Late Items Agenda of General - 14 November 2012

Maranoa Regional Council

General Meeting - 14 November 2012

Officer Report

Meeting: General 14 November 2012	Date: 9 November 2012
Item Number: L.1	File Number: D12/38822

Subject Heading: Roma Flood Study & Mitigation Project – Preliminary Dam and Choke Analysis

Classification: Open Access

Name of Applicant:

Location: Roma

Author & Officer’s Title: Barry Omundson, Director - Infrastructure Services

Executive Summary:

A number of concerns were expressed during the recent community consultation in terms of the proposed mitigation measures recommended by Consultants Engeny. More specifically, a number of our community believes that the proposed levee would not work and is not needed if a dam were to be constructed upstream of Roma.

Advice from Engeny was that a cost benefits analysis of a dam as a possible mitigation measure had been considered, however further investigation of this possible flood mitigation measure has been undertaken by renown dam specialist GHD. Working with Engeny in terms of modelling various flood events as they relate to the construction of a dam at several sights, GHD have provided preliminary advice, pending a final report yet to hand. The preliminary advice indicates the least cost of a dam to be $48M with the higher order costs of $187M. This is compared to the costs of the proposed levee in its current alignment as recommended by Engeny of $9M.

Furthermore, even with the least cost dam option only 45% of the flood flow into Roma, based upon the February 2012 flood event would be contained.

Officer’s Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Approve in principal the construction of a levee pending funding and further detailed alignment report to Council;

2. Continue community consultation on the project.

Body of Report:

One of the key issues arising from the recent community consultation was some of the communities belief that a levee will not work and that a dam would be a better flood mitigation option for Roma. Engeny had informed Council that quite preliminary work had been undertaken in dismissing the construction of a dam as a viable flood mitigation option for Roma. Nonetheless, responding to the community’s feedback, consultants GHD were engaged to undertake an analysis of several flood detention dams at sites upstream of Roma as possible flood mitigation options.

Summary of Study Findings

Three possible sites were identified at the time of writing this report and investigated. The first site is upstream of the convergence of Bungil and Mooga Mooga Creeks, while the second is at the convergence of these two creeks. A third site is located on Bungil Creek adjoining the Pony Club along Burtons Road.

The feasibility study included the preliminary assessment of site suitability, potential reductions in flood flows for the 1 in 100 year and 2012 storm events within the Bungil Creek catchment and estimations of construction costs based on conceptual designs. The results of the desk based assessment and site investigations show that it would be feasible to construct a flood detention dam at each site based on geological and topographical characteristics. Noting further detailed ground investigations would be required to confirm initial findings.

However, the costs to construct the dam(s) are significantly greater than those to construct the proposed levee.

GHD, working with Engeny, updated and ran the existing hydrological model for the 1 in 100yr, 2010 and 2012 events. The results provided by Engeny show that the dams at best would provide an estimated reduction in peak flows of approximately 50% at the township of Roma for a storm event similar to what occurred in 2012.

Mitigation Option Estimated Construction Costs

1. Levee option (Engeny, 2012) $9M;

2. Option 1 – Bungil Creek dam site $ 48M;

3. Option 2 – both the Bungil Creek dam and the Mooga Mooga Creek dam $87M;

4. Option 3 – Pony Club Dam site $ 187M.

The preliminary costings do not include amounts associated with environmental offsets, land acquisition, infrastructure diversions or approvals and permits.

From a preliminary assessment of cost benefit for the dam options, it is considered that the dam options alone do not provide the level of reduction in peak flood flows required to mitigate the above floor flooding experienced in the 2012 event.

Review of Previous Studies

The following documents have been reviewed as part of the dam option feasibility study:

- Report on Geological Appraisal Bungil Creek Dam sites, Wolf 1972;

- Memorandum Report on Investigations of Possible Storages Bungil and Bungeworgorai Creeks, Russel 1976;

- Report on Preliminary Geological Investigations of Bungil Ck and Mooga Mooga Creek Dam Sites, Buzacott (QLD Water Resources) 1985;

- Roma Flood Study and Mitigation Project, Flood Study Report (Stage 1), Engeny May 2012; and

- Roma Flood Study and Mitigation Project, Stage 2 Report: Assessment of Flood Mitigation Measures and Preliminary Design, Engeny, 2 May 2012

Option 1 – Bungil Creek Dam Site

The Bungil Creek dam site was accessed on the left bank from the Roma-Injune Road, approximately 500 m south of the intersection with the Roma-Taroom Road.

