AGENDA - Central Highlands Region · 2016-06-27 · Tuesday 24 May 2016 . Commenced at 9.00am Agenda - Communities Standing Committee Meeting - 28 June 2016 - Page 3. MINUTES –

AGENDA

COMMUNITIES STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday 28 June 2016

Meeting to be held in the Central Highlands Regional Council Chambers, Emerald OfficeCommencing at 9.00am

INDEX OF CONTENTS

PRESENT........................................................................................................................................................2APOLOGIES ...................................................................................................................................................2LEAVE OF ABSENCE....................................................................................................................................2CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING ..........................................................................2Communities Standing Committee Meeting - 24 May 2016 ............................................................................2BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF MINUTES ......................................................................................................2REVIEW OF OUTSTANDING MEETING ACTIONS ......................................................................................2MATERIAL PERSONAL INTEREST, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PERSONAL GIFTS AND BENEFITS ....2COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS / NOTES.............................................................................................2COMMUNITIES ...............................................................................................................................................9Waste Strategy Update - Presentations by Manager Planning and Environment and AECOM......................9Minutes – Central Highlands Arts and Cultural Advisory Committee (CHACAC) and Regional Development Fund applications ..........................................................................................................................................73GENERAL BUSINESS..................................................................................................................................81LATE AGENDA ITEMS.................................................................................................................................81

Agenda - Communities Standing Committee Meeting - 28 June 2016 - Page 2

PRESENT

APOLOGIES

LEAVE OF ABSENCE

CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

COMMUNITIES STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING - 24 MAY 2016

BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF MINUTES

REVIEW OF OUTSTANDING MEETING ACTIONS

MATERIAL PERSONAL INTEREST, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PERSONAL GIFTS AND BENEFITS

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS / NOTES

Communities Standing Committee Meeting

MINUTES

Meeting held in the Central Highlands Regional Council Chambers, Emerald Office

Tuesday 24 May 2016

Commenced at 9.00am


MINUTES – COMMUNITIES STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING –TUESDAY 24 MAY 2016 – PAGE 3

MINUTES – COMMUNITIES STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING HELD AT 9.00AM TUESDAY 24 MAY 2016 IN THE CENTRAL HIGHLANDS REGIONAL COUNCIL CHAMBERS, EMERALD OFFICE

PRESENT Councillors Councillor (Crs) K. Hayes (Mayor), C. Brimblecombe (Chair) Councillors (Crs) P. Bell AM, M. Daniels, G. Godwin-Smith (Deputy Mayor) G. Nixon Officers Chief Executive Officer S. Mason, Acting General Manager Communities L. Lankowski, Coordinator Communications A. Ferris, Minute Secretaries M. Wills and K. Stephenson Observers Councillors (Crs) A. McIndoe, C. Rolfe and D. Lacey APOLOGIES General Manager B. Duke MATERIAL PERSONAL INTEREST, CONFLICT OF INTEREST, PERSONAL GIFTS AND BENEFITS Cr Daniels declared a perceived conflict of interest as she attended the Sunrise Rotary Club monthly night meeting held on 19 April 2016. Attendance Manager Parks and Gardens M. Giebel attended the meeting at 9.02am Cr Bell attended the meeting at 9.05am

COMMUNITIES’ SECTION Use of Sunrise Rotary Park, Emerald by Sunrise Rotary Club

Executive Summary The Sunrise Rotary Club has requested approval to lease an area of land 25 metres x 25 metres at Sunrise Rotary Park, located at the corner of Opal Street and Park Avenue, Emerald so they can erect a 12 metres x 9 metres building that will act as a storage shed and a club meeting facility. The Club has indicated a willingness to remain at this site and assist in the monitoring and improvements of this park. The Club has indicated that access to all services including water, sewerage and power to the shed will be required. The Club will be actively seeking grants to construct this building once tenure arrangements are determined. The Club will pay all costs associated with its construction and will ensure the design and colour complement the area. This particular parcel of land is freehold land owned by Council. Council can approve an agreement for 20 years to give security of occupancy with appropriate conditions. Accepting this recommendation provides the Sunrise Rotary Club with certainty of tenure and acknowledges the Club’s commitment to the local community.



