extrinsic material to the local government infrastructure plan

town planning | infrastructure | advisory

May 2016

Central Highlands Regional Council

Extrinsic Material to the Local Government

Infrastructure Plan

Revision 1.0

Document Control

Client Central Highlands Regional Council

Document Name

Extrinsic Material to the Local Government Infrastructure Plan

Client Number

File Location M:\1012-8 CHRC - LGIP\Work\Word\Extrinsic Material\160516_Rep_CHRC_LGIP Extrinsic Material.docx

Date May 2016

Project Manager

Simon Bentley

Document Status

Revision No.

Date Description Author Reviewer

1.0 16/05/16 Draft Report SJB SAB

Central Highlands Regional Council Extrinsic Material to the Local Government Infrastructure Plan

May 2016 i

M:\1012-8 CHRC - LGIP\Work\Word\Extrinsic Material\160516_Rep_CHRC_LGIP Extrinsic Material.docx

Table of Contents

1.0 PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 2

POPULATION .................................................................................................................................................. 2 Current Population ................................................................................................................................... 2 Ultimate Population ................................................................................................................................. 3 Interim Population Allocation .................................................................................................................. 4

INFRASTRUCTURE DEMAND ........................................................................................................................... 4 Residential Demand .................................................................................................................................. 5 Non-Residential Demand .......................................................................................................................... 5

EMPLOYMENT ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Current Employment ................................................................................................................................. 6 Future Employment .................................................................................................................................. 7 Floor Space Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 7

PRIORITY INFRASTRUCTURE AREA CAPACITY ............................................................................................... 8

2.0 COST ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................................................................................ 10

BASELINE VALUATION ................................................................................................................................ 10 WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE NETWORK .................................................................................................... 10

Water Supply / Sewer Unit Rates ............................................................................................................ 10 Cost Modifiers ........................................................................................................................................ 10

TRANSPORT NETWORK ................................................................................................................................ 10 Transport Unit Rates .............................................................................................................................. 10 Cost Modifiers ........................................................................................................................................ 11

PUBLIC PARKS AND LAND FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES NETWORK ............................................................ 11 Parks Unit Rates ..................................................................................................................................... 11 Cost Modifiers ........................................................................................................................................ 12

3.0 NETWORK PLANNING ............................................................................................................................. 13

NETWORK PLANNING IN GENERAL .............................................................................................................. 13 WATER SUPPLY NETWORK .......................................................................................................................... 13 SEWERAGE NETWORK ................................................................................................................................. 14 TRANSPORT NETWORK ................................................................................................................................ 14 PUBLIC PARKS AND COMMUNITY LAND NETWORK ..................................................................................... 14 STORMWATER NETWORK ............................................................................................................................ 14

4.0 FINANCIAL MODELLING ASSUMPTIONS .......................................................................................... 15


May 2016 2


1.0 Planning Assumptions Underpinning the Planning Assumptions of the Local Government Infrastructure Plan (LGIP) is the Central Highlands Regional Council (CHRC) Population and Demand Model. These Geographic Information System (GIS) models have been developed using a “bottom up” approach, allowing for the spatial allocation of population and demands (residential & non-residential) across all land parcels within the Local Government Area (LGA), from the base date of 2011 through to a realistic capacity determined for the current Planning Scheme. The base assumptions and methodologies employed to develop these models and other key inputs into the Planning assumptions are detailed below.

Population

The Medium Series Estimated Resident Populations published by the Queensland Government Statistician’s Office (QGSO) were used as a basis for determining population projections across the LGA for the periods 2011 – 2036. The population totals for beyond this date have been extrapolated based on totals in previous periods.