Option 2 – Mooga Mooga Creek Dam Site

The second dam site visited on the Mooga Mooga Creek was accessed from the Roma-Taroom Road where it crosses the Mooga Mooga Creek, approximately 1.5 km beyond its junction with the Roma- Injune Road. The optimum dam axis is approximately 300m downstream of the creek crossing.

Option 3 – The Pony Club Site

The Pony Club Dam Site was accessed from Burtons Road on the upper left flank and by White Road on the upper right flank and down to the creek itself. Burtons Road crosses the Bungil Creek approximately 1 km downstream of the dam axis on a low level river crossing where no outcrop of sandstone was visible.

The results assuming a 2m slot in the dam outlet (maximum ‘choking’ of flows) show the following reductions in flood peak flow at Roma

1 in 100-year ARI design storm event – 2m slot

- Option 1 Bungil Creek dam site = 45 % attenuation of flow at Roma resulting in 456 m3/s peak flow at Roma township;

- Option 2 Mooga Mooga Creek dam site = modelling not undertaken at the time of writing however GHD have advised that the combination of the Bungil dam site into a combined Bungil – Mooga Mooga dam would not provide any greater attenuation than the Pony Club option;

- Option 3 Pony Club dam site = 38 % attenuation of flow at Roma resulting in 510 m3/s peak flow at Roma township.

2012 historical storm event – 2m slot

- Option 1 Bungil Creek dam site = 48 % attenuation of flow at Roma resulting in 828 m3/s peak flow at Roma township;

- Option 3 Pony Club dam site = 23 % attenuation of flow at Roma resulting in 1233 m3/s peak flow at Roma township.

It should be noted that the estimated flow in the Bungil Creek during the record February 2012 event was in excess of 1600m3/s.

GHD advises that concept level costs have been developed using data from dam tender prices and ground up cost estimates for similar projects. Construction pricing is subject to considerable uncertainty at this time in Queensland as a result of mining and infrastructure investment. Some areas have significant pressure on available resources such as concrete and aggregate supply, whereas other parts of Queensland have spare capacity in the construction sector. As a result, there is considerable variability in rates for construction depending on market conditions in the area. To account for this, a considerable contingency sum of 30% has been allocated reflecting this uncertainty.

The final report, once received will be presented to Council.

Consultation (internal/external):

Consultants GHD;

Consultants Engeny;

Queensland Reconstruction Authority.

Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):

Significant risk in delaying flood mitigation.

Policy Implications:

Nil

Financial Resource Implications:

Council requires state and federal funding to undertake flood mitigation of Roma.

Link to Corporate Plan:

Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.5.1(a) To provide professional and technical engineering advice and support for Council in an effective and timely
manner.

Supporting Documentation:

Nil

Report authorised by:

Julie Reitano, Chief Executive Officer

Maranoa Regional Council

General Meeting - 14 November 2012

Officer Report

Meeting: General 14 November 2012	Date: 9 November 2012
Item Number: L.2	File Number: D12/38810

Subject Heading: Community Consultation Report

Classification: Open Access

Name of Applicant:

Location:

Author & Officer’s Title: Barry Omundson, Director - Infrastructure Services

Executive Summary:

Engeny, a consultancy specialising in water management produced Stage 1 and Stage 2 Roma Flood Study & Mitigation reports which after extensive flood event modelling recommended a range of flood mitigation measures for Roma.

A comprehensive community consultation program was then undertaken discussing mitigation measures and collating responses from individual members of the Roma community, businesses and stakeholders within the Maranoa Region. The consultation process commenced mid-July and officially ran until early September 2012, although in effect consultation continued long after this date.

