Legislative Assembly for the Australian Capital Territory
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
*Estimates - QON No. E19 - 201 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2019-2020 Ms Candice Burch MLA (Chair), Ms Bee Cody MLA (Deputy Chair), Mrs Giulia Jones MLA, Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Mr Michael Pettersson MLA ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE MR ALISTAIR COE MLA: To ask the Chief Minister Ref: Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, Budget Statement E, pages 51-73, City Renewal Authority In relation to: City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy- surveys 1. What feedback has been received regarding the City Renewal Authority's administration or use of the City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy? 2. Have any surveys been conducted of individuals who contribute to the City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy since the levy was transferred to the City Renewal Authority? a. If not, why not? b. If so, when were they conducted and what were the results? 3. How has the feedback been incorporated into the expenditure of the City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy during (i) 2018-19, and (ii) 2019-20 and each year across the forward estimates? 4. What opportunities will businesses have to provide feedback on the City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy in 2019-20? 5. Will a review into the effectiveness of the City Centre Marketing and Improvement Levy and the City Renewal Authority's administration be conducted in the future? a. If so, {i) when, (ii) what will this report entail, and (iii) who will complete it? b. If not, why not? ANDREW BARR MLA: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:- 1. In February and March 2019 levy payers were invited to give feedback on the CCMIL program. Of the respondents the vast majority expressed either strong support or were neutral towards the CCMIL programs and projects, including the Performance and Acco u nta bi Iity Framework. 2. A survey was sent to all levy payers through the ACT Revenue Office in February 2019. The results showed that among respondents there was mid-level awareness of what projects and activities levy funds contributed to across the precinct. There was a high level of support for programs such as the City Grants and for cleaning and maintenance. Respondent support for communications and engagement was generally neutral, and there was high support for capital improvement works. The survey will be conducted annually to monitor stakeholder satisfaction with the levy and related initiatives over time. 3. Consultation with levy payers is a critical component of the priority setting process and feedback from levy payers directly influences funding priorities for CCMIL expenditure. i. The survey responses did not affect expenditure in 2018-19 as the Performance and Accountability Framework was not in place until August 2018 and the survey and workshop were not undertaken until early 2019. ii. Feedback from levy payers was used to inform priorities for the 2019-20 financial year as outlined in the Performance and Accountability Framework. From the survey and planning workshop, the top three ranked projects overall were: capital works, the Vibrant Streets project, and cleaning, maintenance and place management. 4. In setting work plan priorities for 2019-20, input from levy payers has been sought in the following ways: a. An online survey and drop-in session were used to consult with levy payers about their experiences of levy-funded programs and opinions on future priority actions. b. Survey results were used to support discussion at a workshop held in March 2019. c. Survey results and workshop results were used to inform 2019-20 Business Plan. 5. A performance and accountability framework was developed when administration of the levy transferred to the Authority in January 2018. The City Renewal Authority will each year engage an independent external auditor to evaluate the authority's management of the program against, and in compliance with, the Performance and Accountability Framework and to report back to levy payers on this performance. An annual report is produced from the process of auditing performance. A summary document that outlines expenditure for the 2018/19 financial year as well as the funding priorities for the 2019/20 financial year is currently being developed and is scheduled to be distributed to levy payers in early August 2019. https://www.act.gov .au/ data/a ssets/pdf fil e/0009 /1289745/Perform a nee-and Acco unta bility-Fra mewo rk-Summary-fin al-versionl. pdf Approved for circulation to the Select Committee on Estimates 2019-2020 Signature:~~ Date: 3 .,. l't By the Chief Minister, Andrew Barr MLA Page 2 of 2 *Estimates - QON No. E19 - 202 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2019-2020 Ms Candice Burch MLA (Chair), Ms Bee Cody MLA (Deputy Chair), Mrs Giulia Jones MLA, Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Mr Michael Pettersson MLA ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE Mr Alistair Coe MLA: To ask the Chief Minister Ref: Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, Budget Statement E, pages 51-73, City Renewal Authority In relation to: consultants and contractors 1. Provide a breakdown of what (i) consultants and (ii) contractors have been engaged by the City Renewal Authority during 2018-19, and advise: a. Period of contract; b. Nature of services; c. Project or initiative consultant or contractor worked on; d. Name of the consultant or contractor; e. Value of the contract; f. Method of procurement. 