Current Population

An analysis of the current landuses using Council’s existing rating database was performed and verified using quantitative analysis of satellite imagery. These classifications have been used to allocate the current population across the LGA, based on assumptions around household size, dwelling type and in some circumstances dwelling densities (Table 1.1). Table 1.1. Current Population Allocations

Identified Residential Use Population Allocation Assumption Source(s)

Residential Dwelling Household size – varies depending on dwelling type

ABS – PEP Profiles

Other Residential Uses Density per hectare – varies depending on use

ABS – PEP Profiles Quantitative analysis of sample sites

Density per hectare figures for other residential uses were determined using a combination of Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) household size data from PEP profiles and a quantitative analysis of sample sites.

e.g. Caravan parks were assumed to have a household size equivalent to an ABS “Other Dwelling”. Quantitative analysis was used to identify a typical number of caravan sites per hectare in order to determine an assumed population density per hectare.

Current household sizes for attached, detached, and other dwelling types are shown in Table 1.2. These were determined following an analysis of ABS Census data for the region and have been trended forward to 2031 based on QGSO projected changes to household size. Projections beyond 2031 have been extrapolated based on average change in previous periods. Results of existing population allocations were assessed against a number of randomly selected ABS census boundaries to confirm their suitability. Table 1.2. Household Density Assumptions

Dwelling Type 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 2041 2046 2051 2056 Ultimate

Single Dwelling 2.95 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94 2.94

Multiple Dwelling 2.05 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05 2.05

Other 1.75 1.74 1.74 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75

The accuracy of the allocation of population using this approach has been verified through a comparative assessment against ABS population data within census boundaries (e.g. SA2).


May 2016 3


Ultimate Population

The ultimate development potential of the Central Highlands Planning Scheme was determined through the following process:

Determination of the developable of the LGA using the Planning Scheme Provisions: o Strategic Framework and Zone Classifications; o Zone Codes provisions; o Overlay Codes (Constraints)

Airport environs;

Water resources;

Regional infrastructure;

Flood hazards;

Biodiversity, waterways & vegetation;

Extractive resources; and

Easements.

Consideration for currently approved development applications;

Discussions with council officers to understand the realistic development trends

throughout the LGA, including triggers and barriers impacting upon propensity for

particular areas to develop;

Analysis of household size projections; and

Assumptions about land requirements for roads, parks and other services, depending on

the planning scheme provisions for different zones (i.e. considerations/requirements in

urban vs rural zones).

Tables 1.3 and 1.4 identify the key assumptions made in assessing the ultimate gross density of each residential zone. The application of these assumptions across the region were used in conjunctions with the other processes identified above, in order to determine the ultimate capacity of the Planning Scheme. Table 1.3. Dwelling Composition Assumptions for Residential Uses

Planning Scheme Zone Precinct/Intent % Attached % Detached

Emerging Community General Residential 15% 85%

Emerging Community High Density Residential 100% 0%

Emerging Community Rural Residential 0% 100%

General Residential 8-15%* 85-92%*

General Residential Medium Density Residential Precinct 100% 0%

Rural Residential 0% 100%

High Density Residential 100% 0%

Township 0% 100%

Centre 100% 0%

Principal Centre 100% 0%

Rural 0% 100% *Dwelling composition assumptions varied regionally throughout the LGA


May 2016 4


Table 1.4. Ultimate Density Assumptions

Zone Precinct Excluded Land - Services, Roads,

etc.

Lot Size (m²) –

Attached*

Lot Size (m²) - Detached*

Planned density - Gross

(Dwellings/Ha)*

Emerging Community Varies depending on assumed underlying intent

General Residential 30% 450 640-750t 11.34 - 14.53t

General Residential Medium Density Residential 20% 400 20

Rural Residential 10% 4000 2.25

High Density Residential 20% 200 40

Township 30% 1,250-2,000t 3.50 - 5.60t

Rural 10% 20,000,000t 0.0005

Rural RZ1 - Gemfields Core 20% 1,500-2,000t 4.00 - 5.33t

Rural RZ2 - Gemfields Frame 20% 2,000-4,000t 2.67 – 4.00t

Rural RZ3 - Gemfields Balance 10%-20%* 2,500-200,000t 0.05-3.20t

* Lot Size represents a realistic ultimate average size, based on an assessment of planning scheme provisions, market trends and preferences, and matters affecting propensity to develop. t Varies depending on location within LGA