Over 940 engagement opportunities were utilised by community members, businesses and stakeholders through a variety of engagement activities to share their views, experiences, concerns, and suggestions on the floods in Roma and the flood mitigation strategies being considered by Council.

A range of short and longer term outcomes are canvassed within the body of the Community Consultation Report as areas the community feels needs addressing by Council, a number of which are currently in progress.

Property owners surveyed regarding support for the proposed strategies saw 46% expressing their support for the proposed strategies as opposed to 31% of those surveyed who were not supportive. Twenty-three percent (23%) of those consistently surveyed reported that they were either neutral or unsure about whether they support the proposed strategies or not.

Officer’s Recommendation:

That the report be received by Council.

Body of Report:

The attached Roma Flood Study & Mitigation Project – Community Consultation Report October 2012 presents the collated responses from individual members of the Roma community, businesses and stakeholders within the Maranoa Region, identified during an extensive community consultation process. From mid-July until early September 2012 over 940 engagement opportunities were utilised by community members, businesses and stakeholders through a variety of engagement activities to share their views, experiences, concerns, and suggestions on the floods in Roma and the flood mitigation strategies being considered by Council.

The engagement process follows the release of the Roma Flood Study and Mitigation Report carried out by Engeny, a specialist water management consultancy firm delivering flood modelling, mitigation options and design services. The aim of the flood study was to research, model and analyse the 2010 and 2011 floods and recommend an effective flood mitigation strategy for Roma. The original study was extended following the unprecedented 2012 flood event, to incorporate the information about impacts from the event.

The objective was to:

- Minimize flood risk to the Roma community through property protection from inundation, including over floor flooding.

The findings from the modelling and study were assessed and ten (10) mitigation options proposed by Engeny for consideration by Council. Criteria were developed to enable comparison of the projected impacts of the various strategies and to enable an objective assessment the overall effectiveness, benefits and negatives associated with each of the ten (10) mitigation options. From consideration of these, Engeny’s assessment was that the most effective flood mitigation strategy providing maximum protection for Roma is a combination of these as outlined below:

- The construction of a levee bank

- House raising / land swap program for selected individual houses, and

- Construction of a water diversion channel.

Council contracted Engagement Plus, an independent, experienced community engagement consultancy to design and deliver a program of consultation for the Maranoa community.

- The objectives of the community consultation were to:

- Provide information about the Roma Flood Study and Mitigation Project to the community

- Help the community to understand how the study had been undertaken

- Encourage residents, business owners and stakeholders to participate in the consultation and to share their views about the proposed levee options and other mitigation measures

- Encourage residents, business owners and stakeholders to share their ideas and offer suggestions for consideration in the next stage, including design of the proposed levee bank

To achieve these objectives, the consultation methodology took into consideration the dynamics of the Roma community and the transient nature of some residents due to the mining opportunities within the Maranoa region. Delivery of the consultation process included a number of stages and activities designed to ensure maximum accessibility for the community, taking into consideration timing, location, availability and people’s comfort with different ways of providing their feedback.

The consultation process presented opportunities to residents, businesses and stakeholders to participate in a number of ways ensuring fair and equal access, choosing the option that best suited them. This rigorous process was open and transparent with the community kept up to date with what was being said during the consultation process in a number of ways including Project Information Sheets, Media Releases & Maranoa Regional Council’s website updates. Accommodation of individual engagement needs was met where possible.

A number of critical outcomes about support for the proposed mitigation strategies of construction of a levee bank and selected house raisings were provided by the community. A level of scepticism was expressed by the community about the accuracy of the flood study and the modelling, which the community wanted addressed through improved and further information provision regarding the approach to the flood study and modelling exercises.

In terms of community reaction to the proposed mitigation measures the two points below provide a brief overview, noting further detailed is contained within the actual Community Consultation Report.

- Property owners surveyed regarding support for the proposed strategies saw 46% expressing their support for the proposed strategies as opposed to 31% of those surveyed who were not supportive. Twenty-three percent (23%) of those consistently surveyed reported that they were either neutral or unsure about whether they support the proposed strategies or not.

