BUSINESS PAPER
General Meeting
Wednesday 25 July 2012
Roma Administration Centre
NOTICE OF MEETING
Date: 23 July 2012
Mayor: Councillor R S Loughnan
Deputy Mayor: Councillor W S Wason
Councillors: Councillor J L Chambers
Councillor R J Denton
Councillor P J Flynn
Councillor W M Newman
Councillor C J O’Neil
Councillor M L Price
Councillor D J Schefe
Acting Chief Executive Officer: Michael Parker
Senior Management: Mr Tony Klein (Director Community Services)
Mr Matthew McGoldrick (Director Corporate Services)
Mr Barry Omundson (Director Infrastructure)
Mr Rob Hayward (Director Planning & Environment)
Officers: Ms Jane Frith (Corporate Communications Officer)
Please find attached agenda for the General Meeting to be held at the Roma Administration Centre on July 25, 2012 at 9.00am.
Michael Parker
Acting Chief Executive Officer
Maranoa Regional Council
General Meeting - 25 July 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Item Subject
No
2 Present/Apologies
3 Confirmation of Minutes
General 11 July 2012
4 Business arising from Minutes
5 On the Table
5.1 Revocation of Park Reserve and Local Government Reserve opposite the Roma Hospital
Prepared by: Matthew McGoldrick, Director of Corporate Services
Attachment 1: 20120418 Plan - Reduced revocation area - ULDA - Bow-Fyfe Park
Attachment 2: BOW - FYFE - Park revocation plan (revB)
Attachment 3: BOW - Lat27 - Stage 8(b) park plan
6 Presentations/Petitions and Deputations
6.1 Roma School Chaplaincy Program - Cheque presentation 10.00am
Father Jamie Collins, representing Combined Christian Churches and Mayor of Maranoa Regional Council, Cr. Robert Loughnan will present a cheque to the Roma School Chaplaincy Program for funds raised at the 2012 Easter in the Country Mayoral Breakfast. |
6.2 Rotary Roma Town Clock 11.00am
Bryan Payne, Paul Anderson, Greg Gibson and Andrew Harvey representing the Roma Rotary Club will provide Council a presentation outlining proposed options for location of a town clock to be located in the town of Roma. |
7 Consideration of notices of business
8 Consideration of notices of motion
8.1 Policy Required for a Rebate or Refund of Water Consumed by residents cleaning houses and sheds after the February 2012 flood events
Prepared by: Joy Denton, Councillor
8.2 Council Governing Model
Prepared by: Robert Loughnan, Mayor
9 Reception of notices of motion for next meeting
Reports
10 Executive Services
11 Community Services
12 Corporate Services
12.1 Roma Town Clock
Prepared by: Tanya Mansfield, Manager Risk and Facilities
Attachment : Correspondence from Roma Rotary Club
12.2 Request for donation of Maranoa River Walkbridge to the Booringa Heritage Museum
Prepared by: Tanya Mansfield, Manager Risk and Facilities
Attachment :.................. Letter from Booringa Heritage Group
12.3 Queensland Rail - Wallumbilla Livestock Yards
Prepared by: Tanya Mansfield, Manager Risk and Facilities
Attachment : Map Wallumbilla Railway Yards
12.4 Building Signage Policy
Prepared by: Matthew McGoldrick, Director of Corporate Services
Attachment 1: MARANOA-Style-Guide for Building Signage
Attachment 2: MRC - Signage Proof Bungil St Office exterior view
12.5 Financial Sustainability Assessment - Maranoa regional Council
Prepared by: Matthew McGoldrick, Director of Corporate Services
Attachment : Department of Local Government - Annual Financial Management (Sustainability) Return 2011-2012
12.6 Acceptance of Stage 1 Park and Roads from the ULDA for Clearview Rise
Prepared by: Matthew McGoldrick, Director of Corporate Services
Attachment 1: Plan of subdivision for Stage 1 of the ULDA Clearview subdivision
Attachment 2: Roma UDA Stage1 park Clearview
13 Infrastructure
13.1 Water and Sewerage Issue at lot 18 Ann St, Mitchell
Prepared by: Stephen Mow, Manager Utilities & Waste
Attachment 1: Ross Mitchell letter dated 7 November 2011
Attachment 2: Council letter dated 20 April 2012
Attachment 3: Ross Mitchell letter dated 8 May 2012
Attachment 4: Council letter dated 23 May 2012
Attachment 5: Council letter dated 26 June 2012
Attachment 6: Ross Mitchell email dated 4 July 2012
Attachment 7: Map showing lot18 Ann St Mitchell
Attachment 8: Ross Mitchell email dated 30 May 2012
13.2 Drinking Water Quality Management Plan Adoption
Prepared by: Troy Pettiford, Services, Demand and Resources Coordinator
13.3 Naming of Unnamed Road
Prepared by: Jodie Young, Administration Officer
Attachment : Map of Forestry Road proposed to be changed to Litani Road
14 Commercial Business
15 Planning & Environment
15.1 Draft Pest Management Plan
Prepared by: Sandra Crosby, Manager Environmental Health
15.2 Request for Negotiated Decision Notice - Reconfiguring a Lot 1 into 77 Lots (File Ref: 2012/17996)
Prepared by: Danielle Pearn, Planning & Development Officer
Attachment 1: Request for Negotiated Decision Notice
Attachment 2: Approved Plan of Development
Attachment 3: Trunk Infrastructure Report
15.3 Memorandum of Understanding between Council and Horizon Housing Company
Prepared by: Edward Sims, Manager Organisational Performance
Attachment 1: Memorandum of Understanding _ MRC and Horizon Housing Company (Draft)
Attachment 2: Response to Housing Issues in the Maranoa
Status Reports
16 Executive Services
17 Community Service
18 Corporate Services
19 Infrastructure
20 Commercial Business
21 Planning & Environment
Next General Meeting
Confidential Items
In accordance with the provisions of section 72 of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010, a local government may resolve to close a meeting to the public and move ‘into Committee’ to discuss confidential items that it’s Councillors or members consider it necessary to close the meeting.
22 Confidential Items
Councillor Business
23 Councillor Business
Closure
Minutes of the General Meeting of maranoa Regional Council held at Roma Administration Centre on 11 July 2012 commencing at 9.00am
ATTENDANCE
Mayor Cr. R S Loughnan chaired the meeting with, Deputy Mayor Cr. W S Wason, Cr. J L Chambers, Cr. R J Denton, Cr. P J Flynn, Cr. W M Newman, Cr. C J O’Neil, Cr. D J Schefe, Acting Chief Executive Officer – Michael Parker, Director Corporate Services – Matthew McGoldrick, Director Infrastructure – Barry Omundson, Corporate Communications Officer – Jane Frith, and Kelly Rogers Minutes Officer in attendance.
GUESTS
There were no guests in attendance at the meeting.
WELCOME
The Mayor welcomed all present and declared the meeting open at 9.08am.
APOLOGIES
Resolution No. GM.180.12 Moved Cr O'Neil Seconded Cr Schefe
That apologies be received and leave of absence granted for Cr. Price for this meeting.
CARRIED 8/0 |
|
Confirmation of Minutes
Resolution No. GM.181.12 Moved Cr Chambers Seconded Cr Flynn
That the minutes of the General Meeting (12-27.06.12) held on 27 June 2012 be confirmed with a correction of the meeting location to state “Roma”;
And,
That the minutes of the Special Meeting (1-03.07.12) be confirmed.
CARRIED 8/0 |
Business Arising FROM MiNUTES
There was no business arising from the minutes.
On the Table
There were no items for discussion on the table.
Presentations/Petitions and Deputations
There were no presentations/petitions or deputations at the meeting.
Consideration of notices of business
There were no notices of business for consideration.
Consideration of notices of motion
There were no notices of motion for consideration.
Reception of notices of motion for next meeting
No notices of motion were received for the next meeting.
Business
Corporate Services
Item Number: 12.1 |
File Number: D12/17943 |
Subject Heading: Renewal of Special Lease 36/52671 Location: Over Lot 73 on Crown Plan WT112, Parish of Broad, Reserve for Water Purposes, R31 Westgrove. |
|
Author and Officer’s Title: Tanya Mansfield, Manager Risk and Facilities |
|
Executive Summary: The Department of Environment and Resource Management seeks Council’s views on an Application for Renewal of Special Lease 36/52671 over Lot 73 on Crown Plan WT112, Parish of Broad. This special lease is over part of a reserve for water purposes. |
|
|
|
Resolution No. GM.182.12 Moved Cr Denton Seconded Cr Newman That Council advise the Department of Environment and Resource Management that the reserve is still required for its gazetted purpose and Council has no objection to the application for renewal of special lease 36/52671 over Lot 73 on Crown Plan WT112.
CARRIED 8/0 |
|
|
|
Delegated Officer |
Manager Risk and Facilities |
Subject Heading: suspension of standing orders
Council adjourned the meeting for a brief recess at 9.18am
Subject Heading: resumption of standing orders
Council resumed the meeting at 9.25am
Item Number: 12.2 |
File Number: D12/19367 |
Subject Heading: Revocation of Park Reserve and Local Government Reserve opposite the Roma Hospital Location: McDowall Street Roma |
|
Author and Officer’s Title: Matthew McGoldrick, Director of Corporate Services |
|
Executive Summary: In November 2011 the ULDA had requested Council consider a plan which involved surrendering the Trusteeship of the two Reserves across from the Hospital in McDowall Street in order that parts of the Reserves could be used by the ULDA in configuring their nearby subdivision. Council had agreed to surrender the Trusteeship of the Reserves and to accept the Trusteeship of the Reserves at the completion of the land dealings. This plan has been altered by the ULDA and now they are requesting Council to surrender a portion of the two Reserves and that a complete surrender will now not be required.
|
|
Discussion: The CEO recommended Council deliberate on the item due to potential influences to Council’s Nine Point Housing Strategy project. Council were in agreement with this approach.
Cr. Flynn requested site layout arrangements for the ULDA development opposite the Roma Hospital be further investigated.
|
|
Resolution No. GM.183.12 Moved Cr Chambers Seconded Cr O'Neil That the matter lay on the table pending further investigation for presentation to Council at a future meeting.
CARRIED 8/0 |
|
|
|
Delegated Officer |
Director of Corporate Services |
Status Reports
Corporate Services
Item Number: 18.1 |
File Number: D12/18030 |
Subject Heading: Financial Sustainability Report for the period ending 30 April 2012 |
|
Author and Officer’s Title: Karen Searle, Financial Services & Rates Coordinator |
|
Month & Year of Report: April 2012 Name of Department: Corporate Services
|
|
Executive Summary: The Financial Sustainability Report for the period ending 30 April 2012 is presented for Council’s consideration. Each month, year to date financial statements are prepared in order to monitor actual performance against the latest adopted budget.
|
|
Discussion: Council enquired on budget figures in connection with treatment of subsidised flood works and the influence on indicated debt and revenue figures. The Director Corporate Services in turn provided responded.
|
|
Resolution No. GM.184.12 Moved Cr Wason Seconded Cr Newman That the Progressive Financial Statements of Account for the period ending 30 April 2012 as included in the Financial Sustainability Report be received subject to audit.
CARRIED 8/0 |
|
|
|
Delegated Officer |
Financial Services & Rates Coordinator |
In accord with the provisions of section 72 of the Local Government (Operations) Regulation 2010, Council resolved to close the meeting to discuss items it has deemed to be of a confidential nature and specifically pertaining to the following sections:-
(e) contracts proposed to be made by it;
Resolution No. GM.185.12 Moved Cr Schefe Seconded Cr Chambers
That Council close the meeting to the public at 9.43am.
CARRIED 6/2 |
|
Resolution No. GM.186.12 Moved Cr Wason Seconded Cr O’Neil
That Council open the meeting to the public at 9.44am.
CARRIED 8/0 |
|
Item Number: 22.1 |
File Number: D12/17654 |
Subject Heading: Tender 12/27 - Disposal of Lots 2 and 3 on RP94494 Location: Alice Street Mitchell |
|
Author and Officer’s Title: Tanya Mansfield, Manager Risk and Facilities |
|
Executive Summary: Council is asked to consider the tender received to purchase Lot 2 and Lot 3 on RP94494. This vacant land is located in Alice Street Mitchell.
|
|
Resolution No. GM.187.12 Moved Cr Chambers Seconded Cr O'Neil That Council accepts the tender from Dayne Pearce for the tendered price of $20,000 for Lot 2 on RP94494 and $22,000 for Lot 3 on RP94494.
CARRIED 8/0 |
|
|
|
Delegated Officer |
Manager Risk and Facilities |
CLOSURE
There being no further business, the Mayor thanked Council for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 10.00am.
These Minutes are to be confirmed at the next General Meeting of Council to be held on 25 July 2012, at Roma Administration Centre.
...............………................. ..................................
Mayor. Date.