Interim Population Allocation

Growth between current (base year) and ultimate populations have been allocated to each 5-year cohort using a ‘gravity model’ approach. Consideration was given to factors affecting propensity to develop, including:

Location with respect to the Priority Infrastructure Area (PIA) (i.e. priority servicing area

that must accommodate 10-15 years growth);

o Assumptions around the proportion of population growth satisfied outside the PIA

boundary within the 10-15 year horizon. These were determined using current

trends and assessment of market trends in relation to housing type and location

across the LGA. This percentage was assumed to be 10%, and is considered a

reasonable assumption given the presence of Industrial, Township and Rural

Residential zoned land outside the PIA.

o Blackwater UDA is not included within the PIA as it is under the control of

Economic Development Queensland (EDQ), however for modelling purposes was

treated as if it was inside the PIA, as urban growth in this region is anticipated

within the 10-15 year timeframe.

Availability and proximity to infrastructure services;

The likely staging of development for particular areas based on direction from Council’s

planning department;

Realistic assumptions around propensity of infill development within the PIA period.

o This varied between 10%-50%, depending on characteristics identified in

individual areas.

Existence of master plan or development approvals.

Infrastructure Demand

Council’s spatial demand models express residential and non-residential demand in Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU’s). This unit of measure has been selected as it is an easily understandable metric, and can be readily converted into alternative metrics such as Persons, EP’s and Vehicle Trips per Day (VPD). Tables 5 and 6 below identify the conversion rates to Persons, EP’s, and Vehicle trips per Day (VPD) as necessary.


May 2016 5


An EDU is a standard unit of measure representing the consumption of capacity for a trunk infrastructure network produced by a single detached dwelling. Tables 1.5 and 1.6 below identify the conversion rates from this standard unit to Persons/EP/s and Trips. An EDU conversion worksheet has been provided within the Schedule of Works model to further assist with these calculations if required. Table 1.5. Conversion from EDU’s to Persons/EP’s (Parks, Water Supply, Sewer Networks)

Demand Metric 2011 2016 2021 2026 2031 2036 Ultimate

EDU (single detached dwelling)

2.95 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.94 2.94 2.94

Table 1.6. Conversion from EDU’s to Vehicle Trips per Day (trips/dwelling)

Demand Metric Vehicle Trips per Day

EDU (single detached dwelling)

10

Residential Demand

The Residential Demands (in EDU’s) have been calculated for each network, with the exceptions of stormwater, by dividing the single dwelling household size (see Table 1.2) against the populations determined for each time cohort.

Non-Residential Demand

Non-Residential Demands for the Water Supply, Sewer and Transport networks have been calculated by applying EDU rates per hectare to the developable areas derived from the population modelling process for the relevant parcels. The process for determining the existing demand utilised the landuse information developed through the population modelling process and applied the generation rates presented in Table 1.7. These landuses are then categorised into the most appropriate Planning Scheme Zone and this demand rate is then applied. The resultant demands have then been factored down in order to represent a reasonable level of development that currently exists on each site. The assumptions used to determine these factors consider each sites characteristics with respect to current zoning, location and size, as well as recent trends within the LGA and targeted quantitative analysis, where possible. Future demands are also based on assumed EDU rates per hectare for each non-residential zone presented in Table 1.7. In order to represent a realistic level of ultimate development, a 10 percent reduction to the total demand for each parcel was applied, accounting for limitations or restrictions to extent of development that may occur during the life of this Scheme. If existing demand calculated exceeded the future demand, the existing figures were kept constant for all demand cohorts. The future non-residential demand calculated through the above process has been trended over the interim 5-year cohorts through until Ultimate, based on the population growth found over the same period. This assumes that the growth in non-residential demand is directly proportional to the rate of growth of residential demand within each of these regions.