A report in relation to this issue was presented to Central Highlands Regional Council’s General Meeting on 10th May 2016. At this meeting Council resolved to defer the report to the Communities Standing Committee for further consideration pending a site inspection and provision of additional information. This information relates to planning, flooding, security, compatibility with BMX and availability of alternate sites. Resolution: Cr Bell moved and seconded by Cr Nixon “That the Central Highlands Regional Council Communities Standing Committee recommend to Council that approval be granted to Sunrise Rotary Club to lease, or otherwise occupy, a 25 metres x 25 metres area of council-owned land at the corner of Opal Street and Park Avenue, Emerald (described as Lot 1 on Registered Plan 614513 and known as Sunrise Rotary Park) on which to construct a building (12 metres x 9 metres) for the purpose of storage and meetings.” CSC 2016 / 05 / 24 / 001 Carried (6-0) Attendance Manager Parks and Gardens M. Giebel left the meeting at 9.19am Cr Rolfe left the meeting at 9.31am Cr Rolfe returned to the meeting at 9.37am Community Consultation Dates

Executive Summary Council conducts an annual program of engagement with the communities of the region through Community Consultations. This report proposes dates for Community Consultation sessions in 2016/2017, and an option for a Councillor Consultation trial in the townships of Emerald, Blackwater, Capella and Springsure. Resolution: Cr Hayes moved and seconded by Cr Godwin-Smith “That the Central Highlands Regional Council Communities Standing Committee recommend to Council that: 1. Community Consultations be held at the following locations during 2016/2017: Community Location Groups 2016/2017 Date Capella - Rubyvale Road / Rubyvale / Sapphire / Anakie 19th July 2016 Arcadia Valley / Carnarvon Gorge 18th - 19th August 2016 Duaringa / Bauhinia / Bluff 20th September 2016 Willows Gemfields / Bogantungan 18th October 2016 Lochington / Tresswell / Tambo Road 15th November 2016 Dingo / Big Bend 21st February 2017 Comet / Toprain 21st March 2017 Rolleston / Orion 18th April 2017 and that the respective schools in the area be invited to attend the community consultations. 2. Trial Councillor Connect Sessions at the following locations during 2016/2017:

Emerald; Blackwater; Capella; Tieri; and Springsure.”

CSC 2016 / 05 / 24 / 002 Carried (6-0)



Emerald Aquatic Centre – Waterslides Project Update

Executive Summary That the Central Highlands Regional Council Communities Standing Committee recommend to Council that the Emerald Aquatic Centre Waterslides Project Update be noted. Considered by Council. New Blackwater Aquatic Centre - Project Update

Executive Summary That the Central Highlands Regional Council Communities Standing Committee recommend to Council that the new Blackwater Aquatic Centre Project Update be noted. Considered by Council. Attendance Infrastructure Project Engineer S. Robinson attended the meeting at 10.10am General Manager Infrastructure and Utilities G. Joubert attended the meeting at 10.29am Rural Addressing Project Update

Executive Summary Rural addressing is a standardised form of identification utilised throughout Australia for rural landholders and residents to consistently identify the location of their access. This system of identification is utilised by a number departments and offices throughout Australia, not limited to – Emergency Services, Local Government and Australia Post. Given the vast nature of the various stakeholders and their relevant access requirements, it is crucial that any work undertaken in the development of systems and the physical rollout are undertaken with a high degree of accuracy with records maintained and passed onto the relevant parties continually. Considered by Council. Meeting adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10.39am for morning tea. The meeting resumed at 11.08am Attendance Cr Bell returned to the meeting at 11.11am Cr Bell left the meeting at 11.12am Urban Street Numbering Project Update

Executive Summary The Urban Street Numbering Project was established to address community concerns about unnumbered street addresses and specifically their concerns about Emergencies Services’ difficulty in finding residential homes in the townships of the Central Highlands.



The Project commenced with the Comet community, which is near completion following an ongoing communication strategy. This same communication strategy will be used for the Bluff Township, now that Council and Aurizon have agreed on a suitable street numbering system within the Bluff community. Urban Street Numbering must be undertaken in line with the national standards for Australia and New Zealand AS/NZS 4819:2011 “Rural and urban addressing”. Once the Comet and Bluff street numbering has been completed, the township of Capella will be assessed for appropriate street numbering. Considered by Council. Attendance Cr Bell returned to the meeting at 11.13am Cr Lacey attended the meeting at 11.15am Self-Help TV Re-Transmission – Willows, Sapphire and Anakie Executive Summary Central Highlands Regional Council currently owns and operates three re-transmission sites at the Gemfields located in Anakie, Sapphire and the Willows. This report provides information about this service, and outlines the costs associated with providing these services to the community. Resolution: Cr Nixon moved and seconded by Cr Daniels “That the Central Highlands Regional Council Communities Standing Committee recommend that Council continue to provide self-help television re-transmission services in Anakie, Sapphire and the Willows.” CSC 2016 / 05 / 24 / 003 Carried (6-0)

GENERAL BUSINESS (Verbal matters raised by Councillors either as a question, acknowledgement and or additional follow-up by officers)

Cr Nixon raised concern regarding the helipad at the Willows Gemfields. It may have been constructed in a different location to what the community expected and given it has been constructed with gravel there could be issues of airborne material during landings and take offs. Further information is sought regarding the appropriateness of the facility. Cr Daniels raised concerns with the Emerald Botanical Gardens. The eastern side of the Nogoa River, requires some care and attention and on the western side there are some possible safety issues with regards to footpaths.