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 29 June 2012 |
Item Number: 5.1 |
File Number: D12/19367 |
Subject Heading: Revocation of Park Reserve and Local Government Reserve opposite the Roma Hospital
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant:
Location: McDowall Street Roma
Author & Officer’s Title: Matthew McGoldrick, Director of Corporate Services
Executive Summary: In November 2011 the ULDA had requested Council consider a plan which involved surrendering the Trusteeship of the two Reserves across from the Hospital in McDowall Street in order that parts of the Reserves could be used by the ULDA in configuring their nearby subdivision. Council had agreed to surrender the Trusteeship of the Reserves and to accept the Trusteeship of the Reserves at the completion of the land dealings. This plan has been altered by the ULDA and now they are requesting Council to surrender a portion of the two Reserves and that a complete surrender will now not be required.
|
Officer’s Recommendation: That Council agree to surrender the Trusteeship over those areas of Lot 19 WV1912 and Lot 20 SP178377 required by the ULDA for their Clearview Rise development Stages 4 and 8 as indicated in drawing No.37748 as submitted to Council.
|
Body of Report:
In November 2011 the ULDA had requested Council consider a plan which involved surrendering the Trusteeship of the two Reserves across from the Hospital in McDowall Street in order that parts of the Reserves could be used by the ULDA in configuring their nearby subdivision. Council had agreed to surrender the Trusteeship of the Reserves and to accept the Trusteeship of the Reserves at the completion of the land dealings.
The ULDA have altered their subdivisional plan and the attached Plan is the latest Plan for Stages 4 and 8.
The advice from the ULDA regarding areas to be included and excluded from the Reserves is as follows:
“Our surveyor have finalised the actual areas to be extracted from the reserve lots and totals are as follows (see attached new file ‘BOW-FYFE-Park revocation plan revB). The areas being requested have reduced due to redesign of the urban configuration to support minimal impact to the existing reserve.
Lot 19
· Removal of 539m2 for road
· Removal of 638m2 for residential
· Inclusion of 256m2 from Lot 142
o Overall reduction of reserve lot is 921m2
Lot 20
· Removal of 220m2 for residential
o Overall reduction of reserve lot is 220m2
TOTAL reduction requested from the existing reserve is 1,141m2.
Consultation (internal/external):
Genaea Mitchell and Franz Ven Der Brink (ULDA)
Council’s Director Planning and Environment
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Nil
Policy Implications:
Nil
Financial Resource Implications:
Nil, no compensation to be given to Council.
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.2.4(a) To maintain and present Council’s community facilities in a manner appropriate to the standard expected by users for each respective facility within budgetary constraints whilst considering organisational sustainability.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
20120418 Plan - Reduced revocation area - ULDA - Bow-Fyfe Park |
D12/19496 |
2View |
BOW - FYFE - Park revocation plan (revB) |
D12/19497 |
3View |
BOW - Lat27 - Stage 8(b) park plan |
D12/19498 |
Report authorised by:
Councillor Notice of Motion
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 5 July 2012 |
Item Number: 8.1 |
File Number: D12/19996 |
SUBJECT HEADING: Policy Required for a Rebate or Refund of Water Consumed by residents cleaning houses and sheds after the February 2012 flood events
Classification: Open Access
Author & Councillor’s Title: Cr Joy Denton
Executive Summary: Council offered to Residents affected by the 2010 Flood event assistance with a Rebate or Refund of Water consumed in washing down/out houses and sheds. Details of who claimed this rebate or on what basis could not be located within Council’s records.
|
That Council resolve to refund the water consumption charge on all properties in the flood affected areas of Roma and Mitchell for water consumed between the first and second meter readings of 2012.
|
Background:
The flooding effect on the residents of Roma and Mitchell was significant. Council needs to do something to alleviate the stress placed on residents affected by the February event. Council could do this by offering a rebate or refund of water consumption for those residents affected by the flood events, particularly where water entered the residents home and the house needed to be washed out. This could be simply done through a system where the resident pays the rates in full and claims the refund.
Possible other options for rebates or refunds that have been discounted are as follows:
- Don’t read the meters: water meter readings need to be processed as the June reading will be the start for the next meter reading period,
- Rebate every house in a designated area: not all houses were affected in the flooded areas of Mitchell and Roma,
- Process a flood rebate: some people were adequately compensated by Insurance and others weren’t, businesses should more than likely get business continuity insurance so Council can do it’s bit by offering a rebate on water for the period.
The cost of the refund for water is not known precisely. A potential refund estimate and cost to Council of water consumed for the 700 affected houses and businesses would be in the order of $100,000. Half yearly water charges are approximately $300,000 and 700 houses would be in the order of approximately one third of all the houses and businesses connected to reticulated water.
Supporting Documentation:
Nil
Notice prepared by: Cr. Joy Denton
Councillor Notice of Motion
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 17 July 2012 |
Item Number: 8.2 |
File Number: D12/21145 |
SUBJECT HEADING: Council Governing Model
Classification: Open Access
Author & Councillor’s Title: Cr Robert Loughnan
Executive Summary: At the commencement of each term of Council it is appropriate that Councillors give consideration to the governance arrangements and structures which support Councillor representation and decision making.
|
That Council adopts a “Portfolio” governance structure as follows:-
|
Background:
It is important that Council at the commencement of a new term give consideration to establishing an agreed governance structure to ensure a common understanding of how Councillors will carry out their roles in order effectively achieve priorities, streamline decision making and balance workloads of elected members.
Council has had a number of discussions in determining which governing model best suits the needs and priorities of the newly elected members, this being the introduction of a Councillor Portfolio structure.
There are a number of benefits in adopting the Councillor Portfolio Model which includes:-
· Equalisation in the sharing of Councillor workloads
· Councillor specialisation in associated knowledge within their portfolio
· Improved internal Councillor and Officer working relationships
· Enhanced community profile for Councillors through media and community contacts
· Improved representation of the electorate through the identification of key themes or common community concerns within each portfolio
It is important to note that in accord with sections 257 and 258 of the Local Government Act 2009 powers can be delegated to committees or even the chairperson of a committee but not otherwise to a spokesperson or portfolio holder.
Section 257, Delegation of local government powers, specifically prescribes that:-
(1) A local government may, by resolution, delegate a power
under this Act or another Act to—
(a) the mayor; or
(b) the chief executive officer; or
(c) a standing committee, or joint standing committee, of
the local government; or
(d) the chairperson of a standing committee, or joint
standing committee, of the local government; or
(e) another local government, for the purposes of a joint
government activity.
(2) However, a local government must not delegate a power that
an Act states must be exercised by resolution.
Therefore a Portfolio Chair does not have any decision making powers and all decisions of Council must be determined through the schedule of authorised meetings of Council which includes Ordinary Meetings and Special Meetings of Council.
The introduction of Councillor Portfolios does not limit Council’s ability to at some point in the future appoint “Standing Committee’s as it deems necessary.
Supporting Documentation:
Nil
Notice prepared by: Cr. Robert Loughnan
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 25 June 2012 |
Item Number: 12.1 |
File Number: D12/18526 |
Subject Heading: Roma Town Clock
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant: Rotary Club of Roma Inc
Location: McDowall Street Roma
Author & Officer’s Title: Tanya Mansfield, Manager Risk and Facilities
Executive Summary: The Rotary Club of Roma has a long standing commitment to erect a new town clock in the Roma central business district. The club is seeking approval from Council for the selected design concept and approval to erect the clock in the preferred location. The Rotary Club representatives will address Council on the proposed location and design of the clock.
|
That Council take note of the Roma Rotary Club’s presentation in regard to the proposed location and design of the Roma Town Clock, and further investigate the proposal in view of building, planning and public liability considerations and the Roma Placemaking Plan.
|
Body of Report:
The Roma Rotary Club has been working for a number of years to design, construct and install a town clock in the Roma Central Business District. The club has proposed a location for the clock being the existing garden bed in front of Bakearoma on the corner of Arthur and McDowall Street Roma, with the clock to face east/west along McDowall Street.
Council allocated $10,000 assistance in Round 1 of the 2009 Community Grants and Assistance Program towards this project. In addition Council holds funds of $15,000 in Ttrust towards the town clock project.
The proposed Town Clock was discussed during Maranoa Placemaking consultations and is cited on the Roma Placemaking Plans and in the Placemaking Consultation Report for Roma.
The Central Roma Strategy Plan as included on page 4 of the Maranoa Placemaking Strategy shows the proposed location on the junction of Arthur and McDowall Street Roma. Council’s Community Development Team have advised that the inclusion of the proposed location for the Town Clock was indicative only. Final site of installation would depend upon the final design of the Town Clock and its appropriateness for the proposed site. The final designs of the Town Clock were not available at the time of the placemaking discussions.
Council’s Director of Infrastructure has advised that he has no identified issues with the proposed location of the clock.
Council’s Manager Development has advised that the only requirement from Building and Planning Department would be a Building Application prior to installation. The building application would require engineering design and certification of the support and the footings for the support & plans.
Consultation (internal/external):
Bryan Payne, President Rotary Club of Roma
Matthew McGoldrick, Director Corporate Services
Barry Omundson, Director Infrastructure Services
Tony Klein, Director Community Services
Graham Tiffany, Manager Development
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Any decision by Council on this matter needs to take into consideration public liability risk when deciding on the location and design of the clock.
Policy Implications:
Council has in the past provided a commitment to support the Rotary Club’s efforts in designing, constructing and installing a town clock in the Roma Central Business District.
Financial Resource Implications:
Council holds funds of $15,000 in a trust fund, for this project.
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.2.3(a) To implement Council’s governance policies and procedures in an evolving organisational environment whilst ensuring legislative relevance, consistency and fairness in application.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
Correspondence from Roma Rotary Club |
S12/7950 |
Report authorised by:
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 9 July 2012 |
Item Number: 12.2 |
File Number: D12/20217 |
Subject Heading: Request for donation of Maranoa River Walkbridge to the Booringa Heritage Museum
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant: Booringa Heritage Group
Location: Elizabeth Street Mitchell
Author & Officer’s Title: Tanya Mansfield, Manager Risk and Facilities
Executive Summary: Council has received correspondence from the Booringa Heritage Group Inc requesting Council donate the bridge that traversed the Maranoa River prior to February flooding to the Booringa Heritage Group for use in future landscaping in the museum grounds.
|
That Council retain the walk bridge until after the new traffic bridge is constructed over the Maranoa River to ensure pedestrian access continues to be available to the community. |
Body of Report:
Prior to February’s flood event, a walk bridge traversed the Maranoa River between the Major Mitchell Caravan Park and town side of the river.
This bridge was transportable which allowed it to be removed from the river prior to the floodwaters hitting the town and as a result the bridge sustained little damage.
The poor condition of the Maranoa River traffic bridge and the erosion of approaches to the bridge means that the walk bridge cannot be reinstated. At this time it is envisaged that the proposed new bridge over the river being constructed by the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads will accommodate pedestrian and vehicular access. However it is recommended that caution be exercised and the bridge be retained by Council, until it is certain that the pedestrian access component is incorporated into the new bridge.
The walk bridge is currently stored in the museum grounds. The Booringa Heritage Group has requested Council consider gifting the bridge to the group for use in future landscaping within the museum grounds.
Consultation (internal/external):
Richie Hamilton, Mitchell Area Overseer
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.)
Nil
Policy Implications:
Nil
Financial Resource Implications:
Nil
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.2.4(a) To maintain and present Council’s community facilities in a manner appropriate to the standard expected by users for each respective facility within budgetary constraints whilst considering organisational sustainability.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
Letter from Booringa Heritage Group |
S12/9613 |
Report authorised by:
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 9 July 2012 |
Item Number: 12.3 |
File Number: D12/20285 |
Subject Heading: Queensland Rail - Wallumbilla Livestock Yards
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant:
Location: Lot 23 on SP119657, Wallumbilla Livestock Yards
Author & Officer’s Title: Tanya Mansfield, Manager Risk and Facilities
Executive Summary: Queensland Rail intends to offer for sale a parcel of freehold land on the Warrego Highway at Wallumbilla. This land currently houses the Wallumbilla livestock yards. Council is asked to advise if it is interested in purchasing the land from Queensland Rail at its market value.
|
That Council advise Queensland Rail that it is not interested in purchasing the Wallumbilla Livestock Yards being Lot 23 on SP119657.
|
Body of Report:
Queensland Rail has advised Council that it intends to offer for sale land located on the Warrego Highway Wallumbilla and described as Lot 23 on SP119657. The site contains a set of livestock yards which were donated by Queensland Rail to the former Bendemere Shire Council in November 2004. Queensland Rail has advised that there is no lease or licence agreement in existence between Queensland Rail and Council regarding ownership and use of the livestock yards.
Queensland Rail has advised that it intends to sell the land on the open market in the near future and would like to provide Council with the opportunity to purchase the land at market value. Queensland Rail do not yet have a proposed sale price and it will be necessary for a market valuation of the land to be obtained. Queensland Rail propose to sell the subject land with the livestock yards in situ and on an “as is” “where is” basis.