- A review of comments from community members who reported they were opposed to the strategies under consideration, indicates that a significant number of them are persuaded that a levee bank will not work. Another group does not believe the information on which the modelling was done is accurate. A further group believes that the community has already spoken strongly in favour of a dam as the primary mitigation strategy and believes that this should be acted on by Council.

Three recommendations arising from the report relate to the provision of further information to the community and property owners once Council has made a determination about which mitigation options it will implement. The Community Consultation Report recommends:

- That more detailed information be developed and distributed once detailed designs are completed for the selected mitigation options, explaining the basic mitigation principles and how these will functions to protect the community from rising water levels.

- Given the frequency with which mention was made about support for dam being constructed upstream of Roma, it is recommended that more detailed information be developed and further consultation opportunities be provided to explain Council’s determination in relation to this option.

- It is recommended that further consultation opportunities be offered to impacted parties particularly where there may be a need for floor levels to be surveyed or additional information considered about specific properties projected to be impacted.

Key ideas and suggestions related to short-term demonstrable outcomes include:

- Clear communication from Council about timing and further decision making including who is involved and what their role is;

- Determination of a decision on creek clearing which was supported by many participants in the consultation process;

- Stormwater management was a consistently recurring concern and the community would benefit from having access to the key recommendations from the drainage study recently undertaken by Council.

Key ideas and suggestions related to longer-term demonstrable outcomes include:

- Future policy issues Council needs to address to ensure adoption of fair and equitable policy that applies to current and future Roma residents and developments.

- Policy and procedures regarding possible Council support where a dwelling is recommended to be raised to avoid future inundation.

- Policy and procedures regarding possible Council intervention or support where a land swap might be an option to avoid future inundation.

- Policy and procedures regarding possible Council buying back of property where future inundation is projected in the modelling.

- In relation to disaster management preparedness, response and implementation, a range of feedback was received from both individual property owners and residents, and from organisational stakeholders. Further consultation is recommended to be facilitated between disaster response and preparedness agencies and Council to ensure this issue is addressed.

- In relation to the impact of the mitigation strategies to be adopted on the preparedness plans and response protocols of a range of agencies, appropriate management of a communications plan around the implementation of the mitigation strategies will be critical to positive outcomes for future events.

- Once the mitigation strategies are determined appropriate hazard reporting protocols, a review of early warning systems and consideration of the placement of additional flood markers upstream to ensure community confidence and assist in building community resilience for future events should be developed and fed into disaster management and preparedness planning.

The Need to Act Now

The primary outcome arising from the Community Consultation Report was the need to act. It was made clear in all forums that while a proven resilient community Roma after 3 consecutive flood events residents want action sooner rather than later.

Another key measure identified by the community was in terms of stormwater drainage issues. To that end, it is recommended that drainage infrastructure in Roma be prioritised and a clean and maintenance program commenced immediately. This recommendation arising from the Community Consultation Report does not appear in this report as it is subject to a separate report to Council.

Additionally another notably discussed topic within the community was the benefits and application of a dam as a flood mitigation option for Roma. The cost benefits of having a dam type infrastructure as a flood mitigation option as opposed or in tandem with the current recommended options is the subject of a separate report to Council

Consultation (internal/external):

Roma community

Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):

Mitigation measures will require external funding.

If the chosen mitigation measure negatively affects residents, compensation is likely.

Policy Implications:

To be finalised upon the flood mitigation options approved.

Financial Resource Implications:

Funding is sought from other levels of government.

Link to Corporate Plan:

Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.4.3(a) To develop community capacity and encourage community engagement so as to address identified needs and opportunities to enhance the quality of life and wellbeing for residents of our region

Supporting Documentation:

1 View

Roma Flood Mitigation Community Consultation Report Appendices

D12/38926

Report authorised by:

Julie Reitano, Chief Executive Officer

Maranoa Regional Council

General Meeting - 14 November 2012

Officer Report

Meeting: General 14 November 2012	Date: 9 November 2012
Item Number: L.3	File Number: D12/38839

Subject Heading: Draft Community Engagement Framework

Classification: Open Access

Name of Applicant: Not Applicable

Location: Not Applicable

Author & Officer’s Title: Julie Reitano, Chief Executive Officer

Executive Summary:

The Draft Community Engagement Policy Framework is a work in progress, that aims to increase opportunities for Councillors to:

· Have dialogue with residents who Councillors may not ordinarily come in contact with;

· Be available and visible in various towns and communities;

· Seek broader input and information for the determination of Council’s priorities;

· Gain greater knowledge of Council and Community assets;

· Gain a broader understanding of local issues;

· Achieve a greater balance of perspectives – ensuring that decision making is not weighted towards a vocal minority at the detriment of a silent majority;

· Communicate the background to Council’s decisions.

The document presented is the culmination of a number of workshops with the Mayor and Councillors, facilitated by the Chief Executive Officer. Although still in its early stages, presenting the document now will enable Councillors to get started on its implementation. The first day planned (for the new ‘Out and About’ initiative) is the 20 November 2012.

Officer’s Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Adopt the Community Engagement Policy Framework, recognising that it is a work in progress. Further that Council continue to workshop future engagement opportunities.

2. Launch the ‘Out & About’ initiative commencing on 20 November – both at the Saleyards and Woolworths, with advertising to commence as soon as possible.

3. Relaunch the MRC Audit Committee – commencing with confirmation of previous community representatives’ continued interest in participation.

Body of Report:

Council has expressed its intention to develop a professional and relevant community engagement framework for the region.

The document which is tabled incorporates the following:

Purpose of Community Engagement Framework

Guiding Principles for Community Engagement Framework

Strategy 1 – Engaging residents where they live (geographic/town interests and issues that affect them)

· New “Out & About” Initiative;

· A commitment to Councillor/s’ attendance at Town Meetings where endorsed by the community group;

· Integrated Communication Initiatives – to better support Councillors in their community engagement initiatives.

Strategy 2 - Engaging residents during each of the stages in life (age interests and issues that affect them) [For future workshops]

Strategy 3 – Engaging residents based on their personal interests (how they live – e.g. work and play)

This incorporates the results of the review of Portfolios and discussions about how Council can better engage with the community through both external and internal forums.

The draft framework provides the foundation for a greater number of advisory groups comprising community representatives. Areas that reflect a boost in priority include roads, master planning & development of key regional facilities like Bassett Park and the Airport. Key headings within this section include details of:

· Portfolios

· Representation on Community Committees

· Representation on Council Committees

· Involvement in (a presence at) Events & Leisure Activities

Consultation (internal/external):

Workshops held with the Mayor & Councillors – facilitated by the Chief Executive Officer.

Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):

Nil

Policy Implications:

Council has a current policy statement for Community Engagement – Endorsed by Council on 27 May 2009.

It does not however provide a formal, practical framework for how Council seeks to engage with its towns and communities.

Financial Resource Implications:

Minimal financial resource implications are expected in the early stages of the roll-out.

It is anticipated that advertising, information material and equipment can be accommodated within Council’s current operating budgets.

Link to Corporate Plan:

Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.1.1(a) To undertake all governance functions and activities in a professional manner promoting corporate ethics and integrity and informed decision making practices so as foster an operating environment advocating fairness, equity and consistency.

Supporting Documentation:

1 View

Draft Community Engagement Framework

D12/39091

Report authorised by:

Julie Reitano, Chief Executive Officer

Attachment 1

Draft Community Engagement Framework

cid:image001.png@01CD8879.9C653070

Community Engagement Framework

Purpose of Community Engagement Framework

The Mayor and Councillors are elected by the community for the community – i.e. to represent the current and future interests of its residents. Collectively, in line with their legislative responsibilities, the elected members:

· Determine the priorities for Maranoa Regional Council through adoption of Council’s Corporate Plan, Operational (Team) Plans and Budget – and work to ensure long term financial sustainability through the Long Term Financial Plan.

· Make decisions through the formal Council meetings for the benefit of the whole Maranoa Region - i.e. vote for what they believe is in the overall public interest of the Region rather than what might be best for an individual/s.

· Develop and adopt policies to help ensure consistency of decision making for the same type of issue and provide officers with an approved method of dealing with those issues in the future.