CLOSURE OF MEETING There being no further business, the Chair closed the meeting at 11.31am CONFIRMED CHAIR DATE



COMMUNITIES

WASTE STRATEGY UPDATE - PRESENTATIONS BY MANAGER PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT AND AECOM

Communities Standing Committee Report

28 June 2016 PJ/BD

{NO.}

WASTE STRATEGY UPDATE – PRESENTATIONS BY MANAGER PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT AND AECOM

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On 24 February 2016 Council adopted the Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan 2016-2026 (Waste Strategy). This covering report will introduces two (2) PowerPoint presentations. The first being by the Manager Planning and Environment, Phil Jeston on existing facilities and progress matters since the adoption the plan. The second presentation will be undertaken to AECOM, Council’s consultants with respect to the feasibility study towards the establishment of centralised waste facility.

DETAILS:

Presentations will follow.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan presentation2. AECOM Centralised Waste Facility Feasibility Study presentation

Phil JestonManager Planning and Environment

Brad DukeGeneral Manager Communities

Central HighlandsCentral HighlandsCentral HighlandsCentral HighlandsWaste Reduction and Recycling PlanWaste Reduction and Recycling PlanWaste Reduction and Recycling PlanWaste Reduction and Recycling PlanWaste Facility Rationalisation in Central Highlands – A Waste Strategy


Central Central Central Central HighlandsHighlandsHighlandsHighlandsWWWWasteasteasteaste RRRReductioneductioneductioneduction RRRRecyclingecyclingecyclingecycling PPPPlan (WRRPlan (WRRPlan (WRRPlan (WRRP) ) ) ) –––– A Waste StrategyA Waste StrategyA Waste StrategyA Waste Strategy

• Council requirement to have Waste Strategy since 2000.

• The Central Queensland Local Government Association (now disbanded) developed a Waste Management Strategy in 2006.

• The State Government undertake a Waste Management Review in 2010

• New State Waste Strategy was developed in 2010. The Waste Avoidance and Resource Productivity Strategy.

• New Legislation implements Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011 replaced the Waste Management Act.

• Council’s waste strategy (Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan) was developed in accordance with the State Governments waste strategy and legislative requirements.

• Council adopted the Central Highlands Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (Council’s Waste Strategy) on 24th February 2016.

Background


Central Central Central Central HighlandsHighlandsHighlandsHighlandsWWWWasteasteasteaste RRRReductioneductioneductioneduction RRRRecyclingecyclingecyclingecycling PPPPlan (WRRP)lan (WRRP)lan (WRRP)lan (WRRP)

Waste Reduction and Recycling Act 2011

The Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan must contain:

a) Waste reduction and recycling targets (including for the Local Govt);

b) Actions to improve waste reduction and recycling;

c) Details of current and proposed waste infrastructure;

d) Management and monitoring of the local governments performance;

e) Information about achieving continuous improvement;

f) Other matters prescribed by regulation.

Current Legislation



WASTE (RESOURCE) MANAGEMENT IN

CENTRAL HIGHLANDS

Capture of Waste Data1. Implemented Mandalay Waste Reporting as an effective system of capturing and recording waste data that will

assist with the strategic planning for infrastructure and new waste reduction and recycling plan.

Landfills1. Long term (with 10 years), operate 1 centralised landfill for the region.

2. Feasibility Study into a Centralised Waste Facility at Ramp 20 Void within a local mine site is currently underway. Details to be presented (directly after this presentation).

3. A network of Waste Transfer Stations will be established in appropriate locations to support the region.

4. In the Transition term, operate 3 key landfills in the region. These will be at Tieri, Blackwater and Emerald (Lochlees).

5. Existing landfills will be closed, rehabilitated and surrender from the environmental approval on a scheduled program over 10 years.

6. Waste disposal facilities will be rationalised and opening times assessed.

7. Aim is to have landfill facilities secured and supervised during set opening hours (8AM to 5PM – Monday to Friday and 8AM to 1200 on Saturday).

8. Continue to consider and assess any regional opportunities that will provide broader community benefits.

Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan



CENTRAL HIGHLANDS

Waste and Recycling Collection Services1. Endeavour to provide a residential wheelie bin service to as many residents as

practical (eg investigation into bin service for Rubyvale and Sapphire).