Council’s Yuleba/Wallumbilla Area Overseer has advised that the yards are still used by community members.
Council’s Manager of Environment has advised that Council’s Local Laws staff very rarely use the rail yards at Wallumbilla.
Consultation (internal/external):
Bob Dean, Yuleba/Wallumbilla Area Overseer
Kay Crosby, Manager Environment
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Since 2004, Council has accepted the risk associated with the provision of community access livestock facilities. If Council were to purchase the yards, this risk would continue.
Policy Implications:
Council has agreements with Queensland Rail in regard to other community access livestock yards including Mitchell, Mungallala and Dulbydilla.
Financial Resource Implications:
If Council purchased the yards there would be an initial up-front cost to purchase the land plus ongoing maintenance costs to keep the yards at an appropriate standard for community use.
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.2.3(a) To implement Council’s governance policies and procedures in an evolving organisational environment whilst ensuring legislative relevance, consistency and fairness in application.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
Map Wallumbilla Railway Yards |
D12/21121 |
Report authorised by:
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 17 July 2012 |
Item Number: 12.4 |
File Number: D12/21084 |
Subject Heading: Building Signage Policy
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant:
Location:
Author & Officer’s Title: Matthew McGoldrick, Director of Corporate Services
Executive Summary: Council staff have been changing some of the signage on our Council buildings but this has been on a haphazard basis. To ensure that building and directional signage for buildings is consistent a guide has been prepared for Council to adopt. A sample of what the impact of the signage Policy would have on Council offices is attached to this report.
|
That Council adopt the Guide for Building Signage and approve the signage for the Bungil Street office per the attached plan.
|
Body of Report:
There are several of Council’s major facilities and buildings that have been changed to the Maranoa regional Council signage but the signage is not consistent. Also some of the new signage does not comply with Council’s Corporate style guide.
To ensure that a consistent approach was to be taken for all building signage the Consultants who prepared Council’s Corporate style guide were engaged to prepare a Building Signage guide that was consistent with the Corporate style guide. That guide is presented with this report for Council’s adoption.
The style guide was used to then create an image for the Bungil street office and it is intended to ensure that for each of our major facilities the consultants are engaged to prepare an image of the building with the proposed signage and this can be approved by Council or the officers of Council on each occasion. As these facilities have a high profile it is important that the building signage and directional signage within the building is consistent with the style guide and compliant with any other statutory requirements such as Work Place Health and Safety and equity and Access.
A proposed signage plan for the front of the Bungil street office is prepared for Councillors to review and advise of their views.
Consultation (internal/external):
Manager Facilities and Risk
Angus Hotchin - Entegy
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Nil
Policy Implications:
Comply with a consistent Corporate Image for Maranoa Regional Council
Financial Resource Implications:
The changes to signage are within Budget.
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.2.4(a) To maintain and present Council’s community facilities in a manner appropriate to the standard expected by users for each respective facility within budgetary constraints whilst considering organisational sustainability.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
MARANOA-Style-Guide for Building Signage |
D12/20916 |
2View |
MRC - Signage Proof Bungil St Office exterior view |
D12/20910 |
Report authorised by:
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 17 July 2012 |
Item Number: 12.5 |
File Number: D12/21088 |
Subject Heading: Financial Sustainability Assessment - Maranoa regional Council
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant:
Location:
Author & Officer’s Title: Matthew McGoldrick, Director of Corporate Services
Executive Summary: The Department of Local Government and the Queensland Treasury Corporation have provided Council with a report on their assessment of Council’s long term viability and short term compliance with Budget
|
That the report be noted.
|
Body of Report:
The attached advice received from the Department of Local Government is an advice concerning an assessment carried out by the Department and the QTC on Council’s current compliance with Budget and Council’s long term viability.
This report indicates that Council’s compliance with Budget is satisfactory and long term outlook is positive. This review was not undertaken out Council’s request it is a review by the Department and it is not known what the timing and frequency of these reviews are likely to be in the future.
Consultation (internal/external):
Nil
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Nil
Policy Implications:
Nil
Financial Resource Implications:
Nil
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.2.1(a) To instil confidence to Council and other stakeholders in their decision making by developing and implementing financial procedures, processes and methodologies in an environment that promotes integrity and accountability.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
Department of Local Government - Annual Financial Management (Sustainability) Return 2011-2012 |
S12/10250 |
Report authorised by:
Department of Local Government - Annual Financial Management (Sustainability) Return 2011-2012 |
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 17 July 2012 |
Item Number: 12.6 |
File Number: D12/21106 |
Subject
Heading: Acceptance of Stage 1 Park and Roads
from the ULDA for Clearview Rise
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant: Urban Land Development Authority
Location: Currey Street Roma
Author & Officer’s Title: Matthew McGoldrick, Director of Corporate Services
Executive Summary: Council has been negotiating with the Urban Land development Authority (ULDA) over many months outcomes that would be acceptable to Council in the long term in order that Council can provide acceptance of the various ULDA subdivisions.
|
That Council accept the Stage 1 Park of Clearview Rise subject to the twelve month maintenance and park infrastructure conditions imposed by Council and the Stage 1 roads as designated on the attached plan.
|
Body of Report:
A plan of the first stage of the Urban Land development Authority’s (ULDA) Clearview Rise subdivision is attached. This subdivision plan shows a pocket park and streets. The ULDA are seeking Council’s acceptance of the Park’s and streets within the subdivision.
The entire subdivision is outside of Council’s Planning Scheme and Council are not able to impose any conditions on the subdivision in relation to lot sizes, street widths or the creation of pocket parks. Council staff have with this in mmind attempted to negotiate the most acceptable outcome for Council.
Stage 1 Park: Council staff would prefer that this park not be created but given that the ULDA have insisted that this park be created the best outcome for Council is to condition Council’s acceptance of the park with a 12 month maintenance period and a reduction of the infrastructure within the park and a decrease to the gardens that were to be included. These conditions will reduce long term maintenance and costs to Council and will ensure that the Park already created with Council infrastructure near the hospital is well utilised.
Roads: Council is able to accept the Roads included in Stage 1 as Council staff have been able to negotiate an outcome that the ULDA fund a stormwater master plan for Roma. Prior to this condition being imposed Council’s engineering staff were not able to convince the ULDA of the significant Stormwater Drainage issues created by this subdivision. It was recognised by Council staff that Council were not able to advise of an acceptable outcome to the ULDA as a Stormwater Master Plan for Roma does not exist. The ULDA offer to fund this master plan is a very acceptable outcome.
Water and Sewer: To date the connection of this and any future stages of the UDA subdivision to Council’s water supply and sewer network pose a problem. The connection to the water reticulation system is unplanned and the impact on supply in this area of potentially another 600 residents is unknown. The current planning undertaken by Council for the sewer network clearly indicates some issues and to this end, Stage 1 of the ULDA will be the only stage of the ULDA connected to the sewer network until upgrade works are funded by the ULDA and carried out to Council’s satisfaction.
Consultation (internal/external):
Directors and Managers
Genaea Mitchell and Franz van den Brink ULDA
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Significant Infrastructure funding and capacity risks to Council.
Policy Implications:
The ULDA subdivision is inconsistent with and outside Council’s Planning Scheme.
Financial Resource Implications:
Council staff have attempted to minimise the long term cost to Council.
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.3.1(a) Regulate and control development in a consistent and responsible manner that enhances the lifestyle of our community whilst promoting sustainable development.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
Plan of subdivision for Stage 1 of the ULDA Clearview subdivision |
D12/21098 |
2View |
Roma UDA Stage1 park Clearview |
D12/21099 |
Report authorised by:
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 9 July 2012 |
Item Number: 13.1 |
File Number: D12/20269 |
Subject Heading: Water and Sewerage Issue at lot 18 Ann St, Mitchell
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant: Ross Mitchell
Location: Mitchell
Author & Officer’s Title: Stephen Mow, Manager Utilities & Waste
Executive Summary: Ross Mitchell purchased a property at lot 18 Ann St, Mitchell and was initially advised that the property was serviced by water and sewerage and based on this information organised house plans and a builder. The property does not have access to water and sewerage and Council has unsuccessfully made Mr Mitchell several offers to rectify the situation. Mr Mitchell has purchased another property during this time and has stated that he cannot afford to maintain 2 properties.
Mr Mitchell wishes Council to reimburse his out of pocket expenses ($25 000) plus pay all legal and transfer costs, the property can then be transferred into Council’s name.
|
It is recommended that Council: 1. Advises Mr Mitchell that it does not wish to purchase the property on lot18 on RP94494 located in Ann St, Mitchell.
2. Also advises Mr Mitchell that Council will extend the water and sewer mains to the property, as per Council’s initial offer and he can sell the property with those services available.
3. Mr Mitchell be further advised that this offer will remain for 30 days from date of the letter of notification.
4. Council reimburses Mr Mitchell’s costs for survey and house plans of $2500.
|
Body of Report:
Background
Ross Mitchell purchased lot18 on RP94494 in Ann St, Mitchell in March 2011. At the time of purchase the property was being rated for vacant water and vacant sewer. Based on this Mr Mitchell organised house plans and a builder so a house could be constructed on the property.
Lot 18 is not serviced by water and sewerage mains and therefore should not have been rated for vacant water and vacant sewerage and it is outside the Mitchell urban water area.
Mr Mitchell wrote a formal letter to Council on 9 November 2011 (attached) advising of the issue and requesting an outcome.
After some discussion with Mr Mitchell Council replied on 20 April 2012 (attached). In this letter Council advised that it would extend water and sewerage mains at its cost so connection to the water and sewerage network would be possible for this property.
Mr Mitchell then replied on 8 May 2012 (attached) advising that he had bought another house in Mitchell because he could not build on this block. He also put forward three (3) proposals.
These proposals were considered well outside what was considered reasonable in this situation and a letter in reply was sent on 23 May 2012 (attached) reaffirming Council’s offer of 20 April 2012.
Mr Mitchell then sent an email on 30 May 2012 (attached) putting forward two (2) other proposals that he would consider a reasonable outcome.
In an effort to finally resolve the issue Council offered to install the sewerage transfer tank and macerator pump in the property on top of its initial offer; this was conveyed in a letter dated 26 June 2012 (attached). If this work proceeds, this would represent a total Council outlay of about $25 000. Mr Mitchell would have to connect to this transfer tank and pay any relevant rates and charges associated with the provision of water and sewerage services.
Mr Mitchell replied on 4 July 2012 (attached) stating again that he cannot afford to own two (2) properties and requests that Council reimburse his out of pocket expenses of $25 000 which includes the purchase of the property plus pay all transfer and legal costs associated with the change of ownership.
Council records indicate that Mr Mitchell purchased his second property (11 Liverpool St, Mitchell) on 13 September 2011 well before this issue was formally brought to Council’s attention.
Attached is a map of Mitchell showing the location of the property in Ann St, Council already owns other properties in the vicinity and it is doubtful that Council would need another one.
Conclusion
Mr Mitchell states that he purchased the second property because of the water and sewerage issues with lot 18 however the timeline indicates that he bought his second property in September 2011 well before he formally brought the issues to Council’s attention in November 2011.
Mr Mitchell was inconvenienced because of the incorrect information on Council’s database and was subject to out of pocket expenses. Reimbursement of survey and house plan costs of $2500, as outlined in Mr Mitchell’s letter dated 8 May, should be considered.
The extension of water and sewer mains to service lot 18 Ann St, as per Council’s initial offer, will help Mr Mitchell recoup his costs if he wishes to sell the property on the open market.
Consultation (internal/external):
Troy Pettiford, Services, Demand and Resources Coordinator
Barry Omundson, Director Infrastructure
Ross Mitchell, owner lot 18 RP94494, Ann St, Mitchell
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Bad publicity should this matter not be resolved
Policy Implications:
Nil
Financial Resource Implications:
Approximately $17000 – to extend the sewer and water main to lot 18 Ann St and reimburse Mr Mitchell for survey and house plan costs. These costs can be funded from the water and sewerage budget.
