GLADSTONE REGIONAL COUNCIL'S LGIP – CREATING THE REGION OF CHOICE

Emma Hamilton Chris Adam [email protected] [email protected] Senior Development Director, Strategic AM Pty Ltd Engineer,Technical Services Qld Gladstone Regional Council

Abstract

Gladstone Regional Council embraces its responsibility to preserve and enhance the built environment for the benefit of the current generation and without disadvantaging the next. In achieving this, Council recognised how the States Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) could be a catalyst for sustainably managing its plans for growth, community levels of service and financial prudence. This paper outlines how Council has developed an LGIP that delivers growth in a structured and sustainable way.

As one of the first to develop an LGIP, Council's process for producing a sustainable document included: • Rigorous assessment of growth potential on sites which were both “development ready” and minimised the need for trunk infrastructure; • Comprehensive (and independent) review of Council 's plans for major trunk infrastructure, which ensured that assumptions used in infrastructure planning across Council was consistent; and • Recognising that trunk infrastructure is a key driver of Council 's capital and operational expenditures, an efficient growth path pays dividends to Council by balancing cost and revenue.

This paper will demonstrate how an iterative process for balancing growth, infrastructure and financial capability can have significant benefits to Councils in delivering sustainable growth, minimise rates increases and maintain levels of service to ratepayers.

Take home messages:

• Gladstone Regional Councilsapproachto the development of an LGIP has delivered tangible benefits for the region;

• A rigorousand cooperative approach to balancing growth, infrastructure and financial capability has delivered a sustainable vision for Council; and

• Gladstone Regional Council is committed to utilising legislative requirements such as the LGIP (and Long Term Asset Management Plan (LTAMP), Long Term Financial Forecast (LTFF)) in a way that provides tangible benefitsto the region (beyond just a statutory compliance exercise).

Introduction In this regard, the LGIP is similar to the previous “Priority Infrastructure Plan” (PIP) in Recognised as the “industrial powerhouse” of terms of its content but has a more , the offers streamlined process for approval. much more as a dynamic and vibrant community. The Gladstone Regional Council The scopeand structure of the LGIP is encompasses the cities of Gladstone, outlined in statutory guideline 03/14 which Calliope and pristine areas of , requires that the LGIP “… is financially Agnes Waters and 1770. The region covers sustainable (capable of being funded by the an area of 10,500 square kilometres and local government) and aligns with the local currently accommodates more than 60,000 government’s Long TermFinancial Forecast people. With population growth anticipated to (LTFF) and Asset Management Plans exceed 40% over the next twenty (20) years, (AMPs) 1”. Council is focussed on creating the Region of Choice. Gladstone’s Objectives

Gladstonefaces many similar challenges to Gladstone Regional Council was the first in those of other “high growth” Regional Queensland to develop an LGIP. In doing so, Councils. In particular, this includes the need Council was seeking to get more from the forCouncilto effectively manage the pressure process than just compliance with regulatory that growth can place on Council'sassets requirements. The Councils primary objective (and associated levels of service) servicing was to use the LGIP as a vehicle to deliver geographically distant areas and financial value for the people of Gladstone. In sustainability.As demonstrated below, particular, Council identified that the process Council recognised how the states Local could assist Council in the following ways: GovernmentInfrastructure Plan (LGIP) could be used as a catalyst for sustainably • Develop a pragmatic growth profile that managing the region’s growth, community minimised the cost to the community; levels of service and financial capacity. • Provide a catalyst for review and Council is in the advanced stages of alignment of Councils plans for trunk developing a consolidated Planning Scheme infrastructure across key asset classes for the entire region. The new Planning (especially water supply, sewerage and Scheme defines the Council's Vision in terms roads); and of form and function (land use) and will use the LGIP to define a sustainable sequence of • Facilitated a balance between growth, development within a robust “Priority infrastructure needs and Councils Infrastructure Area”. financial capability.

What is a Local These three objectives drove Council's GovernmentInfrastructure Plan process and ensured that the LGIP was more (LGIP)? than just an artefact of statutory compliance.

The LGIP is that component of thePlanning Overview of the Process; Scheme that outlines the scope ofCouncil's growth aspirations, the pathway for The above objectives identified the scope of accommodating thatgrowth across the region what Council wanted to achieve but it was the and the trunk infrastructure necessary to process for achieving those outcomes that support such growth. While the Planning delivered the benefit to Council. In particular, Scheme outlines Council's long term “Vision”, it was Council'sdecision to developthe project the LGIP provides a practical “road map” of how Council sees this Vision being delivered 1 DSDIP, “ Statutory guideline 03/14 – Local “on the ground” (e.g. sequencing of growth Government Infrastructure Plans”, Clause 1.2, and timing of trunk infrastructure to June 2014 accommodate that growth).

as a cooperative process between the key services and roads) are key cost drivers, stakeholder departmentsfunctions of Council Councilresolved to undertake a review of that was key. these elements.