2. All businesses, commercial and industrial operations across the region will be required to have a waste service that caters for their whole operations. Any business or commercial operation using a waste facility are charged the appropriate fees or pay an appropriate rate for use of a facility.

3. Evaluate the provision of other services (increased recycling) that will reduce the volumes of waste to landfill.

4. Private operators (such as CQ waste) will continue to be encouraged to service the commercial sector by providing waste and recycling collection services plus specialised services such as hazardous waste. Support competitive private sector involvement in waste management.




CENTRAL HIGHLANDS

Recycling and Reuse1. All communities will be encouraged to reduce their waste produced. Residents and

commercial operators will be required to separate and recycle their waste.

2. Impose higher disposal charges on businesses and commercial operations that do not separate and sort their wastes, where this waste contains a large component of recyclable material.

3. The reduction of waste to landfill remains a key State wide strategy and the region must endeavour to meet these targets by implementing appropriate separation and recycling initiatives.

4. Where possible, recyclable material will be sold to offset the costs of running waste facilities. Consider opportunities to value add or create markets for recycled material.

5. Processing of green waste and concrete will continue in locations where it is deemed practical and economic to do so.




CENTRAL HIGHLANDS

Carbon Emissions

1. Any new landfill developed should incorporate gas capture technology in order to control and mitigate gas release. Look for commercial opportunities for production of electricity.

2. Consider mitigation strategies that will remove or reduce any future carbon emission obligations from existing facilities.



Rates for

Wheelie Bin

Services

(Waste and

Recycling)

+

Landfill

Fees and

Charges

+

Waste

Management

Charge

-

Operating Expenditure

(Approximately 5.3M)

=

Operating Surplus

(Approximately 2.2M)

(Required to fund Capital Works

eg. Landfill Rehabilitation & Closure)

Review of Central HighlandsReview of Central HighlandsReview of Central HighlandsReview of Central HighlandsWaste Rating ScheduleWaste Rating ScheduleWaste Rating ScheduleWaste Rating Schedule

• Next presentation outlines work to date on waste pricing and current status

• Made fairer across the whole region


Central Highlands Waste Services(current wheelie bin numbers)

Tieri

BlackwaterEmeral

d

Springsure

Bauhinia

Ding

o

Capell

a

Sapphire/

Rubyvale

Rollesto

n

Comet

Bluff

Gindie

Fernlees

Duaringa

Anakie

The Willows

Bogantungan

D 51C 14

D 376C 95CR 6

D 51C 33CR 4

D 5393C 1219CR 209

D 2347C 243CR 34

D 61C 45CR 4

D 103C 77CR 8

D 168C 57CR 21

D 22C –

D 413C 110CR 30

D 491C 184CR 22

Total

D 9468

CW

2079

CR 338


Landfills within Central Queensland

Original Source: CQLGA , CQ Waste Profile: A situational Analysis 2013

Transfer Station / Bulk Bins

50,000 – 100,000 tpa

20,000 – 50,000 tpa

5,000 – 20,000 tpa

0 – 5,000 tpa


Waste to Landfills in Central Queensland

O

Over 56% of CQ landfills

are only licensed to

receive 0-5,000 t per

annum

59% of CQ landfills

receive only 22% of the

regions waste

Only 4% of the regions

waste is landfilled in 15

landfills.

CHRC have

11 sites

licensed for

under

5,000t

Source: CQLGA , CQ Waste Profile : A situational Analysis

2013


Central Highlands Waste Facilities(as they are currently licensed )

Tieri

BlackwaterEmerald

Springsure

Bauhinia

Dingo

Capella

Sapphire/

Rubyvale

Over 20,000 t

10,000 - 20,000 t

5,000 – 10,000 t

2,000 – 5,000 t

0 – 2,000 t

Series of

Bulk Bins

Transfer

Station

Landfills

Lochlees Rd

Rolleston

CometBluff

Gindie

Fernlees

DuaringaAnakie

The Willows

Bogantungan


Central Highlands Waste Facilities

Waste Facility Meeting Licence Conditions

Lochlees Rd Landfill Limited life span (at least 10 years)

Blackwater Landfill MCU required as close to licence capacity

Tieri Landfill MCU required as close to licence capacity

Springsure Landfill Not secure / close to water – being converted to

Transfer Station

Rolleston Landfill Outside approved area

Duaringa Transfer Station Closure Plan required for capped landfill

Dingo Transfer Station Landfill rehabilitation and closure plan required

Bluff Transfer Station Closure Plan required

Capella Transfer Station Landfill rehabilitation and closure plan required

Sapphire/Rubyvale Landfill Landfill (full) – transfer station required

The Willows Landfill (trench) – convert to Bin Station

Bogantungan Landfill (near full) – Convert to Bin Station

Anakie Bin Station N/A

Emerald Transfer Station Subject to review

Gindie Bin Station N/A

Fernlees Bin Station N/A

Comet Bin Station N/A

Bauhinia Bin Station N/A


Central Highlands Waste Facilities(Configuration in the Transition Term - 5 years)