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.5.7(a) To undertake the treatment of sewerage to industry standard in an efficient and effective manner and produce all sewerage effluent to a level which satisfies the applicable environmental regulations.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
Ross Mitchell letter dated 7 November 2011 |
S11/19552 |
2View |
Council letter dated 20 April 2012 |
D12/10808 |
3View |
Ross Mitchell letter dated 8 May 2012 |
D12/14122 |
4View |
Council letter dated 23 May 2012 |
D12/14626 |
5View |
Council letter dated 26 June 2012 |
D12/18922 |
6View |
Ross Mitchell email dated 4 July 2012 |
D12/20281 |
7View |
Map showing lot18 Ann St Mitchell |
D12/20721 |
8View |
Ross Mitchell email dated 30 May 2012 |
D12/21137 |
Report authorised by:
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 9 July 2012 |
Item Number: 13.2 |
File Number: D12/20208 |
Subject Heading: Drinking Water Quality Management Plan Adoption
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant:
Location:
Author & Officer’s Title: Troy Pettiford, Services, Demand and Resources Coordinator
Executive Summary: The provisions of the Water Supply (Safety & Reliability) Act 2008 place a number of obligations on drinking water service providers. MRC was required to have a Council/Office of the Water Supply Regulator (OWSR) approved Plan in Place by 1 July 2012. OWSR acknowledges the delayed submission of the MRC DWQMP. To finalise the submission process Council familiarized itself with the DWQMP in the 28 June Workshop. The plan now needs to be adopted to enable it to be submitted to OWSR.
|
“That Council adopt the Maranoa Regional Council Drinking Water Quality Management Plan to enable submission to OWSR”
|
Body of Report:
The DWQMP covers each step in the process of the water supply: source, treatment, storage, transmission and distribution, and concentrates on the hazards to public health using a risk based approach. By focussing on the risks, actions are defined and planned in order to reduce the likelihood and consequence of:
1. Contaminants entering the supply in the first place; or
2. Contaminants being reintroduced; or
3. Contaminants passing through the barriers that have been designed to reduce them.
The principle legislation (our legal obligations) concerning water quality is the Water Supply (Safety & Reliability) Act 2008. This requires that MRC must:
· Prepare a DWQMP for all schemes
· Apply to the OWSR for approval of the DWQMP
· Have an approved plan in place by 1 July 2012 (medium scheme – Roma) or 1 July 2013 (small schemes – the nine remaining MRC Townships)
MRC elected to prepare a DWQMP as part of it’s commitment to ensuring that all ten of it’s drinking water supply schemes provide safe, potable water to it’s customers as soon as practicable.
MRC retained GHD to prepare our DWQMP and Santos have pledged $50,000 to contribute towards the costs developing the plan.
The DWQMP has been well received by key stakeholders in the review process and is a critical step in MRC going forward and meeting legislative requirements.
In February 2012, MRC received a Notice of Direction (from OWSR) about preventing or minimising adverse effects on drinking water quality in our region.
The investigation highlighted the following specific aspects:
· The impact of the current water supply infrastructure on water quality
· The options available to Council to address any causes of contamination and infrastructure issues identified in the investigation
· The preferred option for implementation
· An implementation schedule for the preferred options
The DWQMP was referred to often in this report and wider infrastructure implications will arise because of the aforementioned Report and Plan.
Adoption of the DWQMP is a highly important and proactive step in achieving legislative requirements and falling into line with MRC Corporate Goals and Corporate Plan Strategies 8.5.6 (a-e).
Consultation (internal/external):
Barry Omundson – Director Infrastructure
Steve Mow – Manager Utilities & Waste
Troy Pettiford – Service Demand & Resources Coordinator
Fendal Hill – GHD
Chris Pipe-Martin -GHD
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Non Adoption of Plan may result in future health implications to MRC Water Schemes.
Policy Implications:
‘Nil’
Financial Resource Implications:
Actions arising from this Plan will entail future budget commitments.
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 —
8.5.6(e) To undertake an overall review of the region’s potable water
requirements with a view to identifying any issues
or concerns that need to be addressed and to enable the commencement of
planning for any identified future
capital expansion proposals䡰
Supporting Documentation:
Nil
Report authorised by:
Stephen Mow, Manager Utilities & Waste
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 16 July 2012 |
Item Number: 13.3 |
File Number: D12/20981 |
Subject Heading: Naming of Unnamed Road
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant: Julie Latham
Location: Forestry Road, Warkon, 4427
Author & Officer’s Title: Jodie Young, Administration Officer
Executive Summary: Renaming of Forestry Toad off the Condamine Hwy is required due to duplication in Road Names to avoid confusion with rural addressing and emergency services.
|
1. That Council rename the road which is outlined in the attached map, as “Litani Road”
|
Body of Report:
Council has received a request from Julie Latham to rename Forestry Road as there is a second road in the Yuleba area also identified as Forestry Road, which has caused confusion with visitors, tradesman and emergency services.
There is currently no adopted policy or set guidelines that outline the procedure which should take place when naming roads within the region. In the past Council has named roads by taking into account their historical significance, for example, the original settlers, families that have been in the area for an extended period of time or families that now reside in the area.
It has been suggested the road be renamed to “Litani Road” after a property adjoining the road. Correspondence has been forwarded to the owners of properties along the road advising of the suggested change to the name. No objections have been received.
The primary reason for the renaming this road is for rural addressing and emergency services purposes, as the duplication in road names is confusing and could lead to issues in an emergency situation. There is currently one rural address on this road, being that of Julie Latham, which will be updated to reflect the change in road name.
Consultation (internal/external):
Internal:
Kim Edwards – GIS Officer
External:
Julie Latham – Property Owner
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Nil
Policy Implications:
There is n current adopted Policy
Financial Resource Implications:
Road Name sign will need to be installed
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.5.3(a) To undertake any road works maintenance requirements in a planned, responsive and efficient manner for the benefit of all road users.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
Map of Forestry Road proposed to be changed to Litani Road |
D12/20980 |
Report authorised by:
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 2 July 2012 |
Item Number: 15.1 |
File Number: D12/19490 |
Subject Heading: Draft Pest Management Plan
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant: Kay Crosby
Location: Roma
Author & Officer’s Title: Sandra Crosby, Manager Environmental Health
Executive Summary: Maranoa Regional Council is required to submit a Pest Management Plan for approval by the Minister. A draft Pest Management Plan has been completed after considerable consultation with keystakeholders, and is now submitted to Council for adoption prior to being furnished to the Minister Department Agruculture Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. John McVeigh MP.
|
That Council approve the draft Maranoa Regional Council Pest Management Plan to be submitted to the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry.
|
Body of Report:
The attached draft pest management plan has been developed in consultation with key stakeholders.
Council is obligated in accordance with the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002 to undertake consultation with identified key stakeholders and develop a Pest Management Plan.
The attached Plan has had two years of consultation and development, with it recently being presented to the Regional Pest Management group for comment. The draft plan was initially collated with the five shire plans of Bendemere, Booringa, Bungil, Roma and Warroo.
There is an annual working plan to be implemented by Council’s Local Law officers in partnership with landowners and or managers. Currently, there is no species mapping integrated into this plan, as in the past three years all mapping information that had been collated had not been updated. As such, the Plan will provide a link to the Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry website. Council officers meet with Departmental GIS officers for annual information updates.
This Plan is to be reviewed each annum, which may become a project for the Regional Pest Management group. It is expected that the Plan will be uploaded onto Council’s website for ease of access by clients.
Consultation (internal/external):
Department Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry – Roma Biosecurity Officer
Queensland Murray Darling Committee
Maranoa Balonne Catchment Committee
Regional Pest Management Group
Santos, Origin, South West NRM (Charleville)
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Council has a legal liability in accordance with the Land Protection (Pest and Stock Route Management) Act 2002.
Should Council not develop a Plan, there is a risk of political implications and non conformance issues
Policy Implications:
State policy is Council must develop a Pest Management Plan – there would be policy implications should this Plan not be adopted and implemented
Financial Resource Implications:
nil
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 —
8.3.4(a) To administer Council’s regulatory function in relation to our natural
environment in the interests of protection
and responsible management that enhances the rural industry.
Supporting Documentation:
Nil
Report authorised by:
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 13 July 2012 |
Item Number: 15.2 |
File Number: D12/20897 |
Subject Heading: Request for Negotiated Decision Notice - Reconfiguring a Lot 1 into 77 Lots (File Ref: 2012/17996)
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant: Innovative Planning Solutions C/- James Brownsworth
Location: 43-49 Currey Street, Roma QLD 4455 (Lot 9 on SP180949)
Author & Officer’s Title: Danielle Pearn, Planning & Development Officer
Executive Summary: Innovative Planning Solutions seek to negotiate a condition of a development approval to reconfigure 1 lot into 77 lots at 43-49 Currey Street, Roma.
|
Body of Report: The applicant has lodged a request to negotiate Condition 26 of a development approval to subdivide 1 lot into 77 lots at 43-49 Currey Street, Roma, approved by Council on 16 May 2012 (Refer to Attachment 1).
Condition 26 states:
You shall pay to Council, prior to plan sealing, a contribution for trunk infrastructure in accordance with Council’s Priority Infrastructure Plan of $1,638,000.00.
The applicant seeks to amend Condition 26 to allow progressive increasing of the infrastructure charges in accordance with the following proposed schedule:
(a) First 20 allotments = 25% of the increase to be paid = $5,500 + (25% of $15,500) = $9,375.00/Lot
(b) Next 20 allotments = 50% of the increase to be paid = $5,500 + (50% of $15,500) = $13,250.00/Lot
(c) Next 20 allotments = 75% of the increase to be paid = $5,500 + (75% of $15,500) = $17,125.00/Lot
(d) Remaining allotments (17) = 100% of the increase to be paid = $5,500 + (100% of $15,500) = $21,000.00/Lot
The proposed amendment will result in the infrastructure contribution amounting to $1,152, 000.00.
The trunk infrastructure charges were adopted by Council on 26 October 2011 in accordance with the State Government’s infrastructure charging framework. The adopted charges apply to development that generates additional demand on trunk infrastructure networks within the PIA of Roma. The charges contribute towards funding the provision and ongoing maintenance of essential trunk infrastructure required to service new developments.
The adopted charges are levied at 75% of the maximum charge level nominated by the State Government. This caps the charge at $21,000.00 per lot in the PIA of Roma. The charge level adopted by Council is in line with advice provided by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning, and is consistent with that adopted by other predominantly rural local governments in Queensland, such as the Western Downs, Scenic Rim and Lockyer Valley Regional Council.
Consultation (internal/external):
Rob Hayward - Director Planning and Environment
Graham Tiffany - Manager Land Development
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
The applicant has appeal rights under SPA against any decision of Council.
Policy Implications:
The adopted infrastructure charges apply to all development within the PIA of Roma. If the charges are reduced for one development, Council may find that it sets a precedent for other developers to seek similar consideration to reduce their infrastructure charges.
Financial Resource Implications:
The adopted infrastructure charges schedule seeks to achieve cost recovery for trunk infrastructure required to service new developments. A reduction of the charge level may result in Council incurring some of these costs.
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.3.1(a) Regulate and control development in a consistent and responsible manner that enhances the lifestyle of our community whilst promoting sustainable development.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
Request for Negotiated Decision Notice |
D12/20918 |
2View |
Approved Plan of Development |
D12/20920 |
3View |
Trunk Infrastructure Report |
D12/20895 |
Report authorised by:
Trunk Infrastructure Report |
Development Assessment: Trunk Infrastructure Charges
Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 into 77 lots) situated at Currey Street, Roma, Qld – Lot 9 on SP180949
Plan Associates
Executive Summary
1. The Sustainable Planning Act, 2009 requires local governments to prepare Priority Infrastructure Plans (PIP) and adopt and charge for trunk infrastructure in accordance with the Draft State planning regulatory provision (adopted charges).
2. The development of PIPs for the current planning schemes is well advanced and the Council adopted trunk infrastructure charges resolutions towards the end of 2011.
3. An adopted infrastructure charge of $1,638,000-00 is payable in respect of the proposed development.
4. The adopted infrastructure has been calculated in accordance with the following formula:
AIC = AC –CR
Where:
• AIC is the adopted infrastructure charge that may be levied for development;
• AC is the adopted charge for the trunk infrastructure networks to service the development stated in Table 2 of the Council’s adopted infrastructure charges resolutions; and
• CR is the credit for the trunk infrastructure networks servicing the premises.
As such, the following will apply to the application:
· An adopted charge of $21,000-00 per dwelling for three or more bedrooms applies.
· The proposal is for the reconfiguration of a lot (one into 77 lots).
· However, it is noted the plan of development includes two duplex allotments, each with the potential for at least two attached dwellings of three or more bedrooms.
· As such, the proposal has the potential for 79 dwelling units of three or more bedrooms.
This equates to:
79 X $21,000-00
= $1,659,000-00
· The site currently vacant but has the potential for a dwelling with three or more bedrooms (the existing lawful use of the premises).
· It is noted the developer does not intend to supply any trunk infrastructure.
· Under Table 2 of the Roma Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution the monetary equivalent for a 3 or more bedroom dwelling is $21,000-00.
· As such, the proponent is entitled to a credit of $21,000-00
· AIC = $1,659,000-00 - $21,000-00
= $1,638,000-00
5. A work sheet detailing the methodology used to calculate the charge is in Attachment 1.
6. An extract from the Councils resolution to adopt Infrastructure Charges for the Roma Planning Scheme under Division 2.5 of Draft state regulatory provision (adopted charges) is in Attachment 2.
7. A decision notice (compliant with section 648F of the SPA) in respect of the adopted infrastructure charge is in Attachment 3.
8. It should be noted the Council will probably need to impose conditions for the provision of non-trunk infrastructure to connect the proposed development to the relevant trunk infrastructure networks such as sewerage and water supply.