May 2016 6


Table 1.7. Demand (EDU/ha)

Zone Transport - EDU's / ha

Water/Sewer – EDU’s / ha

Centre 20 10

Community Facilities 20 10

Industry 13 10

Industry Investigation 13 10

Low Impact Industry 13 10

Neighbourhood Centre 20 10

Principal Centre 20 10

Special Industry 13 10

Specialised Centre 20 10

Employment

The Central Highlands Regional Council Employment Model has been developed to provide important inputs into the LGIP, most notably the existing and future employees and future floor space requirements. The methodology for the employment modelling is detailed below.

Current Employment

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census data was used to determine an existing employment profile within the Central Highlands Local Government Area (LGA) by employment sector for the following regions:

Emerald;

Springsure;

Rolleston;

Blackwater;

Capella;

Tieri; and

Central Highlands LGA.

The employment profile is based on:

Total population;

Total current workforce;

Total potential workforce (residents aged 15 and older);

Residents who both live and work locally;

Industry of employment by occupation;

o For the purposes of the LGIP employment modelling, ABS industry of occupation

has been re-categorised into ‘employment sectors’ in order to align with

categories in the LGIP tables. Assumptions made to assign ABS employment

industry into LGIP Employment Sector are detailed in Table 1.8 below.


May 2016 7


Table 1.8. Employment Industry Assumptions

ABS Employment Industry Category LGIP Employment Sector

ABS Employment Industry Category

LGIP Employment Sector

Agriculture, forestry & fishing Other Financial & insurance services Commercial

Mining Other Rental, hiring & real estate services Commercial

Manufacturing Industry Professional, scientific & technical services

Commercial

Electricity, gas, water & waste services Industry Administrative & support services Commercial

Construction Other Public administration & safety Commercial

Wholesale trade Industry Education & training Community Purposes

Retail trade Retail Health care & social assistance Commercial

Accommodation & food services Commercial Arts & recreation services Commercial

Transport, postal & warehousing Industry Other services Other

Information media & telecommunications Commercial Inadequately described/Not stated Other

The following key inputs into Employment Modelling have been produced for each modelled region, using the available ABS data:

Labour retention rate (Residents working locally ÷ total work force); and

Job containment rate (Residents working locally ÷ local jobs available)

These attributes are identified in order to assess the employment increase as a result of growth occurring within the LGA.

Future Employment

The employment model assumes that the employment rates are maintained, in particular labour retention and job containment, throughout all projection periods. The ratio of work force to population is used to determine employment projections in each LGIP projection area for each cohort, in each employment sector. This is applied to the population projections derived from the CHRC pop model. The outputs of the employment model used to inform the LGIP include:

Total current jobs within each LGIP projection area for each employment sector; and

Additional job requirements for growth within the LGA for each projection period,

distributed amongst employment sectors in accordance with the current trends.

Floor Space Requirements

Floor space requirements are calculated based assumptions about floor space per employee requirements for each employment sector. The assumed floor space requirements are detailed in Table 1.9, and have been identified based on industry knowledge and confirmed by Council Officers as both reasonable and appropriate for use in the LGIP. As with the employment figures, floor space outputs used in the LGIP assumption tables include:

Total existing floor space requirements within each LGIP projection area for each

employment sector; and

Additional floor space requirements for growth within the LGA for each cohort, distributed

mathematically amongst employment sectors within LGIP projection areas.


May 2016 8


Table 1.9. Floor space assumptions by Employment Sector

Employment Sector Floorspace

(m²/employee)

Retail 25

Commercial 20

Industry 150

Community Services 20

Other (incl. Home based business 80

Priority Infrastructure Area Capacity

Council’s growth allocation model considers a range of factors for the distribution and take-up of available capacities across the Planning Scheme, in particular the propensity for areas to develop over time. Based on the assumptions, the modelling indicates that a population of approximately 9,200 people are realistically able to be accommodated within the PIA up until 2031 (the “PIA Period”). It is important to note that the Blackwater PDAs are reported as “Outside PIA” given these are required to be excluded from the PIA due to it being under the control of EDQ. This area is, however, expected to experience significant urban growth and therefore it has been allocated substantial growth within the PIA Period (refer to Table 1.10 below). The extent of urban population growth allocated within the PIA boundary (9,132) demonstrates close alignment with the capacity identified above (9,200), and its ability to provide serviced land for development throughout the PIA period1. Table 1.10. Total Population and Population Growth by locality during the PIA Period

