting 30 per cent)

(a) The project provides solutions for legacy issues or critical needs related to resources sector growth.

(b) There is demonstrated demand for the project. (2) The project will improve community and/or economic infrastructure, with

clear benefits for the community (weighting 25 per cent)

(a) The project will improve community infrastructure and enhance the liveability and amenity of the community.

(b) The project demonstrates significant benefits for the community. (c) The project will result in economic development and increase private sector

investment. (d) The project provides added value to the community by increasing

investment in a planned infrastructure project. (e) For road infrastructure projects the project will improve road infrastructure,

safety, connectivity and capacity. (3) The project aligns with state, regional economic or planning priorities

(weighting 15 per cent)

(a) The project is consistent with community, state, regional or planning priorities.

(b) The project demonstrates collaboration and addresses agreed regional or infrastructure priorities across local government areas or across a resources sector supply chain.

(4) The project makes sense financially and is ready to be delivered (weighting 15 per cent)

(a) The project makes sense financially, including demonstrated value for money.

293

(b) There is a plan for the viability of the project, such as a local government plan to manage, operate and maintain the infrastructure following construction.

(c) The applicant has the capability to deliver the project, such as appropriate staff expertise and capacity to manage the project.

(5) The project has regional support, i.e. the project has demonstrated community support verified by any consultation that has been undertaken (weighting 15 per cent)

(a) The project has or will secure a financial commitment from another source, including government or private sector (in-kind support is not considered a ‘financial commitment’).

(b) The community supports the project (as confirmed through consultation, letters of support or in-kind commitments).

Higher priority projects Royalties for the Regions funding is designed to help communities deal with the impacts of rapid resources sector growth. These impacts may include economic, social, community, environmental and industry effects that may come with growth in resource development.

Priority will be given to projects that:

incorporate financial commitments from other sources, including government or the private sector (NB: For Royalties for the Regions purposes, financial contribution does not include in-kind support)

incorporate collaboration on regional infrastructure priorities across local government areas or across a resources sector supply chain

demonstrate value for money offer a greater scale of benefit.

294

5. Legal requirements

Confidentiality DSDIP collects information for the purpose of evaluating applications for the Royalties for the Regions program. By agreeing to the conditions in these program guidelines and the EOI and business case forms, applicants agree that the information supplied as part of the Royalties for the Regions funding application process may be shared with Queensland Government agencies and other program stakeholders (including LGAQ, QRC, APPEA and others) for the purpose of ensuring the emerging package of projects is consistent with the overall direction and development of the industry and communities.

The department may also disclose information to promote the incentive through the release of the recipient’s name, the amount of financial assistance and general details of the project. The Queensland Government is committed to maintaining the confidentiality of information of a commercially sensitive nature.

Privacy Information collected is also subject to the Right to Information Act 2009 and the Information Privacy Act 2009. The information provided may be publicly released and or provided to third parties (including LGAQ, QRC, APPEA and others) and other government agencies—but only for the purposes for which the information is being collected. The applicant's personal information will be stored on departmental files and may be disclosed for purposes relating to the Royalties for the Regions program or as authorised or required by law.

Funding agreements Local governments accepting offers of financial assistance through the Royalties for the Regions program are required to enter into a formal funding arrangement with DSDIP or its nominated agents.

The Royalties for the Regions agreement consists of two documents, a head funding deed of agreement (head agreement) and a sub-agreement.

The head agreement is an overarching agreement between the state and the local government that provides the general conditions of funding associated with delivery of any project funded under the Royalties for the Regions program. The head agreement covers all sub-agreements and funding that a local government may receive through the Royalties for the Regions program.

The sub-agreement sets out any specific terms and conditions associated with a project, including payment milestones. A sub-agreement is signed for every project awarded funding.

295

The sub-agreement must be signed by the local government within three months of notification of funding announcement.

More information on Royalties for the Regions funding arrangements, including conditions of funding, is available upon request.

GST requirements

Provision of Royalties for the Regions funding to local governments is not considered a taxable supply and so GST is not applicable.

Funding acknowledgement and branding Local governments that receive funding through the Royalties for the Regions program are required to appropriately acknowledge the Queensland Government’s contribution.

Further information is available in the Royalties for the Regions Funding Acknowledgement Guidelines and the funding agreement template. These documents are available upon request.

296

6. Industry involvement

Local Industry Participation Plans To encourage and support local industry growth and benefit from infrastructure and other major projects, the Queensland Government has a local industry policy. In some cases, local governments may be required to develop and implement a local industry participation plan to give local businesses a genuine opportunity to tender and supply for the project. Information on the local industry policy and local industry participation plans is available at www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/local-industry-policy.

Industry support Resource companies are able to contribute directly to the Royalties for the Regions funding pool for projects that help mitigate the social impacts of their resource activities. These projects can be co-branded, promoting the financial contributions of the applicable companies, in addition to any Royalties for the Regions funding received.