Attachment 1
Trunk Infrastructure Charges Worksheet
1. Situational Analysis
Step 1: Determine whether the proposed development is located within the Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA).
Refer to Map 1 of the Roma Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (Attached).
The subject property is located within the Roma PIA of the Roma Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution.
Step 2: Determine what infrastructure networks are covered.
Refer to the Plans for Trunk Infrastructure attached to the Roma Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (Attached).
The Council provides all five infrastructure networks identified in the plans for trunk infrastructure to the proposed development.
Step 3: Determine the land use class of the proposed development.
Refer to Table 1 of the Roma Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (Attached).
Under the Roma planning scheme the proposal is for material change of use of a vacant residential lot for dual occupancy.
Step 4: Determine whether the proponent may be entitled to a credit.
The site currently vacant but has the potential for a dwelling with three or more bedrooms (the existing lawful use of the premises).
2. Calculating the Charge
The adopted infrastructure charge levied for each trunk infrastructure networks must be calculated in accordance with the following formula-
AIC = AC –CR
Where:
• AIC is the adopted infrastructure charge that may be levied for development;
• AC is the adopted charge for the trunk infrastructure networks to service the development stated in stated in Table 2 of the resolutions; and
• CR is the credit for the trunk infrastructure networks servicing the premises.
As such, the following will apply to the application:
Step 5: Determine Demand (the total number of adopted charge units generated by the proposed development).
Refer to Table 2 of the resolution and plan of development for the proposed subdivision.
An adopted charge of $21,000-00 per dwelling for three or more bedrooms applies.
The proposal is for the reconfiguration of a lot (one into 77 lots).
However, it is noted the plan of development includes two duplex allotments, each with the potential for at least two attached dwellings of three or more bedrooms.
As such, the proposal has the potential for 79 dwelling units of three or more bedrooms.
This equates to:
79 X $21,000-00
= $1,659,000-00
Step 6: Determine Demand Credit (any credits for existing lawful uses in accordance with the Roma Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution (Attached).
The site currently vacant but has the potential for a dwelling with three or more bedrooms (the existing lawful use of the premises).
It is noted the developer does not intend to supply any trunk infrastructure.
Under Table 2 of the Roma Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution the monetary equivalent for a 3 or more bedroom dwelling is $21,000-00.
As such, the proponent is entitled to a credit of $21,000-00
Step 7: Calculate the Adopted Infrastructure Charge.
AIC = $1,659,000-00 - $21,000-00
= $1,638,000-00
Trunk Infrastructure Report |
Attachment 2
Extract from resolution to adopt Infrastructure Charges for the Roma Planning Scheme under Division 2.5 of Draft state regulatory provision (adopted charges)
1. This resolution is attached to the Maranoa Regional Council’s Roma planning scheme.
To remove any doubt, it is declared that the details of the resolution are not part of the local government’s planning scheme.
2. This resolution has effect on and from the day the making of the resolution was first notified in a newspaper circulating generally in the local government area on 11 November 2011.
3. This resolution adopts a charge for particular development that is less than the maximum adopted charge.
To enable the adopted infrastructure charges schedule identified in Table 1 of the Draft State planning regulatory provision (Draft SPRP) to be applied to existing development use types, Table 1 of this resolution identifies the relationship between existing planning scheme use types and the classes of development to which the adopted infrastructure charges schedule apply.
Trunk Infrastructure Report |
Table 1 – Comparison of planning scheme use categories and Draft SPRP development categories |
||
Current planning scheme use categories |
Draft SPRP development categories
|
|
Adopted infrastructure charge category |
Queensland Planning Provision use
|
|
Caretakers Residence, Dwelling House, Dwelling Unit, Home Based Business, Dual Occupancy, Host Home Accommodation |
3 or more bedroom dwelling 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling |
|
Temporary Accommodation, Hotel, Motel |
Accommodation (short term) |
Hotel, short term accommodation, tourist park |
Accommodation Units, Rooming Unit |
Accommodation (long term) |
Community residence, hostel, relocatable home park, retirement facility, |
Place of worship |
Places of assembly |
Club, community use, function facility, funeral parlour, place of worship |
Showroom |
Commercial (bulk goods) |
Agricultural supplies store, bulk landscape supplies, garden centre, hardware and trade supplies, outdoor sales, showroom |
Commercial Premises, Commercial Activities, Service Station, Catering Shop, Shop, Shopping Centre, Retail showroom |
Commercial (retail) |
Adult store, food and drink outlet, service industry, service station, shop, shopping centre |
Professional Office |
Commercial (office) |
Office, sales office |
Child Care Centre, Child Orientated Uses, Community Use, Community Orientated Uses, Educational Establishment |
Education facility |
Child care centre, community care centre, educational establishment |
N/A |
Entertainment |
Hotel (non-residential component), nightclub, theatre |
Indoor Recreation |
Indoor sport and recreational facility |
Indoor sport and recreation |
Storage Facility, Warehouse Industry, Industrial Activities, Low Impact Industry, Medium Impact Industry |
Industry |
Low impact industry, medium impact industry, research and technology industry, rural industry, warehouse, waterfront and marine industry |
High Impact Industry |
High impact industry |
High impact industry, noxious and hazardous industries |
Planning scheme uses
|
Draft SPRP development categories
|
|
Adopted infrastructure charges category |
Queensland Planning Provision use
|
|
Agriculture, Forestry |
Low impact rural |
Animal husbandry cropping permanent plantations wind farm |
Cattle Feed Lot, Cattery or Kennel, Piggery |
High impact rural |
Aquaculture, intensive animal industries, intensive horticulture, wholesale nursery, winery |
Health Care Premises |
Essential services |
Correctional facility, emergency services, health care services, hospital, residential care facility, veterinary services |
Transport Terminal, Tourist Facility, Park, Extractive Industry, Off-street carpark |
Specialised uses |
Air services, animal keeping, car park, crematorium, major sport recreation and entertainment facility, motor sport, outdoor sport and recreation, port services, tourist attraction, utility installation, extractive industry |
Telecommunications Facility |
Minor uses |
Advertising device, cemetery, home based business, landing, market, non-residential workforce accommodation, roadside stalls, telecommunications facility, temporary use, park, outdoor lighting |
Table 2 identifies the local government’s adopted infrastructure charges for particular development and the area in which it applies.
The area in which the adopted infrastructure charge applies is identified in Map 1: Roma PIA.
Table 2 – Adopted infrastructure charges |
|||||
Development for which an adopted infrastructure charge may apply |
Maximum adopted charges |
Adopted infrastructure charges |
Part of Local Government Area (LGA) applicable |
||
Maximum adopted charge |
Maximum adopted charges for stormwater network |
Adopted infrastructure charge |
Adopted infrastructure charges for stormwater network |
||
3 or more bedroom dwelling |
$28 000 per dwelling unit |
N/A |
$21,000 per dwelling unit |
N/A |
Map1: Roma PIA |
1 or 2 bedroom dwelling |
$20 000 per dwelling unit |
N/A |
$15,000 per dwelling unit |
N/A |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Accommodation (short term) |
$10 000 per dwelling unit (1 or 2 bedroom dwelling) or $14 000 per dwelling unit (3 or more bedroom dwelling) |
N/A |
$7,500 per dwelling unit (1 or 2 bedroom dwelling) or $10,500 per dwelling unit (3 or more bedroom dwelling) |
N/A |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Accommodation (long term) |
$20 000 per dwelling unit (1 or 2 bedroom dwelling) or $28 000 per dwelling unit (3 or more bedroom dwelling) |
N/A |
$15,000 per dwelling unit (1 or 2 bedroom dwelling) or $21,000 per dwelling unit (3 or more bedroom dwelling) |
N/A |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Places of assembly |
$70 per m2 of Gross Floor Area (GFA) |
$10 per impervious m2 |
$50 per m2 of GFA |
$7-50 per impervious m2 |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Commercial (bulk goods) |
$140 per m2 of GFA |
$10 per impervious m2 |
$100 per m2 of GFA |
$7-50per impervious m2 |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Development for which an adopted infrastructure charge may apply |
Maximum adopted charges |
Adopted infrastructure charges |
Part of Local Government Area applicable |
||
Maximum adopted charges |
Maximum adopted charges for stormwater network |
Local government adopted infrastructure charges |
Local government adopted infrastructure charges for stormwater network |
||
Commercial (retail) |
$180 per m2 of GFA |
$10 per impervious m2 |
$135 per m2 of GFA |
$7-50per impervious m2 |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Commercial (office) |
$140 per m2 of GFA |
$10 per impervious m2 |
$100 per m2 of GFA |
$7-50 per impervious m2 |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Education facility |
$140 per m2 of GFA |
$10 per impervious m2 |
$100 per m2 of GFA |
$7-50 per impervious m2 |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Entertainment |
$200 per m2 of GFA |
$10 per impervious m2 |
$150 per m2 of GFA |
$7-50 per impervious m2 |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Indoor sport and recreational facility |
$200 per m2 of GFA, court areas at $20 per m2 of GFA |
$10 per impervious m2 |
$150 per m2 of GFA, court areas at $15 per m2 of GFA |
$7-50per impervious m2 |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Industry |
$50 per m2 of GFA |
$10 per impervious m2 |
$35 per m2 of GFA |
$7-50 per impervious m2 |
Map1: Roma PIA |
High impact industry |
$70 per m2 of GFA |
$10 per impervious m2 |
$50per m2 of GFA |
$7-50 per impervious m2 |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Low impact rural |
Nil charge |
|
|
|
|
High impact rural |
$20 per m2 of GFA for the high impact rural facility (e.g. washing, packaging, processing, refrigeration) |
N/A |
$15 per m2 of GFA for the high impact rural facility (e.g. washing, packaging, processing, refrigeration) |
N/A |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Essential services |
$140 per m2 of GFA |
$10 per impervious m2 |
$100 per m2 of GFA |
$7-50 per impervious m2 |
Map1: Roma PIA |
Specialised uses |
Use and demand determined at time of assessment |
|
|
|
|
Minor uses |
Nil charge |
|
|
|
|
4. This resolution states how a charge for particular development is to be discounted to take into account the existing usage of trunk infrastructure by the premises on, or in relation to which the development is carried out.
The adopted infrastructure charge is to be calculated as follows:
AIC = AC –CR
Where:
· AIC is the adopted infrastructure charge that may be levied for development;
· AC is the adopted charge for the trunk infrastructure networks to service the development stated in stated in Table 2 of the resolutions; and
· CR is the credit for the trunk infrastructure networks servicing the premises.
(i) The credit is the greater of:
· the monetary equivalent of the existing lawful use of the premises, calculated using the adopted infrastructure charges in Table 2; and
· the monetary contributions for trunk infrastructure that have been previously made, escalated to present value by applying the movements of the Consumer Price Index (all Groups) for Brisbane between the date that the payment was made and 1 July 2011.
(ii) Applications for development which are not serviced or planned to be serviced by the water supply or sewerage networks for trunk infrastructure will be credited as follows:
· Water supply network: 30% of total charge
· Sewerage network: 20% of total charge
(iii) The maximum amount of any credit allocated under this resolution is not to exceed the adopted infrastructure charges for the proposed development.
5. Until the local government’s priority infrastructure plan is adopted, the resolution —
(i) Identifies trunk infrastructure for the area of the Roma Planning Scheme in Maps 2-6
(ii) Identifies the following trunk infrastructure network or trunk infrastructure networks to which the adopted infrastructure charge applies –– water supply, sewerage, stormwater, transport and parks and community facilities.
(iii) States the standards of service for each network mentioned in subparagraph (ii) and attached to the resolution.
6. Resolution Attachments
· Map 1: Roma PIA
· Map 2: Plan for Trunk Infrastructure Transport Network – Roma
· Map 3: Plan for Trunk Infrastructure Water Network – Roma
· Map 4: Plan for Trunk Infrastructure Sewerage Network – Roma
· Map 5: Plan for Trunk Infrastructure Stormwater Network – Roma
· Map 6: Plan for Trunk Infrastructure Parks and Community Land – Roma
Trunk Infrastructure Report |
Attachment 3
Adopted Infrastructure Charges Decision Notice
1. Amount of the Charge
An adopted infrastructure charge of $1,638,000-00 is payable in respect of the proposed development.
The adopted infrastructure has been calculated in accordance with the following formula:
AIC = AC –CR
Where:
• AIC is the adopted infrastructure charge that may be levied for development;
• AC is the adopted charge for the trunk infrastructure networks to service the development stated in Table 2 of the Council’s adopted infrastructure charges resolutions; and
• CR is the credit for the trunk infrastructure networks servicing the premises.
As such, the following will apply to the application:
The proposal is for the reconfiguration of a lot (one into 77 lots).
The plan of development includes two duplex allotments, each with the potential for at least two attached dwellings of three or more bedrooms.
As such, the proposal has the potential for 79 dwelling units of three or more bedrooms.