Locality Total Population Population Growth

2011 2031 Inside PIA Outside PIA

Capella 1,377 2,319 867 76

Comet 458 346 0 -112

Dingo 276 141 0 -134

Duaringa 356 122 0 -234

Emerald 14,816 22,516 7,313 388

Rolleston 181 265 81 3

Sapphire/Rubyvale/Anakie 1,797 1,962 0 165

Springsure 1,443 2,120 527 150

Tieri 2,041 2,396 356 0

Blackwater* 7,966 9,697 -12 1,727

Other Areas 2,763 3,576 0 828

Total 33,473 45,462 9,132 2,858

*Growth in the Blackwater UDA is reported outside the PIA in the LGIP population tables

On average, approximately 40% of available growth capacity across all zones within the PIA was utilised during the PIA Period. The following factors have contributed to this percentage:

1 The PIA Period must provide for 10 to 15 years of realistic growth capacity. The horizon of the CHRC LGIP PIA

Period is 2031, with its capacity for growth to be measured from the expected gazettal Date of the LGIP (i.e. 2016) and not the assumed modelling base year (i.e. 2011).


May 2016 9


Readily available access to existing infrastructure services for a number of greenfield growth opportunities which are located a short distance from existing centres / development fronts.

o These growth areas are expected to accommodate a significant level of development, which is not expected be fully utilised within the PIA period.

o Due to the similar characteristics of all greenfield sites in the area, and the expectation that all will experience some extent of urban growth within the PIA Period, Council was unable to exclude any of these sites in favour of others.

o Within the Emerald LGIP projection area, it is expected that approximately 50% of growth capacity in the greenfield area will be utilised during the PIA Period.

A significant amount of infill development potential is expected to experience a slow take up rate, and may not be fully realised for some time. This is considered a reasonable assumption, particularly given the availability of other more marketable and readily developable Greenfield opportunities within the PIA, which are in close proximity to town centres.


May 2016 10


2.0 Cost Assumptions Unit rates used within the Schedule of Works (SoW) model have been derived using the information deemed most accurate and appropriate, which was available at the time the LGIP was being prepared. For asset costing purposes within the SoW model, unit rates for all assets and networks have been indexed to the base year of the model, 2011 using Producer Price Index (PPI) data from the ABS unless otherwise noted.

Baseline Valuation

Existing asset valuations within Council’s SoW model provide an additional level of detail when compared to the standard SoW models ‘baseline valuation’. The ‘Base Estimate’ within the CHRC SoW model provides the equivalent valuation figure, however this has been built using a raw unit rate cost in addition to project owners costs (on-costs). On costs are considered to be an essential element of the ‘current replacement cost’ identified within Statutory Guideline 03/14 (SG03/14), relating to design/redesign, environmental considerations, traffic management and project management among other things, all necessary components of the cost to replace an asset. The Evans and Peck report referenced within the SoW model user manual identifies that many Council’s already include on costs within their unit rates. CHRC has chosen to separate these costs in order to provide additional transparency and ease of understanding within their LGIP documentation.

Water Supply & Sewerage Network

Water Supply / Sewer Unit Rates

Water Supply and Sewerage network unit rates are derived from 2012 asset valuations undertaken by CHRC. These unit rates are combined with an allowance to account for fittings (eg. valves, hydrants) at appropriate intervals, while future gravity sewer mains have been combined with an allowance to account for manholes at appropriate intervals. Details of these calculations and inputs have been provided in the Cost Input spreadsheet provided as part of the LGIP extrinsic material.