The first goal was to ensure that the As is the case with many Council's, while the projected growth was adequately identified infrastructureplanning may have been done, and then undertake a rigorous assessment of key assumptions that underpin such planning the growth potential to identify those sites may not reflect current Councilboundaries which were both “development ready” and (post amalgamation), demand, financial minimised the need for trunk infrastructure. capacities and/or community expectations. To address this issue, Council engaged the As mentioned above, Council is in the services of MWH Global to undertake a advanced stages of developing a single comprehensive review of its trunk water Planning Scheme for the (amalgamated) services network (including potable water region. This PlanningScheme will replace the supply and sewerage services) as well as three (3) existing schemes (from the pre- undertake an assessment of the trunk roads amalgamationCouncils) As such, the new network. The objective of these assessments Planning Scheme will provide a unified Vision was to ensure that Councils key trunk for the region in terms of land use (form and infrastructure planning was aligned with the function). In effect, the Planning Scheme new Planning Scheme. identifies the “target” for the rest of Council to deliver (i.e. a vision for Gladstone in 20 years’ The LGIP was used in this context to test and time). This was an essential strategic input confirm (or adjust) key assumptions both in into the process. the broader Planning Scheme as well as with the infrastructure planning. This was One of the key elements of the LGIP was the undertaken as an iterative process of review detailed projections of population, dwellings to identify a preferred path for growth which and non-residential land uses across the minimised the cost to the community over the region. These projections (reflectingthe most long term. recent population data from the Queensland Government Statistician’s Office (QGSO)) The LGIP itself includes several elements provided a detailed estimate of not just how that can have a significant impact on the much growth may occur in the region but timing, scope (desired standards of service), where such growth would most likely be and therefore overall cost of trunk located. By combining these projections with infrastructure delivery across the region. its intimate knowledge of the local development market, Council was well placed To achieve this alignment between to identify those sites which werewithin the strategicplanning, infrastructure planning, and overall developable area, well placed (i.e. financial capability,a series of comprehensive close to existing services) and 'development workshops were undertaken which involved ready'. The identification of such sites was participation from key departments across used to develop a robust Council. The role of these workshops was to 'PriorityInfrastructure Area' (PIA) which understand the broader objectives and reflected the region’s growth potential while implications of the draft Regional Planning also minimising the need for trunk Scheme and explore implications and options infrastructure. for infrastructure planning (Water, Sewer and Roads) in a manner that delivered the Vision However, Council also recognised that its at reasonable cost. Issues were raised and current infrastructureplanning (which tended discussed at length to ensurethatkey aspects to reflect old Council boundaries and drivers) of the PlanningSchemeand Infrastructure may not be aligned with the broader Vision Planning were understood and aligned in the embedded in the draft Regional LGIP. PlanningScheme. As the cost of providing trunk infrastructure (particularly the “heavy Separatemeetings were held on specific engineering” asset classes such as water issues. This included discussion on the

alignment of the infrastructure program through to Council's operational cost base, withCouncils Long Term FinancialForecasts thereby placing upward pressure on rates (LTFF). The outcomes from thesediscussions (Vicious cycle). Conversely, an optimised were then brought back to the broader group capital program minimises these costs which to ensure that all implications were can in-turn create a virtuous cycle of understood in the broader context of the recurrent operational cost savings and take LGIP. pressure off rates.

Show me the money The argument that such costs are recovered through the additional rates revenues only Perhaps the greatest test of an LGIP is the applies in cases where the capital cost are extent to which it can deliver trunk minimised. For example, development of infrastructure which supports Councils growth “infill” which may require very little investment ambitions in a manner that minimises the in infrastructure may well improve Council's cost to the community. While the focus of the overall financial position but, conversely, LGIP is on the capital cost of trunk development of remote “greenfield” or infrastructure, the true cost to the community constrained (e.g. flood prone) sites which typically extends well beyond the initial require a considerable investment in investment. infrastructure can have a significant negative impact on Council's finances. Investment in trunk infrastructuretypically leads to ongoing operational expenditures for The challenge for Gladstone Regional Council. These can arise in several ways: Council was to develop its infrastructure planning in a way that delivered the • Direct operational cost – for example, outcomes required of the Planning Scheme new pump stations or the cost of new while minimising the cost impact, thereby community facilities (e.g.an aquatic reducing pressure on rates. The measure of centre) generates additional direct success for this element of the project was to operational costsforCouncil. compare the forward forecast of the cost of trunk infrastructurevs.anticipated • Fundingcosts – as much of the trunk infrastructure charges revenues. Typically, as infrastructure is “lead” infrastructure trunk infrastructure is required well in (i.e.Council needs to provide it before advance of development, such a financial growth occurs), there is typically a profile for high growth regional councils needforCouncilto borrow to fund its shows a significant funding shortfall in the capital program. The “holding cost” 2 initial years (5-10yrs) which lessens over (interest and redemption) of these timeas the growth occurs and costs are borrowings feed straight through to the repaid (in part). Council's operating budget; In the case of Gladstone, Councilachieved a • Depreciation – as the asset base comparatively small (yet consistent) trunk expands, Council's depreciation costs infrastructure deficit. The fact that there is a also increase which are another deficit is an expected outcome (given the consideration forCouncil'soperating “lead” nature of the trunk infrastructure and budget. the growth profile for Gladstone 3) but the consistency and limited extent of the deficit This relationship between capital expenditure was akey outcome. Such consistency and operational expenditure is often not well understood and can act as either a virtuous 3 Trunk infrastructure deficits are “typical” for or vicious cycle. If capital investment is not growth areas. It is only when a Council optimised, the associatedcosts can feed approaches “full development” where new “greenfield” sites are limited would a Council actually have a financially neutral (or, in rare 2 Holding cost can add up to 50% to the cases possibly a positive) cumulative capital cumulative shortfall. funding projection.