Tieri

BlackwaterEmerald

Springsure

Bauhinia

Dingo

Capell

a

Sapphire /

Rubyvale

Series of

Bulk Bins

Transfer

Station

Landfills

Over 20,000 t

10,000 - 20,000 t

5,000 – 10,000 t

2,000 – 5,000 t

0 – 2,000 t

Bluff

Duaringa

Rolleston

Bogantungan


Transition Term - Key Actions

• Implement the adopted CHRC Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan.

• Upgrade Lochlees Rd Landfill to meet EHP approval conditions

(including construction of final waste containment cell).

• Upgrade Blackwater Landfill to 10,000 – 20,000 tonne / annum

licensed facility and meet EHP approval conditions.

• Upgrade Tieri Landfill to 5,000 – 10,000 tonne / annum licensed

facility.

• Complete the construction of a secured transfer station and inert

landfill to achieve final profiles at Springsure

(project commencing 4th July 2016).

• Establish a secured transfer station at Rolleston

• Establish a secured transfer station and review hours of opening at

Sapphire / Rubyvale Landfill.

• Reduce the hours of operation at Emerald Transfer Station.

• Progress the rationalisation of other facilities as necessary

(eg. Willows and Bogantungan Bin Stations).


Central Highlands Waste Facilities(Configuration in the Longer Term)

Series of

Bulk Bins

Transfer

Station

Emerald Blackwater

Bluff

Tieri

Capella

Springsure

Bauhinia

Rolleston

Sapphire /

Rubyvale

Landfills

Over 20,000 t

10,000 - 20,000 t

5,000 – 10,000 t

2,000 – 5,000 t

0 – 2,000 t

The

WillowsDuaringa

New Emerald Centralised

Landfill Facility

Bogantungan

New Emerald Waste

Transfer Station

(East of Emerald) ?


Longer Term Longer Term Longer Term Longer Term ---- Key ActionsKey ActionsKey ActionsKey Actions

• Progress the rationalisation of facilities as

necessary and as facilities fill up by converting to

transfer stations and bin stations.

• Secure and establish through the planning

process the long term landfill future for the

Central Highlands by looking at options between

Emerald and Blackwater.

• Upon completion of the current Emerald,

Blackwater, Springsure and Tieri Landfills,

establish new transfer station infrastructure as the

landfills are completed.

• Plans should be incorporated to have a new

purpose built transfer station on the eastern side

of Emerald.

• Ongoing closure, rehabilitation and removal from

EHP approval of old landfill sites.


Lochlees Rd Landfill

• This facility is currently licensed to take 10,000 – 20,000 tonne per annum

• This year about 19,000 tonnes for waste was received at Lochlees landfill of which about 14,000 tonnes was land filled and 5,000 tonnes of green waste, concrete and scrap metal was mulched and reused or sent for recycling.

• The landfill has a limited life estimated to be between 10 to 15 years but as the site is surrounded by Belmah Regional Park (a newly protected area managed by Qld Parks and Wildlife Service), there is increase pressure from the State government to relocate within the next 10 years.

• About three months ago extensive improvement works commenced on improving fencing, stormwater containment and ensuring operational landfilling followed design parameters at Lochlees.

• Further works are planned over the next four months to finalise these stormwater containment works so the operations at Lochlees can meet state government compliance conditions. Council has received three warning notices from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection in the past four months, one of which have retracted.


Lochlees Rd Landfill


Blackwater Landfill

• The Blackwater facility is currently licensed to take 2,000 – 5,000 tonne per annum.

• The Blackwater landfill is an unlined landfill and has been in operation since at least the 1970s.

• An underground mining application has been lodged that may impacts the long term viability of the Blackwater site.

• Blackwater landfill has an at least 10 years of active life. A Landfill Development Plan will be developed to assess the long term life and to ensure the progressive development of waste disposal.

• An application to DEHP will be lodged for an increase to 10,000 - 20,000 tonne of waste per annum.

• JJ Richards is currently contracted to managed the Blackwater landfill on a monthly basis. A tender for the three year appointment of a contactor to run the landfill is required.

• Works are planned over the next six months to upgrade the stormwater containment and improve fencing so the operations meet state government compliance conditions. Council has received two warning notices and a show cause notice from the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection regarding compliance at Blackwater.