2. How much is expected to be spent on (i) consultants and (ii) contractors in 2019-20? a. What (i) consultants and (ii) contractors are expected to be engaged during 2019- 20? ANDREW BARR MLA: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:- 1. This information will be published in the annual report to be tabled in October 2019. 2. The Authority has $0.856m allocated in 2019-20 for contractors and consultants. These anticipated expenditure items are grouped in the budget. a. The Authority has not determined at this time the specific contractors or consultants that will be engaged in 2019-20. Approved for circulation to the Select Committee on Estimates 2019-2020 Signature: ~L Date: '!,, 7, t 4 By the Chief Minister, Andrew Barr MLA *Estimates - QON No. E19 - 203 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY FOR TIIE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY SELECT COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES 2019-2020 Ms Candice Burch MLA (Chair), Ms Bee Cody MLA (Deputy Chair), Mrs Giulia Jones MLA, Ms Caroline Le Couteur MLA, Mr Michael Pettersson MLA ANSWER TO QUESTION ON NOTICE MR ALISTAIR COE MLA: To ask the Chief Minister Ref: Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, Budget Statement E, pages 51-73, City Renewal Authority In relation to: financial statements 1. What is included under Cost of Goods Sold? a. Why is there a spike in revenue for 2019-20 to 2021-22 and then a reduction to nil? 2. Why has there been such a significant shift the Depreciation and Amortisation costs? 3. Why was there a difference of more than $11 million between the 2018-19 Budget for Inventories and the estimated outcome of $465,000? a. Why is Inventories only budgeted at $2.4 million for 2019-20? b. What does Inventories increase to $9.1 million in 2020-21 and then remain around $4.5 million across the remainder of the forward estimates? 4. Why was more than $2.5 million spent on Supplies and Services than budgeted for 2018- 19? a. Why has the budget for this been reduced in 2019-20? b. What implications does this have on delivery of projects? c. What proportion of Supplied and Services was spent on consultants and other contractor costs? i. Provide a breakdown of the types of services and cost. ANDREW BARR MLA: The answer to the Member's question is as follows:- 1. Cost of goods sold is comprised of development costs and land payment costs to the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate. la. Revenue increases in 2019-20, and 2021-22 in line with land revenue through the release of land per the Indicative Land Release Program (ILRP). 2. The original budget was based on estimated project completion dates. The estimated outcome was based on revised project completion dates. The majority of the deferred depreciation expense relates to the West Basin area. 3. The difference relates to a reclassification of current inventories to non- current inventories. The reclassification aligns the estimated outcome for the Authority's inventory assets per the ILRP. a. The current inventory cost relates to City Hill - Section 63 and represents development costs incurred in preparation for the release of this land. In addition, the Authority holds non-current inventory. b. The increase in inventories in 2020-21 also relates to primarily to estate development works budgeted for City Hill - Section 63. Inventory balances will reduce in the subsequent year as costs attributed to development are transferred from inventory to cost of goods sold when sold. The retained $4.Sm across the forward estimates relates primarily to development costs for the final release of City Hill - section 63. This is due for release outside the forward estimate. As a result, this inventory balance will transfer from inventory to cost of goods sold when sold. 4. The increase in supplies and services is predominantly related to; - CCMIL levies received in 2017-18 expended in 2018-19 ($1.2m) - Additional expenditure related to s168 roll-overs, technical adjustments and s.14A transfer ($1.lm) - Reallocation of $0.7m from Cost of Goods sold to supplies and services. a. The reduction is primarily related to the uplift in the estimated outcome for 2018- 19 with Supplies and Services returning closer to a baseline amount in 2019-20.