Cost Modifiers

In addition to the unit rates identified above, the cost modifiers listed in Table 2.1 have also been applied as necessary to assets across the water supply and sewerage networks. Table 2.1. Asset Cost Adjustments

Modifier Valuation

Component Applies To

Adjustment Factor

On-Cost Allowance Works All existing & future assets 7.5%

Time-Based Contingency Works All future assets 10-20%

Transport Network

Transport Unit Rates

Transport unit rates have been built from individually costed components, primarily using data from Council’s project records. Where insufficient Council data was available for review, an assessment of unit rates from similar LGAs have been utilised. Costs and quantities were used to build a unit rate for standard cross-sections/designs for the transport network assets identified


May 2016 11


in Table 2.2. A more detailed breakdown of these unit rates has been provided in the Cost Input spreadsheet provided as part of the LGIP extrinsic material. Table 2.2. Road Unit Rates

Road Hierarchy / Asset Type $ / Km or $ / Item

($2013) SoW Unit Rate

($2011)*

Major Urban Collector $2,592,983 /km $2,404 /m

Rural Arterial $681,867 /km $632 /m

Medium Roundabout $571,385 /ea $529,682 /ea

Small Roundabout $249,115 /ea $230,933 /ea

Definition Works $47,213 /ea $43,767 /ea

Channelised T-Intersection $416,496 /ea $386,097 /ea

*Adjustment to 2011 value based on the PPI for Road and Bridge construction - Australia.

Additionally, the following rates have been determined for other transport network assets:

Costs for varying widths of off-road pathways have been determined using Council’s

rates within the transport unit rate builder as described above.

A unit rate of $2964/m² has been identified for Bridge and Culvert surface area (i.e. deck

Area) which was based on Officer experience / knowledge and indexed to the base year

of the LGIP using PPI.

A rate of $27.58/m² for road corridor land is based on valuations within Council’s land asset register, indexed to the base year using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) from ABS, and reflects a typical unimproved land value.

Cost Modifiers

In addition to the unit rates identified above, the cost modifiers in Table 2.3 have also been applied as necessary, to assets across the transport network. Table 2.3. Asset Cost Adjustments

Modifier Valuation


Adjustment Factor

On-Cost Allowance Works All structures & intersections 10%

On-Cost Allowance Works All other transport assets 7.5%

Time Based Contingency Works All future assets 10-20%

Rural Subsidy (Council Funded) Works Rural Arterial Road assets - 70%

Local Road of Regional Significance Works Identified CHRC Road assets - 50%

Public Parks and Land for Community Facilities Network

Parks Unit Rates

Where no project costs are available, existing park embellishment costs have been established using costs for individual embellishment items. An audit of the current embellishments within existing parks was completed by Council Officers and verified against the asset register. This complete embellishment list applies the individual item costs to determine a total embellishment value per park. A summary of these embellishment items and their costs has been included within the Cost input spreadsheet included within the extrinsic material. Where no project costs were available, future park embellishment costs have been applied using the same method, using standard sets of hierarchy embellishments identified within the ROSS Planning Open Space and Recreation Plan March 2014 (Table 2.4).


May 2016 12


Park land size and constraints have also been reviewed in order to determine the usable park space and therefore the extent of embellishment possible in the future parks. For example heavily constrained (i.e. flooding) or small sites have had embellishment rates applied at 50% of their full value. A number of park upgrades, and subsequently the embellishment costs, have been separated across multiple stages to reflect the likely delivery of the asset over time as the demand or need from surrounding development arises. Unit rates for park land have been derived from an assessment of likely englobo land values for different park types and hierarchies. This approach recognises the changes in land value that result from the varying land take sizes for different parks and the likely quality of land required (i.e. immunity from flooding, etc.). The land values applied in the LGIP are presented in Table 2.5 below. Table 2.4. Park Embellishment Unit Rates