This equates to:
79 X $21,000-00
= $1,659,000-00
The site currently vacant but has the potential for a dwelling with three or more bedrooms (the existing lawful use of the premises).
Under Table 2 of the Roma Adopted Infrastructure Charges Resolution the monetary equivalent for a 3 or more bedroom dwelling is $21,000-00.
As such, the proponent is entitled to a credit of $21,000-00
AIC = $1,659,000-00 - $21,000-00
= $1,638,000-00
2. Land to which the charge applies
This charge is levied in respect of an IDAS Development Application for the Reconfiguration of a Lot (1 into 77 lots) situated at Currey Street, Roma, Qld – Lot 9 on SP180949.
3. Person to which the charge must be paid
The adopted infrastructure charge of $1,638,000-00 is payable to the Maranoa Regional Council.
4. When the charge is payable
Officer Report
Meeting: General 25 July 2012 |
Date: 13 July 2012 |
Item Number: 15.3 |
File Number: D12/20817 |
Subject Heading: Memorandum of Understanding between Council and Horizon Housing Company
Classification: Open Access
Name of Applicant:
Location:
Author & Officer’s Title: Edward Sims, Manager Organisational Performance
Executive Summary: Following a tender and subsequent selection of HHC as its preferred partner for the development of affordable and community housing, Council resolved on 12 December 2011 to enter into a process to develop an MoU between the parties.
The resolution Number GM.446.11 states “That Council enter into negotiations with Horizon Housing Company to develop a memorandum of understanding to establish housing services in the Maranoa Region.”
Council further instructed that the MoU will contain its requirements and expectations as obligations on HHC to be met as an outcome from the relationship. The attached MoU for signature contains al of the elements of Council’s requirements.
This report recommends the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and Horizon Housing Company (HHC).
|
That Council authorises the Acting CEO to sign off the attached Memorandum of Understanding between Council and Horizon Housing Company.
|
Body of Report:
Not-for-Profit housing developers build housing for individuals who are underserved by the private sector. The not-for-profit housing company is usually established by the social and benevolent sectors of society and usually have the taxation status of a charity.
There are many such organisations in Queensland and which hold significant portfolios of housing on their balance sheets. They are particularly active in the mining communities as the subsidies, and funding they can attract from Governments and the private and benevolent sectors is significant.
They carry such programs as the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) which provides incentives for investors to purchase housing that must be rented at a minimum 20% below market rent to low and moderate income households. The outcomes that these entities achieve, delivers affordable housing to those in need.
A working relationship with a non-for-profit Housing Company is entirely consistent with achieving items 8 to 10 of Council’s “Response to Housing Issues in the Maranoa” strategy which was produced in October 2011(see attached).
Council chose to adopt a strategy of partnering with an existing well established Housing Company as opposed to independent actions, for the following reasons:
1. Council did not have the specialised expertise to effectively develop its own housing company, with charity status and necessary State and Commonwealth Government subsidies for affordable and social housing.
2. Contributions from the energy sector to create housing in response to the Social Impacts of CSG mining are best facilitated as a preferred option through registered Housing Companies.
3. A relationship with a Housing Company would provide the ability to rapidly respond to the housing issues in the Maranoa.
4. HHC has a commitment to establish a permanent presence through a shop front in the Maranoa which will be branded “Maranoa Housing” and which will reinvest all project surpluses into Maranoa Housing solutions.
All of the elements of the MoU which were agreed by Council in October 2011 are agreed by HHC and which are encapsulated in the attached copy which is for endorsement.
The endorsement of this MoU is not legally binding on either party, however it does provide for both parties to identify, scope and plan projects and initiatives with confidence that we respect each others interests, and can deliver if we agree to progress them.
Consultation (internal/external):
· Immediate past Maranoa Regional Councillors
· Acting Chief Executive Michael Parker
· Direct Planning and Environment Rob Hayward
· Director Community Services MRC Anthony Klein
· Director Corporate Services Matthew McGoldrick
· Horizon Housing Company CEO Jason Cubit
· Horizon Housing Company BDO Jamie Muchall
Risk Assessment (Legal, Financial, Political etc.):
Nil
Policy Implications:
Nil
Financial Resource Implications:
Nil
Link to Corporate Plan:
Corporate Plan 2009-2013 — 8.4.1(a) To proactively identify and encourage actions which facilitate the sustainable development of the regional economy.
Supporting Documentation:
1View |
Memorandum of Understanding _ MRC and Horizon Housing Company (Draft) |
D12/20792 |
2View |
Response to Housing Issues in the Maranoa |
D12/20795 |
Report authorised by:
Memorandum of Understanding _ MRC and Horizon Housing Company (Draft) |
Memorandum of Understanding
Horizon Housing Company
And
Maranoa Regional Council
Table of contents
Parties
Background
Agreed terms
1 Definitions and interpretation
1.1 Definitions
1.2 Interpretation
2 Term
3 Effect of memorandum of understanding
4 Purpose
5 Project
5.1 Key Objectives
5.2 Project Model
6 Obligations of Horizon
6.1 Unit expenses payable by Owner
6.2 Services Provided by Horizon
6.3 Payment of Management fee
6.4 Management Fees
6.5 Inspection and Maintenance Tasks
6.6 Hourly Rate
7 Obligations of Tenancy Manager
7.1 Provision of information
7.2 Provide Management Services
7.3 Nature of Management Services
8 No liability
8.1 Mutual exclusion of liability
8.2 Mutual indemnity
9 Administration
10 Intellectual Property
10.1 Existing Intellectual Property Rights
10.2 New Intellectual Property Rights
11 Confidential information
11.1 Obligations of confidence
11.2 Exclusions
11.3 Restriction on disclosure
11.4 Injunctive relief
12 Warranties
13 Costs
14 Termination
14.1 Termination of MOU
14.2 Survival of obligations
15 Dispute resolution
15.1 Attempt to resolve dispute
15.2 If senior officers unable to resolve the dispute
16 Goods and services tax
16.1 Definitions
16.2 GST exclusive
16.3 Taxable Supply
16.4 Reimbursement or indemnity
17 No abandonment of rights
18 Relationship between parties
19 Good faith
20 Best endeavours
21 General
21.1 Amendments
21.2 Assignment
21.3 Counterparts
21.4 Further assurances
21.5 Governing law and jurisdiction
21.6 Severability
21.7 Notice
Schedule
Execution
Memorandum of Understanding _ MRC and Horizon Housing Company (Draft) |
Memorandum of understanding
Dated xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Parties
Horizon |
Horizon Housing Company Ltd ACN 061 035 050 (“Horizon”) of Level 11 Australia Fair Office Tower 42 Marine Parade Southport QLD 4215
PO Box 3680 Southport QLD 4215
|
Council |
Maranoa Regional Council. ABN: 99324089164 (“MRC”) of Roma Bungil Cultural Centre Cnr Bungil and Quintin Sts Roma Qld 4455
PO Box 42 Mitchell Qld 4465 |
Background
Horizon is a:
· community housing provider and social and affordable housing developer; and
· a registered not for profit organisation and deductible gift recipient
The Council is:
The parties have agreed to work together to provide affordable and social housing services in the Maranoa Regional Council Local Government Area.
The parties have agreed to enter into this MOU to regulate their respective rights and obligations in relation to the proposed affordable and social housing.
The parties also agree that this MoU for the provision of affordable and social housing services will be used as an opportunity for both parties to establish a relationship that without obligation, may lead to the sharing of resources and/or merger of the organisations housing services, including the management of the MRC housing portfolio.
Agreed terms
1 Definitions and interpretation
1.1 Definitions
In this document:
Term |
Definition |
Authorisation |
means: (a) an approval, authorisation, consent, declaration, exemption, notarisation, licence, quota, permit or waiver, however described, and any condition attaching to it; (b) in the context of anything that could be prohibited or restricted by law if a Government Agency acts in any way within a specified period, the expiry of that period without that action being taken, including any renewal or amendment. |
Bankruptcy Act |
means the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). |
Business Day |
means a day that is not a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday in the Maranoa. |
Council |
Means; Maranoa Regional Council |
Claim |
means any claim, action, proceeding or demand, however it arises and whether it is present or future, fixed or unascertained, actual or contingent. |
Commencement Date |
means the date of execution of this document and, if this document is executed on different dates, then the date when the last party executes this document. |
Confidential Information |
of a party means any information: relating to the business and affairs of that party; relating to the customers, clients, employees, subcontractors or other persons doing business with that party; reduced by its nature confidential; which is designated as confidential by that party, whether under the confidentiality deed or otherwise; or which the other party knows or ought to know is confidential, and includes all trade secrets, know how, financial information and other commercially valuable information of that party. |
Local Government Act |
Means; the Act of Parliament which governs Council |
Corporations Act |
means Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). |
Consequential Loss |
means indirect, economic, special or consequential loss or damage, loss of revenue, time, goodwill, data, anticipated savings, opportunity, loss of production, loss of profit. |
Eligible Tenant |
means a person from the target group for affordable housing. |
Government Agency |
means: (a) a government or government department or other body; (b) a government, semi-governmental or judicial person; or (c) a person (whether autonomous or not) who is charged with the administration of a law. |
Horizon |
means; Horizon Housing Company (for social housing) or Horizon Housing Solutions (for affordable housing) |
Insolvency Event |
means any of the following events occurring in relation to a party: (a) a liquidator, receiver, receiver and manager, administrator, official manager or other controller (as defined in the Corporations Act), trustee or controlling trustee or similar official is appointed over any of the property or undertaking of the party; (b) the party or the party's property or undertaking becomes subject to a personal insolvency arrangement under part X Bankruptcy Act or a debt agreement under part IX Bankruptcy Act; (c) the party is, or becomes unable to, pay its debts when they are due or is or becomes unable to pay its debts within the meaning of the Corporations Act, or is presumed to be insolvent under the Corporations Act; (d) the party ceases to carry on business; or (e) an application or order is made for the liquidation of the party or a resolution is passed or any steps are taken to liquidate or pass a resolution for the liquidation of the party, otherwise than for the purpose of an amalgamation or reconstruction. |
Intellectual Property Rights |
means all industrial and intellectual property rights, in Australia and throughout the world, and includes any copyright, Moral Right, patent, registered or unregistered trademark, registered or unregistered design, registered or unregistered plant readers right, trade secret, know how, right in relation to semi conductors and circuit layouts, trade or business or company name, indication or source or appellation of origin or other proprietary right or right of registration of such rights. |
Management Fee |
means the fee calculated in accordance with clause 6.7. |
Management Services |
means the management services to be provided by Horizon to Council, a summary of such services being as described in clause 7.3. |
Memorandum of Understanding or MOU |
means this document. |
Moral Rights |
means: (a) the right of integrity of authorship; (b) the right of attribution of authorship; and (c) the right not to have authorship falsely attributed, including those rights as confirmed by the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), and rights of a similar nature anywhere in the world, whether existing before, on or after the commencement of this agreement. |
Owner |
means each Owner of a Property in the Portfolio. |
Management Agreement |
means an agreement between the HHC and the Tenancy Manager which governs the provision of Management Services and the standards and benchmarks which must be met. |
Portfolio |
means the portfolio of Properties that will be managed by the Tenancy Manager for the HHC. |
Project |
means the supply of affordable or social housing management, development, or consultancy within the Maranoa Region involving the parties. |
Required by Law |
includes that which is required by court order, legislation or under a regulation or policy of any Government Agency. |
Services |
means the supply of affordable or social housing management, development, or consultancy within the Maranoa Region involving the parties. |
Term |
has the meaning provided for in clause 2. |
Unit |
means an individual dwelling in the developed Property which unit may, depending upon the nature of the Project be a detached dwelling, unit or townhouse. |
1.2 Interpretation
In this document:
(a) a singular word includes the plural and vice versa;
(b) a word which suggests one gender includes the other gender;
(c) a reference to a clause, schedule, annexure or party is a reference to a clause of, and a schedule, annexure or party to, this document and references to this document include any schedules or annexures;
(d) a reference to a party to this document or any other document or agreement includes the party’s successors, permitted substitutes and permitted assigns;
(e) if a word or phrase is defined, its other grammatical forms have a corresponding meaning;
(f) a reference to a document or agreement (including a reference to this document) is to that document or agreement as amended, supplemented, varied or replaced;
(g) a reference to this document includes the agreement recorded by this document;
(h) a reference to legislation or to a provision of legislation (including subordinate legislation) is to that legislation as amended, re-enacted or replaced, and includes any subordinate legislation issued under it;
(j) a reference to a person includes a corporation, trust, partnership, unincorporated body, government and local authority or agency, or other entity whether or not it comprises a separate legal entity; and
(k) a reference to ‘month’ means calendar month.
The term is from the Commencement Date for an initial period of 10 Years.
3 Effect of memorandum of understanding
The parties acknowledge and agree that this document is intended to create legal obligations between the parties and is legally binding upon the parties.