Councillors work to provide high quality leadership to Council and the community, ensure compliance with the Local Government Act and other laws and they are accountable to the community for the Council’s performance.

The Maranoa Regional Council recognises that decision making is enhanced through interaction and communication with the community that elected members represent.

The following framework (Refer to Attachment A - Goals), which is a work in progress, aims to increase opportunities for Councillors to:

· Have dialogue with residents who Councillors may not ordinarily come in contact with;

· Be available and visible in various towns and communities;

· Seek broader input and information for the determination of Council’s priorities;

· Gain greater knowledge of Council and Community assets;

· Gain a broader understanding of local issues;

· Achieve a greater balance of perspectives – ensuring that decision making is not weighted towards a vocal minority at the detriment of a silent majority.

· Communicate the background to Council’s decisions (with a view to residents validating those decisions).

In developing the framework, the Maranoa Regional Council recognises that each Councillor has the same legal responsibilities, with the exception of the Mayor who has additional responsibilities. For this reason, every effort will be made to provide feedback opportunities (sharing of information amongst fellow Councillors) so that all Councillors have access to the same information, however gathered, to fully inform collective decision making.

Council does, however, recognise that each Councillor has particular personal strengths and the Maranoa Regional Council team seeks to capitalise on those strengths.

This includes local knowledge and skills. Where possible, these strengths will be used to enhance the community engagement framework, and ultimately Council’s decision making.

Guiding Principles for Community Engagement Framework:

Council recognises that successful community engagement requires a number of initiatives, both formal and informal. The ideal framework, once fully developed will have strategies for engaging residents across various segments of the community by:

(i) Where they live (geographic/town interests and issues that affect them)

(ii) Their stage in life (age interests and issues that affect them)

(iii) Personal interests (how they live – e.g. work and play)

(iv) Business interests (how they invest and issues that affect them)

(v) Practical issues

· Mobility/disability

· Cultural considerations – Indigenous, English speaking/Non-English speaking

· Resident availability considerations - Time of day – e.g. school hours, work hours, shift work.

(vi) How they are potentially affected by a decision

· Whole of region

· Group

· Individual

Strategy 1 – Engaging residents where they live (geographic/town interests and issues that affect them)

In addition to the major centres, smaller communities include Hodgson, Amby, Begonia, Bymount, Jackson, Dunkeld, Teelba, Eumamurrin, Noonga, Muckadilla, Wycombe and Mungallala.

Strategy 1 will include a mix of formal and informal initiatives, across these areas.

(a) Out & About

Council plans to ‘hit the road’ every two months to visit rural communities and towns.

The 9 elected members will break up into 3 groups of 3, with a view to covering each place once a year. To maximise engagement with both rural and town residents, one of the 3 groups will attend sale day at the Roma Saleyards, to be available to rural residents who are visiting for the day.

In summary, the format for the ‘Out & About’ days will be:

1 Group – Roma (Saleyards and Woolworths)

1 Group – North

1 Group – South

(Attachment B)

(b) Town Meetings

Council recognises that there are numerous active groups and associations within the region, which meet to discuss local, town issues. Rather than create another layer of meetings, and with each of the groups’ endorsement, Council will give a commitment to the attendance of one or more Councillors at each meeting – as part of the elected members’ formal Community Engagement framework.

· Booringa Action Group (BAG)

· Yuleba Development Group

· Advance Injune

· Wallumbilla Town Improvement Group

· Commerce Roma

· Surat & District Development Association.

[Further discussion required]

Council’s recognises that these forums provide a valuable opportunity for discussion about community issues and exchange of information about Council projects and initiatives. To provide the most timely and relevant input, it will be requested that advice of the meeting and agenda (or items for discussion) be forwarded to Council a minimum of 5 days in advance of the meeting. This:

(i) Recognises the larger number of commitments that individuals Councillors now have in the regional setting and will enable scheduling of Councillors’ times, and determining who is most appropriate to attend (e.g. Portfolio Chairs)

(Alternatively, advice of the set day of the month the meetings occur would be helpful so that it can be programmed into the Council calendar).