Blackwater Landfill


Springsure Landfill

• The Springsure landfill is located up gradient from Springsure Creek and has been operating for several decades.

• The Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP) has raised concerns about the landfills location and its impacts on groundwater and surface water in the area.

• The site has been historically trenched into a rocky subsurface and waste has been left to build up with no uniform landform or final profile plan.

• The conversion of the Springsure landfill to a Transfer Station has assisted in deflecting EHP concerns by addressing stormwater management and landform profile.

• Inert waste (such as green waste and concrete) will still be received at the transfer station and reused on site for profiling the areas surrounding the new transfer station.

• The construction of the new transfer station at Springsure should start in July with completion timed for late September 2016.

• During the construction period, a temporary bin station has been established to be used by the Springsure community.


Springsure Landfill


Capella Landfill and Transfer Station

• This facility operates as a waste transfer station but is still on the environmental approval as a landfill.

• We need to develop closure plans, complete the landfill capping and rehabilitation of the site. Once these works are completed Council can remove these sites from the Environmental approval list and reduce Council statutory and compliance risk.

• Closure Plans are planned to be developed in the following year (17/18) , which will identify required earth works and rehabilitation to remove the site from the environmental approval.

• Only domestic waste is accepted at these sites.

• Commercial operators are directed towards Lochlees landfill.



Tieri Landfill and Transfer Station • The Tieri landfill and transfer station is located in an old basalt quarry site and

has been operating for several years.

• The Tieri landfill is an unlined landfill and has been in operation since at least the 1990s.

• The Tieri landfill has at least 15 years of active life. A Landfill Development Plan will be developed to assess the long term life and to ensure the progressive development of waste disposal.

• At this stage, Tieri will continue to operate as it does now with limited plans to improvement waste manage to ensure compliance with environmental approval conditions.

• The opening hours must reflect the volume of waste being deposited. eg open 4 days per week (8AM to 5PM – Wednesday to Saturday)).

• Commercial users need to be charged fees or directed towards Lochlees landfill.

• The sites operations have been contracted out to a Central highlands based operator on a part-time basis.


Tieri Landfill


Rolleston Landfill

• The landfill operations are in an adjoining reserve outside of the existing approval area, as the approved area was filled several years ago.

• A concept design has been completed for a Bin Station adjacent to the Sewage Treatment Plant and capital funding has been identified in financial year 17 /18 to convert the landfill to a bin station.

• Fires are regularly lit at the landfill and EHP has identified this as a non-compliance with the environmental approval.

• EHP have also raised concerns about impacts on groundwater. To alleviate these concerns a groundwater monitoring program has been developed which will be implemented next wet season.

• The existing site is beside the Rolleston airstrip which presents significant risk to planes from birds and windblown litter.


Rolleston Landfill


Sapphire-Rubyvale / Anakie / Willows and

Bogantungan waste disposal sites• Anakie has a bin station and also has a bin service, while Sapphire and Rubyvale

township rely on a small rural landfill for all waste management.

• The Sapphire - Rubyvale landfill is full and has been elevated to enable additional filling for at least 6 months. The site must be converted to a transfer station as soon as possible.

• A concept design has been completed for the Rubyvale- Sapphire transfer station and a final design is underway for a transfer station facility.

• To reduce the volumes for waste going into landfill the introduction of a bin service (both general and recyclable waste) in Sapphire and Rubyvale will reduce the volumes going into landfill as well as waste volumes requiring transfer from the new waste transfer station.

• Willows and Bogantungan will soon be converted to bin stations in line with the waste strategy. The Bogantungan landfill facility is almost full and the Willows facility has ongoing non-compliance issues, such as fires, stormwater releases and currently not on the EHP approval.

• This strategy to waste reduction and recycling is consistent with the waste strategy outlined within the Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan.


Boguntungan


Duaringa, Dingo and Bluff Waste

Transfer Stations• These facilities now operate as waste transfer stations but are still on the

environmental approval as landfills.

• EHP have requested that we develop closure plans, complete the landfill capping and rehabilitation site. Once these works are completed Council can remove these sites from the Environmental approval list and reduce Council’s statutory and compliance risk.

• Closure Plans will be developed next financial year (16/17) , which will identify required earth works and rehabilitation to remove these sites from the environmental approval.

• Only domestic waste is accepted at these sites.

• Commercial operators are directed towards Blackwater landfill.


Dingo landfill area


Emerald Transfer Station

• The only aspect of the Emerald Transfer Station that requires licensing is the storage of regulated wastes (oils, batteries and waste chemicals).

• The facility addresses domestics waste only and commercial operators are directed towards Lochlees for waste disposal.

• The facility needs to work closely with the Tip Shop to ensure waste reduction and recycling is maximised.