4 Purpose
The parties acknowledge and agree that the purpose of this document is to record the:
(a) high level arrangements agreed between the parties for the delivery of the Services; and
(b) the respective rights and obligations of the parties in relation to the Services.
5 Services
The parties acknowledge and agree that the key tenets of the MoU are;
1. Maranoa Regional Council (MRC) agrees will partner with the Horizon Housing Company (HHC) to address affordable housing issues in the Maranoa region, where it is appropriate and as invited, on a Project by Project basis.
2. HHC will provide support to Council’s Housing team to assist in obtaining enhanced housing outcomes for the Maranoa region.
3. HHC will seek funding opportunities to enhance the delivery of affordable housing in the Maranoa region including those programs not available to MRC.
4. Any surpluses generated by HHC through their operation in the Maranoa region will be reinvested into affordable housing initiatives in the Maranoa.
5. MRC in conjunction with the HHC will undertake a review of the management of social housing stock of the Rural Housing Service Centre pilot (Ending Nov 2013) and MRC property portfolio, prior to the end of the Rural Housing Service Centre pilot, with a consideration of Horizon managing those properties.
6. With regard to probity matters, MRC will consider any proposals from HHC for the best utilisation of available LNG Company committed funds to maximise community outcomes in affordable housing.
7. With regard to probity matters, MRC will consider proposals from HHC for the best use of available land to enhance community benefit in affordable housing.
8. With regard to probity matters, MRC considers proposals from HHC for the management of new housing properties acquired by MRC, and existing properties owned by MRC.
6 Obligations of Horizon
In its role, Horizon will:
(a) Work with stakeholders, including Coal Seam Gas proponents, State Government, Federal Government and funding bodies, to advance the delivery of affordable and social housing within the Maranoa;
(b) Seek opportunities for funding for the delivery or development of social or affordable housing projects;
(c) Reinvest any surpluses generated by its operations resulting from this agreement back into affordable and social housing in the Maranoa.
(d) Consult with MRC on the delivery of any affordable or social housing Services, including, but not limited to, the dwelling types, target clients, location and town planning matters, funding sources and potential opportunities.
(e) Ensure that in the delivery of any Services under this agreement, comply with all relevant legislation, government policies & directions, industry standards and codes of practice in relation to environmental protection, sustainability, workplace health and safety, and building and construction health and safely; and
(f) Implement reasonable standards & procedures for the determining and monitoring the competence of the Horizon personnel that are engaged by Horizon for the purposes of carrying out the Service, and procure that such personnel comply, at all times, with all laws, directions and regulations pertaining to the Service.
(g) Acknowledge the support of the MRC in any Projects or Services delivered as a result of this agreement in a manner that satisfies the MRC.
(h) Give priority consideration to the utilisation of local suppliers and contractors in developing projects.
7 Obligations of Council
7.1 Council Obligations
In its role, MRC will:
(a) Work with stakeholders, including Coal Seam Gas proponents, State Government, Federal Government and funding bodies, to advance the delivery of affordable and social housing within the Maranoa;
(b) Consult with Horizon on opportunities available for the delivery of Social & Affordable housing within the Maranoa Region;
(c) Support, with due regard to Probity and to any regulatory or legislative requirements, the delivery of the Services by Horizon;
(d) Acknowledge the works and support of Horizon in any Project or Services delivered as a result of this agreement in a manner that satisfies Horizon; and
(e) Provide, with due regard to Probity and any regulatory or legislative requirements, non-confidential information that may assist Horizon in more effectively delivering Projects or Services as a result of this agreement.
8.1 Mutual exclusion of liability
(a) Neither party will be liable to the other or to any other person for any Consequential Loss.
(b) As far as the law permits and unless otherwise specified in this document, neither party is liable to the other (whether such liability arises in contract or tort under statute or otherwise from any cause whatsoever) for any injury, loss damage, cost or expense relating to or arising from this document, except to the extent that the injury, loss, damage, cost or expense arises from the wilful default or negligent act or omission of the other party.
8.2 Mutual indemnity
(a) Horizon indemnifies and must keep indemnified the Council and its employees, agents and contractors (indemnitees) from and against all claims, demands, writs, summonses, suits, proceedings, judgements, orders, decrees, costs, losses and expenses of any nature whatsoever (including Consequential Loss) which the indemnitees may suffer or incur in connection with loss of life, personal injury, illness or damage to property or nuisance to any third party (including any indemnitee):
(i) arising directly or indirectly from or in connection with the performance of this MOU; or
(ii) caused or contributed to by any wilful act or negligent act or omission of Horizon or any of Horizon’s employees, agents and contractors.
(b) The Council indemnifies and must keep indemnified Horizon and its employees, agents and contractors (indemnitees) from and against all claims, demands, writs, summonses, suits, proceedings, judgements, orders, decrees, costs, losses and expenses of any nature whatsoever (including Consequential Loss) which the indemnitees may suffer or incur in connection with loss of life, personal injury, illness or damage to property or nuisance to any third party (including any indemnitee):
(i) arising directly or indirectly from or in connection with the performance of this MOU; or
(ii) caused or contributed to by any wilful act or negligent act or omission of the Council or any of the Council’s employees, agents and contractors.
9 Administration
(a) The status of any documents exchanged between the parties must be clearly marked to indicate draft, final document or for approval.
(b) When information relating to an issue is requested, a response either sending the information, advising of a date that the information would be available by or advising of its unavailability must be provided as soon as reasonably possible. This will apply to requests for technical or commercial data, comments on draft documents and records of meetings.
10.1 Existing Intellectual Property Rights
Nothing in this MOU affects any Intellectual Property Rights of a Party that were in existence prior to the execution of this MOU.
10.2 New Intellectual Property Rights
Title to any new Intellectual Property Rights that come into existence as a consequence of the Parties co-operating to undertake a Project will, unless otherwise agreed in writing will vest equally in both parties immediately upon its creation.
11.1 Obligations of confidence
Each party agrees to keep confidential, and not to use or disclose, other than as permitted by this agreement or the Confidentiality Agreement, any Confidential Information of the other party provided to or obtained by that party prior to or after entry into this MOU.
11.2 Exclusions
The obligations of confidence in clause 12.1 do not apply to Confidential Information:
(a) that is required to be disclosed by applicable law, or under compulsion of law by a court or Government Agency or by the rules of any relevant stock exchange or regulator, or to a Government Agency for the purpose of evaluating the Proposal, as long as the disclosing party:
(i) discloses the minimum amount of Confidential Information required to satisfy the law or rules; and
(ii) before disclosing any information, gives a reasonable amount of notice to the other party and takes all reasonable steps (whether required by the other party or not) to maintain such Confidential Information in confidence;
(b) that is in the public domain otherwise than as a result of a breach of this MOU or other obligation of confidence; or
(c) that is already known by, or rightfully received, or independently developed, by the recipient of that Confidential Information free of any obligation of confidence.
11.3 Restriction on disclosure
(a) Each party may use and disclose Confidential Information of the other party only:
(i) with the prior written consent of the other party; or
(ii) to that party’s directors, agents, professional advisors, employees, contractors and permitted sub-contractors solely for the exercise of rights or the performance of obligations under this MOU.
(b) If either party discloses Confidential Information under clause 12.3(a), that party must ensure that such information is kept confidential by the person to whom it is disclosed and is only used for the purposes of performing the Services under this MOU.
11.4 Injunctive relief
Each party acknowledges that:
(a) the other party may suffer financial and other loss and damage if any unauthorised act occurs in relation to Confidential Information of the other party, and that monetary damages would be an insufficient remedy; and
(b) in addition to any other remedy available at law or in equity, the other party is entitled to injunctive relief to prevent a breach of, and to compel specific performance of this clause 12.
12 Warranties
Each party warrants that it has full corporate power and authority to enter into this MOU and to undertake the activities contemplated by this MOU.
(a) Each party will bear its own costs in relation to:
(i) the negotiation, preparation, and execution of this MOU;
(ii) attendance at any meetings; and
(iii) otherwise performing its obligations under this MOU.
14.1 Termination of MOU
This MOU may be terminated by a party giving notice in writing to the other party upon:
(a) a party suffering an Insolvency Event;
(b) the parties being unable to agree a Performance Agreement within a reasonable period of time;
(c) the development of the Property not being completed in accordance with the Project Program;
(d) the parties agreeing that they are no longer able to work together to achieve the key objectives described in clause 5.1.
14.2 Survival of obligations
The obligations in clauses 11, 12, 14, and 16 and survive the termination of this MOU.
15.1 Attempt to resolve dispute
If a dispute arises between the parties in connection with this MOU, the parties undertake to use all reasonable endeavours to settle the dispute. In particular, the parties agree that upon a party requesting in writing that the dispute be elevated to a more senior officer in each organisation, the dispute shall be elevated by each party to their CEO or person holding a similar role in their organisation. Such persons shall then meet together in good faith to attempt to resolve the dispute.
15.2 If senior officers unable to resolve the dispute
If the Parties are unable to resolve the dispute in accordance with clause 16.1, then the Parties may agree that the dispute be submitted to mediation in accordance with, and subject to, The Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia Mediation and Conciliation Rules.
16 Goods and services tax
16.1 Definitions
In this MOU:
Term |
Definition |
GST |
has the meaning given to that term in the GST Act. |
GST Act |
means A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (Cth). |
Input Tax Credit |
has the meaning given to that term in the GST Act. |
Joint Venture Operator |
has the meaning given to that term in the GST Act. |
Recipient |
has the meaning given to that term in the GST Act. |
Representative Member |
has the meaning given to that term in the GST Act. |
Supplier |
means the entity making the Supply. |
Supply |
has the meaning given to that term in the GST Act. |
Tax Invoice |
has the meaning given to that term in the GST Act. |
Taxable Supply |
has the meaning given to that term in the GST Act. |
16.2 GST exclusive
Except under this clause, the consideration for a Supply made under or in connection with this document does not include GST.
If a Supply made under or in connection with this document is a Taxable Supply, then at or before the time the consideration for the Supply is payable:
(a) the Recipient must pay the Supplier an amount equal to the GST for the Supply (in addition to the consideration otherwise payable under this document for that Supply); and
(b) the Supplier must give the Recipient a Tax Invoice for the Supply.
16.4 Reimbursement or indemnity
If either party has the right under this document to be reimbursed or indemnified by another party for a cost incurred in connection with this document, that reimbursement or indemnity excludes any GST component of that cost for which an Input Tax Credit may be claimed by the party being reimbursed or indemnified, or by its Representative Member, Joint Venture Operator or other similar person entitled to the Input Tax Credit (if any).
17 No abandonment of rights
Each party recognises and agrees that the other party:
(a) has certain rights, duties and obligations at law; and
(b) that nothing in this document does in any way amount to a waiver or abrogation of such rights.
18 Relationship between parties
The provisions of this document will not give rise to any joint venture, consortium, partnership or agency between the parties. Each party will remain an independent contractor and will be exclusively responsible for its employees, agents, consultants and subcontractors.
19 Good faith
The parties will consult and negotiate with each other in good faith with the aim of achieving the purposes of this document.
20 Best endeavours
The parties will use their best endeavours to work together to effect the intent of this document.
21 General
21.1 Amendments
This document may only be amended by written agreement between the parties.
21.2 Assignment
Horizon may choose to develop affordable housing through Horizon Housing Solutions, and as such would assign its responsibilities for the delivery of those projects to Horizon Housing Solutions. Any other assignment requires the written approval of both parties.
21.3 Counterparts
This document may be executed in any number of counterparts. All counterparts together make one instrument.
21.4 Further assurances
(a) Each party must do all things reasonably necessary to give effect to this document and the transactions contemplated by it.
(b) Each party must exercise the votes it controls, or its Associates control, at general meetings of the Company or meetings of directors of the Company to ensure the Company complies with the terms of this document.
21.5 Governing law and jurisdiction
(a) Queensland law governs this document.
(b) Each party irrevocably submits to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the Queensland courts and courts competent to hear appeals from those courts.
21.6 Severability
A clause or part of a clause of this document that is illegal or unenforceable may be severed from this document and the remaining clauses or parts of the clause of this document continue in force.
21.7 Notice
(a) A notice, consent or communication under this document is only effective if it is:
(i) in writing, signed by or on behalf of the person giving it;
(ii) addressed to the person to whom it is to be given; and
(iii) given as follows:
(A) delivered by hand to that person’s address;
(B) sent by prepaid mail (and by prepaid airmail if the person is overseas) to that person’s address; or
(C) sent by fax to that person’s fax number where the sender receives a transmission confirmation report from the despatching machine indicating the transmission has been made without error and showing the relevant number of pages and the correct destination fax number or name of recipient.
(b) A notice, consent or communication delivered under clause 22.7(a) is given and received:
(i) if it is hand delivered or sent by fax:
(A) by 5.00pm (local time in the place of receipt) on a Business Day – on that day; or
(B) after 5.00pm (local time in the place of receipt) on a Business Day, or at any time on a day that is not a Business Day – on the next Business Day; and
(ii) if it is sent by post:
(A) within Australia – three Business Days after posting; or
(B) to or from a place outside Australia – seven Business Days after posting.