Park Type/Hierarchy Unit Rate $2011

Local Recreation Park $71,302

District Recreation Park $736,726

Regional Recreation Park $2,518,709

District Sports $1,113,216

District Sports field development $554,180

Regional Sports $2,718,623

Table 2.5. Park Land Unit Rates

Scheduled Rate Cost - Works Unit Rate $2011

Land for District Sport $10

Land for District Recreation $15

Land for Local Recreation $25

Land for Local Sport $15

Land for Community $25

Land for Recreation Corridor $5

Land for Regional Sport $10

Land for Regional Recreation $10

Land for Specialised Sport $15

Cost Modifiers

In addition to the unit rates identified above, the cost modifiers in Table 2.6 have also been applied as necessary to assets across the transport network. Table 2.6. Asset Cost Adjustments

Modifier Valuation


Adjustment Factor

On-Cost Allowance Works All existing & future assets 7.5%

Time Based Contingency Works All future assets 10-20%


May 2016 13


3.0 Network Planning Network planning for the CHRC has been undertaken over a 30 – 50 planning horizon (Table 3.1) from the base date of the LGIP (2011). It is important to note that this does not align with the ultimate development of the Planning Scheme, which based on LGIP modelling and forecasts produced by the QGSO, is currently anticipated to be achieved at or around 2084. These planning horizons have been selected on the basis that they provide a rational alignment between the infrastructure planning and landuse outcomes envisaged under the CHRC Planning Scheme. The considerations given to the planning of each network within the LGIP are as follows. Table 3.1. Network Planning Horizons

Network Planning Horizon (Years)

Water Supply 30

Sewerage 30

Transport 50

Public Parks and Community Land 30

Network Planning in General

An assessment of the future growth characteristics and trends over each network’s planning horizon has been performed by council engineers, planners and parks officers together with a review into existing network servicing capacity / adequacy through application of the Desired Standards of Service (DSS) identified within the LGIP. The population and demand models completed as a part of the LGIP project, have been considered against Council’s previously completed network planning in order to reassess its appropriateness and assist in determining where planning ‘gaps’ may exist that need to be addressed. Other documents and sources, most of which are extrinsic material to the LGIP, that have assisted generally in the Network Planning include:

CHRC Broad Hectare Study – Queensland Treasury and Trade 2013

CHRC Asset Registers and Data

CHRC Development Approval Register and Data

CHRC Draft Planning Scheme

Water Supply Network

Network planning for the water supply network has been guided by discussions between Council planners and engineers, in conjunction with the recommendations identified in the following studies and reports, which are included as extrinsic material to the LGIP, including:

Water and Sewerage Planning Studies – Aurecon 2013

Study of Source Supply Reliability – Aurecon 2014

Water Supply Network Model Build and Infrastructure Planning – GHD 2013

Tieri Township Water Treatment System Process Review and Planning Report –

Simmonds and Bristow 2007

Water supply network planning has been undertaken to a 30 year planning horizon, which exceeds the 10-15 year minimum specified within SG03/14, at a level of service that aligns with the DSS in the LGIP.


May 2016 14


Sewerage Network

Network planning for the sewerage network has been guided by discussions between Council planners and engineers, in conjunction with the recommendations identified in the following studies and reports, which are included as extrinsic material to the LGIP, including:

Water and Sewerage Planning Studies – Aurecon 2013

Tieri STP Audit and Upgrade Report – Cardno 2007

Tieri Township Water Treatment System Process Review and Planning Report –

Simmonds and Bristow 2007

Water Supply and Wastewater Networks Model Build and Infrastructure Planning – GHD

2013

Sewerage network planning has been undertaken to a 30 year planning horizon, exceeding the 10-15 year minimum specified within SG03/14, at a level of service that aligns with the required DSS.