• The Tip Shop facility has requested reduced hours based on utilisation.

• Current opening hours at the transfer station are from 7AM to 6PM, 7 days per week (except Christmas and Good Friday) and the facility is not fully utilised particularly in winter.

• Alternative hours are recommended for the Emerald Transfer facility;

8AM to 5PM, 7 days per week (except Christmas, Anzac Day and Good Friday)


Centralised Waste Facility Feasibility Study (Ramp 20 Void)

• AECOM has been commissioned to undertake a Feasibility Study into the potential use of a mining void as a centralised landfill site.

• The Feasibility study objectives were to:

– to analyse the feasibility of coal mine final void (or viable alternative) as a location for a centralised waste disposal facility

– to identify the engineering design and environmental viability

– provide recommendations for future actions including alternative option



• The Feasibility study includes:

– A review of the relevant waste management legislation and waste

management guidelines and their application to a final void for waste disposal

– An overview of similar waste disposal operations where a final void has been

used for waste disposal

– Review of the preferred site in comparison to potential alternative sites that

will provide maximum convenience for the regions waste generators.

– Waste transport capability to the preferred site from the Central Highlands

area and adjacent regional Councils

– Environmental constraints including impacts and impediments to vegetation,

surface and groundwater, noise, dust and odour (associated with any nearby

sensitive receptors) for the preferred site

– Accessibility of infrastructure including water, roads and power at the

preferred site

– Regional waste disposal opportunities for other Councils and waste

management operators to provide waste to the facility.



• The Feasibility study includes:

– SWOT analysis and Risk analysis – environmental, commercial, economic, rehabilitation, and strategic issues (associated with construction, operations, rehabilitation and ongoing care and maintenance associated with the mining operations)

– Regional economic benefit

– Cost modelling for construction and operation (based on concept design at the preferred site)

– Preliminary concept design that complies with the state and federal legislation for a general waste disposal facility (including EHP’s model conditions for ERA60 and EHP’s Guideline – Landfilling, siting, design, operation and rehabilitation, Version 2) (Appendix B & C).

– The concept design must incorporate details of leachate management, stormwater management, groundwater inflow management, cell lining and cell development. The viability and cost of the concept design must be outlined within the feasibility study.

– Gas management and extraction options must also be considered to minimise the release of greenhouse gas emissions that will reduce Council’s exposure.


AECOM Presentation – Centralised Waste Facility

• Hand over to AECOM – Rosanna Sanderson and Steve Robertson


Questions

• Thank you


Emerald Centralised Landfill FacilityRamp 20 Mine Feasibility

Steve Robertson

28 June 2016


Ramp 20 Mine PitRamp 20 Mine PitRamp 20 Mine PitRamp 20 Mine PitProposed Landfill

28 June 2016


Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill –––– Ramp 20 Mine PitRamp 20 Mine PitRamp 20 Mine PitRamp 20 Mine Pit

Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan alignment, specifically a regional solution

Centralised Facility – replaces Lochlees, Tieri, Blackwater and Springsure

Reduction in environmental risk for other sites through closure, rehabilitation and consolidation of operations.

80+ years capacity

Brownfields site

June 20, 2016Ramp 20 Mine Landfill Feasibility Page 3

Approximately Approximately Approximately Approximately 35km from 35km from 35km from 35km from EmeraldEmeraldEmeraldEmerald


Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill ---- SWOTSWOTSWOTSWOT

June 20, 2016 Page 4

Potential StrengthsPotential StrengthsPotential StrengthsPotential Strengths Potential WeaknessesPotential WeaknessesPotential WeaknessesPotential Weaknesses

- Significant amount of airspace available in void without the need for significant excavation

- Brownfield site and already disturbed therefore community acceptance of the site for landfilling potentially higher

- Vehicular access to the site unlikely to be constrained- Substantial buffer distances surrounding the proposed landfill - Reduced approval requirements due to brownfield development

(e.g. cultural heritage, EPBC Act requirements previously assessed)

- Substantial data anticipated to already exist, therefore investigation burden may be reduced

- Significant reshaping and regrading works would be required before the pit is suitable for landfilling

- Base of pit is below groundwater level, so ongoing groundwater management and extraction will be required

- Airspace quantity may far exceed requirement for CHRC (potentially 80 years)

- Requirement to provide an alternative site should Ramp 20 be inundated for an extended period of time

- Technically more complex compared to development of a greenfield site

Potential OpportunitiesPotential OpportunitiesPotential OpportunitiesPotential Opportunities Potential ThreatsPotential ThreatsPotential ThreatsPotential Threats

- Landfilling may able to be incorporated as mine rehabilitation works

- Potential for a commercial benefit for the incumbent mining entity to be realised through a reduction in their overall liability through progressive rehabilitation

- Following the above point, subsidisation of the waste management activity may be available should the liability reduction be significant

- Opportunity to transition to a regional facility

- Inundation and/or flooding (from Corkscrew Ck) of the pit would cause major disruptions in filling ability.