297

7. List of eligible applicants

Aurukun Shire Council Balonne Shire Council Banana Shire Council Barcaldine Regional Council Barcoo Shire Council Blackall-Tambo Regional Council Boulia Shire Council Bulloo Shire Council Bundaberg Regional Council Burdekin Shire Council Burke Shire Council Cairns Regional Council Carpentaria Shire Council Cassowary Coast Regional Council Central Highlands Regional Council Charters Towers Regional Council Cherbourg Aboriginal Shire Council Cloncurry Shire Council Cook Shire Council Croydon Shire Council Diamantina Shire Council Doomadgee Aboriginal Shire Council Douglas Shire Council* Etheridge Shire Council Flinders Shire Council Fraser Coast Regional Council Gladstone Regional Council Goondiwindi Regional Council Gympie Regional Council Hinchinbrook Shire Council Hope Vale Aboriginal Shire Council Isaac Regional Council Kowanyama Aboriginal Shire Council Livingstone Shire Council*

Lockhart River Aboriginal Shire Council Longreach Regional Council Mackay Regional Council Mapoon Aboriginal Shire Council Maranoa Regional Council Mareeba Shire Council* McKinlay Shire Council Mornington Shire Council Mount Isa City Council Murweh Shire Council Napranum Aboriginal Shire Council North Burnett Regional Council Northern Peninsula Area Regional

Council Palm Island Aboriginal Shire Council Paroo Shire Council Pormpuraaw Aboriginal Shire Council Quilpie Shire Council Richmond Shire Council Rockhampton Regional Council South Burnett Regional Council Southern Downs Regional Council Tablelands Regional Council Toowoomba Regional Council Torres Shire Council Torres Strait Island Regional Council Townsville City Council Western Downs Regional Council Weipa Town Authority Whitsunday Regional Council Winton Shire Council Woorabinda Aboriginal Shire Council Wujal Wujal Aboriginal Shire Council Yarrabah Aboriginal Shire Council

*Councils de-amalgamated following 9 March 2013 vote will be eligible to apply for future funding rounds, upon their official establishment on 1 January 2014.

298

8. More information Officers from DSDIP are available to assist local governments.

Enquiries may be directed to the Royalties for the Regions program on (07) 3404 3670 or via email on royalties@dsdip.qld.gov.au

The department’s regional services officers may also be able to assist at a local level.

Where an infrastructure project involves a Queensland Government owned or controlled facility, local governments should consult with the relevant Queensland Government agency.

Officers from DSDIP (or its agents) will be assigned to work with local governments on projects awarded funding under the Royalties for the Regions program. These officers will assist councils through the process of developing, executing and managing Royalties for the Regions funding agreements and the associated obligations.

General information on the Royalties for the Regions program is available at www.qld.gov.au/royalties

299

ENV 1 – State Assessment and Referral Agency - new IDAS forms and resources

Responsible Officer: Bob Savage – Director of Development & Environment Report prepared by: Bob Savage – Director of Development & Environment Development and Environment) 16 July 2013 – Standing Committee Meeting 1 PURPOSE OF REPORT The purpose of this report is to inform Councillors of Queensland Governments introduction of a planning reform with Department of State Development Infrastucture and Planning (DSDIP) as the State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA). Effective as of the 1 July 2103. Along with this new system has resulted in all new forms and resources. 2 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND It is the State’s intention with his new reform to create the most efficient and effective planning and development assessment system. . The Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (SPA) was amended in November 2012 to give effect to SARA, as the first step towards reforming and simplifying the development assessment framework. These amendments were effective as of the 1 July 2013. SARA will deliver a coordinated, whole-of-government approach to the state's assessment of development applications. Some of the many benefits include: a single agency lodgement and assessment point for development applications, where the state has a jurisdiction a final decision maker to ensure no 'unreasonable' requirements are imposed on applicants. The outcome will be a more efficient system that cuts costs and time for the applicant. SARA only relates to development applications where a state agency currently has a jurisdiction. The new arrangements will mean the chief executive of SPA, being the Director-General of DSDIP, will become the assessment manager or referral agency for these development applications. This is the case for all applications other than for assessing building work against the building assessment provisions of the Building Act 1975 or the Fire and Rescue Service Act 1990, which will continue to be assessed as they are now. A new online system MyDAS supported by SARA allows to prepare and lodge or refer particular application to DSDIP, as the single state assessment

300

and referral agency. This system is not used when making application to Local Government, as assessment manager. 3 CORPORATE/OPERATIONAL PLAN 3.5.1 Develop and implement NBRC Planning Scheme and provide effective and efficient planning services 4 POLICY IMPLICATIONS .N/A 5 STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS Covered under the Queensland governments planning reform agenda that includes a single State Planning Policy, Infrastructure Charges Discussion and State Assessment and Referral Agency (SARA) reforms 6 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Staff time budgeted for. 7 RISK MANAGEMENT NA 8 CONSULTATION NA 9 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER For discussion

10 OFFICER’S COMMENTS/CONCLUSION

For discussion of Planning and Policy Committee meeting 11 ATTACHMENTS

RECOMMENDATION

301