suggests that Councils trunk infrastructure defensive nor aggressive) in challenging program is providing services “just in time” for closely held assumptions and engaging in growth. This is an ideal outcome as it solutions. demonstrates an alignment between the anticipated growth (as accommodated in the The challenge for Council going forward is to PIA) and an infrastructureinvestment program ensure that the balance of growth, which minimises Councils holding costs. infrastructure and financial capability as outlined in the LGIP is realised “on the Key Success Factors for the project ground”. This will require a disciplined approach to managing Councils various As stated at the outset, Councils objective objectives. was to ensure that the LGIP was more than just a compliance exercise and was Conclusion developed in such a way that delivered value for the people of Gladstone. As the first in Queensland to develop a Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP), It could be argued that the rigorous approach Gladstone Regional Council was seeking to to assessment of growth and the achieve more from the process than just comprehensive review of Councils key compliance with regulatory requirements. infrastructure networks also contributed to the success of the outcomes. Council’s inclusive and rigorous approach delivered benefit through the development of However, Councilbelieves that it was a sustainable balance of growth, the“cultural” element of the project that infrastructure needs and financial capacity. allowed the process to succeed. The decision byCouncil to adopt an inclusive While challenges remain, the commitment to process that engaged a wide range of the outcomesand understanding of issues stakeholders (both internally and externally) that was established as part of the in decision making enabled issues to be development of the LGIP should assist identified and progressed efficiently and Council in executing a clear and consistent effectively. However, a collaborative strategy in “Creating the Region of Choice.” approach only works where there is a willingness amongst the team to engage effectively. The hallmark of this project was that willingness to be honest, open (neither

Author Biographies:

Emma Hamilton, BE (Chemical & Bioprocess)

Emma Hamilton is a Senior Development Engineer for Technical services within Gladstone Regional Council's Engineering Services division.

Previous to this role Emma was the Senior Process Engineer for Water Services within Gladstone Regional Councils Engineering Services division.

Emma graduated from Swinburne University, Melbourne, in 2003, receiving a Bachelor of Engineering (Chemical and Bioprocess). Emma also received a diploma in Applied Science (Biological Science) from Swinburne TAFE in 1998.

Working at Council for the last 5 and a half years, ensuring environmental compliance with regards to Wastewater Treatment Plants and associated Sewer Pumping Stations operations. More recent works include the development of the Priority Infrastructure Plan (PIP) and the Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) for the Gladstone Region.

Email: [email protected] Phone: 0488 289 421 (Work) Address: Gladstone Regional Council PO Box 29 Gladstone, QLD, 4680

Chris Adam, BE (Civil), MBA, CPEng, RPEQ

Chris has been involved in the development of Priority Infrastructure plans (now Local Government Infrastructure Plans) for well over a decade. In the early-mid 2000s, Chris was a member of the Queensland Department of Local Governments reference group for development of initial guidelines for calculation and application of infrastructure charges. He has been involved in the development of PIPs/ICS for a wide range of Councils including the following:

• Unity water (incl Noosa Council, Maroochy Water Services); • Scenic Rim (Including Beaudesert Shire and Boonah); • Gladstone Regional Council (incl Calliope, Gladstone City and Miriam Vale); • Livingstone Shire; • ; • Mackay Regional Council (incl Sarina and Mirani); • (previous) Hervey Bay Council and Wide Bay Water; • Ipswich City Council; • Bundaberg Regional Council (Incl Bundaberg City and Bargara); • Gold Coast Water (Peer review role); • Redland Council (Peer review role); • Banana Shire Council; and • Townsville Council (including Townsville and Thuringowa).

Chris was recently engaged by the Department of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning to develop the draft “Schedule of Works” Spreadsheet and associated User Manual as well as provide advice on possible audit options relevant to the development for Infrastructure Charging.