(ii) Enables Councillors to prepare for the meetings – providing more thorough and timely provision of information. In a number of cases, issues cross multiple departments, and involve internal and external stakeholders. If an agenda was provided our officers could have the information put together for the Councillor/s attending the meeting. The benefit for all concerned would be that it would largely eradicate the ‘looking into’ issue that has been commented on, as the information, where possible, would be gathered before the meeting, and answered by the Councillor/s at the meeting.

It is Council’s intention that these meetings will be attended by Councillors as part of their Community Engagement framework, with officers returning their focus to getting the work done.

(c) Integrated Communication Initiatives

In addition to Councillors visiting the towns and communities, it is also planned to produce ‘Town & Surrounds’ newsletters to cover decisions, information and issues that are of most interest to individual areas, together with Regional Highlights.

A template is currently being developed, and a sample will be available at the meeting.

Information will be included from a number of forums - including:

· Council meetings

· Management team meetings (Work Program Updates)

· Media releases

Strategy 2 – Engaging residents during each of the stages in life (age interests and issues that affect them) For discussion at future workshop

The Attracting People to the Maranoa Strategy (September 2012) raised the importance of targeting specific markets to attract people to, and retain them within, the Maranoa community. Whilst this is important from an investment perspective, it is equally important, from a liveability perspective, to engage with all segments of our community. This helps to ensure that Council initiatives and projects remain relevant to the needs of our residents, and promotes a richly diverse community.

Drawing on the work done in the above strategy, the categories have been expanded for the purpose of this framework. (Note: The aged groups are intended to be indicative only)

· boys,children,cute,Fotolia,friends,girls,grinning,grins,handsome,kids,outdoors,outside,people,persons,Photographs,poses,pretty,smiles,smiling Little Ones

Children <15 years

· adolescence,bonding,casual clothing,cheerful,females,friendships,happiness,iStockphoto,laughing,males,outdoors,people,Photographs,smiling,students,teenagers,teens,urban scene,young adult,youth culture Future Talent

Youth 15-24 years

· cheerful,computers,couples,fields,fun,happiness,iStockphoto,laptop computers,meadows,men,nature,outdoors,Photographs,relaxation,summer,togetherness,twenties,women,working,young adult Young & Free

Experience Seekers 25-34 years

· beds,bedtimes,books,boys,children,cuddle,cuddling,families,fathers,iCLIPART,leisure,men,mothers,Photographs,readings,sons,toddlers,women Settlers

Families 35-49 years

· elderly married couples,fotolia,happy,kitchens,love,retired,senior citizens,sixties Grown-Ups Lifestyle & Leisure Seekers 50-65 years

· affectionate,little girl,fotolia,grandparent,love Local Treasures Seniors > 65 years

Strategy 3 – Engaging residents based on their personal interests (how they live – e.g. work and play)

(a) Portfolios

Residents may from time to time wish to discuss particular issues that they are interested in with Councillors. Whilst all elected members are available to all residents, Council has also developed a series of Portfolios as a further communication option for residents:

· Administration (Rates, IT, Information Management/

Records) Cr Wendy Newman

· Airports Cr Joy Denton

· Community Engagement & Customer Service Mayor Robert Loughnan

· Development (Town Planning, Building Certification,

Maintenance Council Buildings & Structures) Cr Wendy Newman

· Economic Development Cr Cameron O’Neil

· Engineering Services (Design , Asset Services

Plant & Workshops) Cr David Schefe

· Environment Cr Jan Chambers

(Environmental Health, Waste, Compliance,

Pest Management)