(c) A person’s address and fax number are those set out below, or as the person notifies the sender:
(i) Maranoa Regional Council:
(A) Edward T. Sims, Manager Organisational Development PO Box 42 Mitchell Qld 4465 P: 07 4626 6118 M: 0447 733 109 F: 07 4624 6990
(ii) Horizon Housing Company:
(A) Jason Cubit, CEO PO Box 3680 Australia Fair, Qld 4215 P: 07 5668 9400 M: 0411 510 016 F: 07 5571 0732
Execution
EXECUTED as an agreement
Signed by |
|
|
|||
Horizon Housing Company Ltd ACN 061 035 050 by its duly authorised officer in the presence of: |
|
|
|||
|
|
Ù |
Signature of Authorised Officer |
||
|
|
Jason Cubit
|
|||
Ù |
Signature of witness |
|
Ù |
Full Name of Authorised Officer Chief Executive Officer/ Company Secretary |
|
Ù |
Name of witness (print) |
|
Ù |
Office Held |
|
Signed by |
|
|
|||
Maranoa Regional Council Ltd ABN: 99324089164 by its duly authorised officer in the presence of: |
|
|
|||
|
|
Ù |
Signature of Authorised Officer |
||
|
|
|
|||
Ù |
Signature of witness |
|
Ù |
Full Name of Authorised Officer |
|
Ù |
Name of witness (print) |
|
Ù |
Office Held |
|
Response to Housing Issues in the Maranoa |
MARANOA REGIONAL COUNCIL
RESPONSE TO HOUSING ISSUES IN THE MARANOA
23 October 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The growth in the need to accommodate the workforce associated with the CSG Industry in the Maranoa, has driven the demand for housing stock beyond supply. A consequence of this is that the cost of rental accommodation has been inflated significantly. This is being felt in Roma, and to a lesser extent in other regional communities in the Maranoa where real estate stock is also in short supply.
Rents in Roma and Injune start at around $350 per week and are commonly around $600 per week for a three bedroom house. This is pushing the costs of accommodations out of reach to single income households and lower income earners.
This together with an expected population growth of around 5000 to 7000 people in the next 20 years supports the need to act quickly to stabilise the rental market and to also ensure that sufficient housing is available to accommodate the growing population.
Issues currently affecting the community include:
· Limited growth in housing stock
· Low availability of rental accommodation
· Limited/no accommodation for key workers
· Increasing housing costs
· Limited/no vacancies in hotels/motels
· Infrastructure constraints water/sewerage
Some of the affects of these issues include:
· It is difficult to attract/retain staff (especially for Council and services sector)
· Small businesses are losing staff
· Skills migration as young people leave the area because they cannot afford to live here
· The lost opportunities for business development and
· The tourism impacts
Council is of the view that, if some form of market intervention is not delivered soon, then costs of housing may make living and working in the Maranoa and particularly Roma, unaffordable especially for those in the services sector.
To manage any potential impacts on the existing real estate market of Roma, the Council has adopted a strategy of complimentary initiatives. This includes:
· encouraging the development of existing zoned land,
· supporting some growth onto adjoining lands
· encouraging projects that will deliver housing to low income target groups and
· support growth in the regional towns.
This paper outlines a mix of responses from Council, with some short term impacts achievable through:
· Utilisation of land at Roma Airport for medium term rental accommodation.
· Acquisition of additional land for longer term release of land.
· Working with energy industry, housing companies and not for profit groups for innovative/niche market initiatives.
These approaches need also to include responses to the needs of Council’s own workforce in terms of both retention and attraction.
STRATEGIES
1. Release council owned land for long term development.
Council owns several small parcels of land in and around Roma, and while they are too few to make a significant impact on the housing market, some lots are suitable for multi-unit development, and can be actioned immediately.
2. Provision of Council land for short/medium term development.
Potential land of a suitable size that Council could develop for short/medium term housing includes, the block on the south eastern corner of the airport precinct. The Council asked for expressions of interest to develop this land which attracted the interest of several qualified parties.
Having regard to the current upgrade of the airport (new terminal, increased flights, and larger aircraft) and the housing challenges, the potential of the precinct has been further reviewed and an updated master plan is being finalised. This better defines the scope of the land and Council officers have further considered the necessary development principles. They include:
· Scope for 300-600 accommodation units to service the region for up to 15 years.
· Defined price regulated accommodation (a minimum of 300 Units) for town dwellers e.g. Council, businesses, opportunities that can be managed by a developer with an appropriate level of amenity.
· Some unregulated accommodation to support overall viability of the concept
· Quality of design to include landscaping, buildings and infrastructure that can complement the functional part of the airport.
· Viability achieved through:
o Low lease return to council
o Provision of long term on-site infrastructure from developer that supports other long term uses
o Controlled rental levels for the defined accommodations
o Managed approach to utilities with staged construction to limit overheads.
To ensure an open market approach it is envisaged that the following milestones are achievable:
· Request for submissions of interest from developers be sought during November 2011
· Requests for Tenders during Dec/Jan and close off 1 Feb2012
· Decision by Council about preferred tenderer in February 2012
· Contract negotiations and sign off in March 2012
· Sod turning sometime in period April – June 2012
3. Provision Of Additional Developable Land That Could Be Marketed By Council
The current real estate market is not performing well with up to 300 potential accommodation units held by ULDA (only commenced stage 1&2 to date) and Private developers are releasing land at a slow rate. As such there is potential for Council to enter the market to deliver more developable land.
Council is negotiating with interested parties who own significant holdings of land within Roma, to sell land to Council and which could be developed to provide additional housing lots.
4. Support ULDA development
The Roma Urban Development Area (UDA) was declared on 30 July 2010. It is located on 20 hectares at Bowen Street. The project has the potential to provide up to 300 houses some of which will be made available by ballot, as affordable accommodation to individuals and family whose combined income is less than $105,000 per annum.
Some of this land has been released to the open market during January 2012.
5. Release of additional land in regional towns
While a major focus has been on Roma and in particular its lack of rental stock, there are opportunities to encourage growth in a number of the regional towns. This would be influenced by the views of the individual communities and by managing infrastructure costs.
Through informal dialogue at the community level in recent months the following opportunities are raised:
Injune:
While much of the town is surrounded by reserves and with Native Title issues there is scope for:
· Development of rural residential land zoned by the previous Bungil Shire Council. This has been constrained to date by Infrastructure investment expectations. Some of these may be assisted by energy industry investment in the area.
· Implementation of small scale subdivisions near the above land subject to negotiations on Native Title.
· Review of Racing Track with possible relocation to rural area and negotiations to change current reserve status.
There is water and sewerage infrastructure in the town that would need augmentation/ extension.
Wallumbilla/Yuleba:
There is recognition of benefits of growth in each community although less clarity on the direction and scale. As there is no sewer provision in the town this is a significant cost unless a lower density solution was acceptable.
Surat
Some interest in growth although located further from the current active energy (LNG) industry. There is currently reticulated water and sewerage provision. No specific direction/principles have been endorsed.
6. Positioning of work camps
There are varying views on the positioning of work camps and fly in fly out workforce. Within the Maranoa most of the operational staff of Santos and Origin is in work camps while the contractors that service multiple sites are generally in the towns and particularly effect rental accommodation/motels.
There is merit in council developing a position on work camps that if accepted in part on the edge of towns or in towns can:
· Encourage the lifting of pressure on town rentals
· Facilitate infrastructure investment that would provide longer term benefit
· Increase spending within Roma and regional towns
Some of the limiting factors are:
· Appearance of accommodations
· Community concerns over social impact of transient workforce
· More limited control availability to energy companies over their workforce.
An approach to Work Camp location within a town precinct is occurring by default at the Injune Caravan Park and as part of the GLNG Pipeline development being undertaken by FK Gardner and Saipem.
With the rate of growth there is considered merit in adopting and communicating a clearer position to both the industry and wider community.
Some of the guiding principles could be:
· Size: Limiting the total size of individual camps to 300 units
· Location: On the edge of towns where longer term infrastructure can benefit the area
· Architecture/ Landscaping: Seek longer term facilities that justify higher standard of construction and treatments such as finishes and landscaping.
7. Social/Community Housing
The Council is involved in and has the potential to increase its role and that of other organisations in the provision of social/community housing. Pressures on
other sectors have added to the pool of people seeking these types of outcomes in the region.
The Council holds the primary stake in the management of social housing across the Maranoa region. The State Government (through the Department of Communities) also owns housing infrastructure which is currently being transferred to the MRC under a two year pilot project known as Rural Housing Service Centre. MRC currently manages a housing portfolio of 250 dwellings, consisting of the following:
· 33 Council houses (owned by Council and rented to Council employees with only 2 in Roma)
· 52 community housing properties (funded through Dept of Communities, leased back to MRC, targeted at social housing tenants)
· 13 properties dedicated to social housing/crisis housing
· 152 State owned houses under pilot project with MRC for two years
It offers independent living in a safe, secure and affordable environment to the aged, low income, youth and single parent families.
Due to eligibility criteria it is only to support certain groups who must:
· Meet residency requirements
· Do not own or part-own property
· Have liquid assets under the current limit
· Meet independent income requirements
· Meet household income requirements
· Demonstrate that your current housing does not meet your housing needs
MRC’s primary role is that of property and tenancy management which produces income of under $1M per annum.
8. Role for Housing Companies
In recent years a new entity known as “Housing Companies” have been established and are able to meet needs not well serviced by other sectors. As part of the research on homing issues in the Maranoa Region contact has been made with the Horizon Housing Company (HHC) and they indicated an interest in work in the region. The following provides a summary of their current roles:
· HHC, formerly known as Gold Coast Housing Company Ltd, provides high quality sustainable housing solutions, ranging from subsidised rental accommodation to home ownership.
· The housing encourages long term tenure by being affordable, well located, energy efficient, and designed to be adaptable to the changing needs of clients. Their products aim to ensure clients are not placed in housing stress, which is, not paying more than 30% of their income in repayments or rent.
· HHC is a not for profit charity formed for the specific purpose of alleviating housing stress among home owners and tenants on or below average income levels. HHC is a registered Australian Company limited by shares, and has fourteen not for profit and industry shareholders who elect nine voluntary Directors.
· HHC utilises and develops a range of funding, rebate and finance models (that may not be available to local government) to aid the delivery of its housing options, including; debt finance, National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) funding, Housing Affordability Fund (HAF), Nation Building Economic Stimulus Funds, State Government social housing funding, local government infrastructure and rates rebates, and tax deductable donations and tax exceptions.
· The products they are currently delivering include;
o Affordable market home ownership
o NRAS investment homes
o Discounted market home ownership through HAF
o Discounted market rental through NRAS
o Long term housing for people with disabilities
o Long term social rental housing
o Medium term transitional social housing
o Medium term singles accommodation
o Housing for key workers
· These products are delivered through a range of mechanisms including design and construction, head leasing, property management and sales.
It is considered that the ability of HHC to manage social housing programs as well as designing and constructing new housing would provide significant advantages to the Maranoa community. They would benefit from the provision of immediate projects in order to establish themselves in the Maranoa.
9. Not for Profit (NFP) Sector
Opportunities exist for NFP’s to be part of the Maranoa housing solutions. Companies like St Vincent de Paul are well equipped to provide housing and transitional housing. In partnership with the community, government and other agencies, they provide a range of services to young people, single people, people with addiction, families, single parents and the needs of people who are homeless or are in housing crisis.
Such need is met in a variety of ways including emergency and short-term accommodation for those who need immediate accommodation, medium term accommodation for people seeking to rebuild their lives within the community, and long term accommodation for people whose social and financial circumstances make it near impossible for them to find the accommodation they need.
Most of the Society's housing projects are managed at a local level through trained management committees who are supported in their work by a professional housing officer. Client participation in designing and running a housing project is an important aspect of their Housing Services program.
St Vincent de Paul has $1M of funding allocated for Roma and is currently in negotiation with Council Officers and Santos on the development of a key worker complex.
10. Funding from Energy Sector
Through the social impact approvals managed by Queensland Coordinator General, Companies such as Santos and Origin are required to report on their anticipated impacts and measures they will take to minimise the effects.
Santos has received an approval from the Coordinator General and while there are views that impacts have been underestimated due to a focus on direct employees there is a requirement to provide some $4M to Council for programs aimed at addressing housing issues. Origin is currently undertaking the process and some contribution is anticipated.
It is considered that Council should take a lead in the allocation of this funding to initiatives raised in the paper, in particular:
· Establishment of accommodation village at the Roma airport.
· Support for Housing Company proposals that can roll-over funding from completed projects.
· Support towards NFP proposals such as apprentice housing.
· Seeking early extension of infrastructure for housing land with scope for some recovery at time of sale
For more information about the contents of this document contact:
Ed Sims - Manager Organisational Performance
Maranoa Regional Council on 1300 007 662