Transport Network

The transport network planning was performed collaboratively through discussions between council planners and engineers in order to determine a suitable council road network for the LGIP that will support the existing and future needs of the region and that will meet the community outcomes envisaged by the DSS prepared and agreed to by Council. An Active Transport Network (Pathways) has also been developed as part of the Open Space and Recreation Plan for the Emerald Locality and incorporated into the LGIP. Transport network planning has been undertaken to a 50 year planning horizon, exceeding the 10-15 year minimum specified within SG03/14, at a level of service that aligns with the required DSS.

Public Parks and Community Land Network

In addition to the processes detailed in the above sections, the network planning for public parks and community land was guided by the recommendations identified within the following documents, included within the extrinsic material of the LGIP, including:

CHRC Open Space and Recreation Plan – Ross Planning 2014

The DSS for public parks have been developed using the recommendations from the above reports.

Stormwater Network

Minimal or no Network Planning has been performed for the Stormwater Network at this point in time due to the lack of detailed catchment studies which would appropriately inform the LGIP process. Further planning work is currently being performed, however was not sufficiently complete for inclusion within the LGIP. Trunk network recommendations identified as a result of this work are anticipated to be incorporated into future amendments to the LGIP.


May 2016 15


4.0 Financial Modelling Assumptions Financial modelling inputs for the CHRC LGIP SoW model are outlined in Table 4.1 below, including brief comments and justifications around the appropriateness of the inputs used. Table 4.1. Financial Modelling Assumptions within the CHRC LGIP SoW model.

Financial Modelling Assumptions Inputs Comments/Justification

Model Setup

Base Year of Model 2011 To align with the Infrastructure Planning and Demand Modelling that has been prepared for the LGIP project

Infrastructure Planning Horizon 30-50 50 years transport, 30 years all other networks. This represents the extent to which each network has been planned and alignment of infrastructure and landuse outcomes is reached.

Demand Unit (Unit of Measure) EDU An equivalent demand unit (i.e. a single detached dwelling)

Financial Inputs

Discount Rates

Post-tax Nominal WACC to be applied to Expenses (WACC)

7.50%

Accepted by Council’s Finance Department as appropriately reflecting a long-term view of the cost of financing, including consideration of risks associated with the type of LGIP assets and understanding of the regional nature of the LGA.

Real Post-tax Nominal WACC to be applied to Revenues (RWACC)

4.78% The WACC Adjusted for inflation using the Fisher Equation.

Escalations

Works Escalation Rate (for discounting purposes)

5.00%

Accepted by Council’s Finance Department as appropriately reflecting a long-term view of cost escalations, particularly given the types of LGIP assets and understanding of the regional nature of the LGA.

Land Escalation Rate (for discounting purposes)

3.00%

Accepted by Council’s Finance Department as appropriately reflecting a long-term view of cost escalations, particularly given the types of LGIP assets and understanding of the regional nature of the LGA.

Modelled Charge Inflation Rate 2.60% Based on a long-term average of the CPI. This is considered reasonable given the long infrastructure planning horizon adopted

The LGIP SoW model has adopted a “User Pays” approach for the apportionment of infrastructure costs between the users. In addition, this calculation method also employs a Discounted Cashflow methodology to appropriately model the time value of money over the modelling horizon and to understand the true cost of infrastructure delivery and funding. The SoW model therefore applies the following formula in order to determine a cost per demand unit.

Existing Infrastructure Value ($) + NPV (Nominal) of Future Infrastructure Expenditure ($) Current Demand (D) + NPV (Real) of Future Demand (D)

The Net Present Value (NPV) of future infrastructure expenditure is determined using the Nominal WACC (7.50%) and Escalation Rates (5% & 3%), to take into account the escalation of the capital spend in the years forward of the base year. The NPV of future demand is a proxy, used to represent future revenue from infrastructure charges. This is determined using a Real WACC (4.78%), which is adjusted to account for inflationary effects. The use of these equations determines an escalating price path which is driven by the inflation rate. In this way, the contribution rate grows over time in line with other cost growth in works, land, sales and wages. The final Cost Schedules are presented in the LGIP SoW Model.

extrinsic material to the local government infrastructure plan

Documents