· Executive Management Mayor Robert Loughnan

· Executive Services, Governance & Organisational

Development Cr Scott Wason

· Finance Cr Jan Chambers

· Flood Mitigation & Recovery Mayor Robert Loughnan

· Government (State & Federal) Mayor Robert Loughnan

· Human Resources including Training & Employment Cr Peter Flynn

· Master Planning Cr Cameron O’Neil

· Major Projects (including Housing) Cr Scott Wason

· Property & Legal (including Native Title, Easements,

Leases, Local Laws Development) Cr Wendy Newman

· Quarry (Roma) Cr Scott Wason

· Resource Sector Mayor Robert Loughnan

· Rural Roads Cr Ree Price

· Saleyards Cr Scott Wason

· Social Services Cr Joy Denton

· Sport & Recreation, Events & Community Development Cr Peter Flynn

· Tourism Cr Ree Price

· Town Roads, Streets, Footpaths, Parks & Gardens Cr Cameron O’Neil

· Utilities (Water, Sewerage, Gas) Cr David Schefe

The role of Portfolio Chairs centres around Communication – including listening to residents issues, discussion about Council’s position and elevating policy issues to full Council where required.

Customer Requests for action are able to be lodged at any time to Council officers via letter, telephone, e-mail or by visiting one of the Council administration centres.

(b) Representation on Community Committees

Closely aligned to Portfolios, individual Councillors participate in external/community committees, where invited, and as nominated by Council.

Current representation is:

CSG Steering Group Mayor Robert Loughnan

(CEO attendance also)

Great Inland Way Board Cr Ree Price

LGAQ Executive Representative Mayor Robert Loughnan

Local Disaster Management Group Mayor Robert Loughnan (Chair) &

Cr Scott Wason as Proxy

Deputy Chairs – Cr Scott Wason &

Cr Cameron O’Neil

Maranoa Health Enhancement Program

Reference Group Cr Joy Denton

Maranoa Skills Advisory Committee Cr Peter Flynn

Regional Arts Development Committee Cr Wendy Newman & Cr Jan Chambers

Regional Pest Management Group Cr Jan Chambers

Regional Planning Mayor Robert Loughnan

Roma on Bungil Art Gallery Committee Cr Peter Flynn

Roma Rural Student Hostel Inc. Cr Scott Wason and Cr Peter Flynn

Rural Financial Counselling Service Cr Joy Denton

Queensland Murray Darling Committee Cr Jan Chambers

Saleyards Advisory Board Cr Scott Wason & Cr Peter Flynn

Surat Basin Workforce Development Committee Cr Peter Flynn

Tourism Advisory Group (TAG) Cr Ree Price

Toowoomba Surat Basin Advisory Group Cr Cameron O’Neil

Wild Dog Advisory Committee Cr Jan Chambers

It is envisaged that minutes from these meetings will be shared across all Councillors (these could be loaded onto the new Intranet).

(c) Representation on Council Committees

Council recognises that there are a number of areas of Council’s operations for which a broader cross section of community representation is/would be valuable.

The following areas have been identified as a priority:

· Audit Committee (MRC) Mayor Robert Loughnan & Cr Jan

Chambers

· Bassett Park Master Planning Advisory Group Cr Cameron O’Neil (Chair), Cr

Peter Flynn

· Roads Advisory Group North** Cr Ree Price (Chair) and Cr Joy Denton

· Roads Advisory Group South** Cr Ree Price (Chair), Cr Jan

Chambers and Cr Wendy

Newman

· Wallumbilla Showgrounds Cr Ree Price and Cr Cameron

O’Neil

· Airport Development Advisory Group* Cr Joy Denton (Chair) and Cr

David Schefe

* Note: Whilst operational issues for the airport will be handled through the normal management structure of Council, it is planned that airport development considerations will have broader community input through the advisory group. Suggested composition at this stage:

- General Aviation representative (e.g. Barry McCabe, Bill Bendle)

- User Group (Fuel Handlers, Qantaslink)

- Hire Car Representative

- RFDS

- Careflight

- Airport Manager

- Seat each for Mitchell, Injune, Surat.

** The new Organisational Structure includes two Managers – recognising the need for a part return to a more local focus on priorities. It is envisaged that these committees will be formed once the managers are recruited into their new roles.

(d) Involvement in (a Presence at) Events & Leisure Activities

Through the workshops it was recognised that sometimes the best engagement with the community occurs through informal, less structured activities. To this end, the framework provides for Councillors to identify annual and other events where Councillors might be able to attend and be available for conversation with residents.

-----

Attachment A - Goals

Attachment B – Format