- Proposal requires reaching a mutually beneficial agreement with Site Owner. Site Owner will need to undertake substantial reshaping works for the low wall and overburden stockpiles

- The discharge of saline water from groundwater dewatering may be difficult

- Vertical wall lining will be complex but has been adopted before

Ramp 20 Mine Landfill Feasibility


Proposed Site Proposed Site Proposed Site Proposed Site –––– existing surface and voidexisting surface and voidexisting surface and voidexisting surface and void


Ramp 20 Ramp 20 Ramp 20 Ramp 20 (proposed (proposed (proposed (proposed

landfill)landfill)landfill)landfill)

Ramp 21Ramp 21Ramp 21Ramp 21

Overburden Overburden Overburden Overburden StockpileStockpileStockpileStockpile

Western Western Western Western laydown arealaydown arealaydown arealaydown area



Proposed Site Proposed Site Proposed Site Proposed Site –––– existing surface and voidexisting surface and voidexisting surface and voidexisting surface and void


Ramp 21Ramp 21Ramp 21Ramp 21

Overburden Overburden Overburden Overburden StockpileStockpileStockpileStockpile

Western Western Western Western laydown arealaydown arealaydown arealaydown area

Ramp 20 Ramp 20 Ramp 20 Ramp 20 (proposed (proposed (proposed (proposed

landfill)landfill)landfill)landfill)



Indicative SectionsIndicative SectionsIndicative SectionsIndicative Sections

June 20, 2016 Page 7Ramp 20 Mine Landfill Feasibility


Indicative SectionsIndicative SectionsIndicative SectionsIndicative Sections



Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill –––– Technical Feasibility ConsiderationsTechnical Feasibility ConsiderationsTechnical Feasibility ConsiderationsTechnical Feasibility Considerations


IssueIssueIssueIssue Activity / ApproachActivity / ApproachActivity / ApproachActivity / Approach Normal Range of

Requirements

Transportation routes Assessment of distances between transfer stations and the site to inform operational costs

Topography Review of topographical constraints particularly reshaping works required with respect to overburden stockpiles and saddles

Topography <15°

Climate Review climate data provided by BOM including annual and monthly rainfall data, prevailing wind direction and evaporation rates

Prevailing wind away from

sensitive receptors

Groundwater and groundwater management

Provide a preliminary assessment of potential groundwater extraction rates based on existing groundwater modelling.An update to groundwater modelling work completed by AGE will be required to assess and incorporate potential inflow from Corkscrew Creek if stream is losing, however it is recommended this item can be deferred until Impact Assessment stage.

Outside proclaimed sub-

artesian districts

Outside groundwater recharge

and potable aquifer zones

> 2m depth to water table

Surface waters and flooding

Provide a preliminary assessment of potential surface water management options to mitigate pit flooding (internal and external management).Further flood modelling is required to understand the impact of 1%AEP and lesser storm events on inundation of the pit (extent and duration) and access to the site.

> 100m from surface waters

> 100m from 1 in 100 year

ARI flood plain

> 100m from wetlands

Outside water supply

catchment

Geology and soils Review of geological maps and identification of any design considerations Low permeability soils

preferred



Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill –––– Technical Feasibility ConsiderationsTechnical Feasibility ConsiderationsTechnical Feasibility ConsiderationsTechnical Feasibility Considerations

June 20, 2016 Page 10

IssueIssueIssueIssue Activity / ApproachActivity / ApproachActivity / ApproachActivity / Approach Normal Range of

Requirements

Noise, dust and odour Not considered of concern due to mine lease extents, limited further assessment for feasibility however will need to be considered in impact assessment for approvals.

> 500m from a sensitive land

use

Vegetation and Fauna

Site layout/landfilling methodology

Preparation of a staged outline plan for filling the site. Cells to be based on a 4-8 year lifespan

Timeframe to be based on

operational and financial

considerations

Leachate management Preparation of a basic water balance model to estimate leachate generation rates No leachate release from site

Landfill gas management Preparation of a basis 1d decay model to estimate landfill gas generation rates, acknowledging the inherent limitations in gas modelling

Active or passive gas

management of a site of this

size

Coal seam management Inclusion into risk assessment process (including safety and construction) Construction and operation

Risk Assessment Prepare a conceptual site model and source-exposure pathway-receptor chain for the site that satisfies EHP requirements for landfill siting studies

Risk assessment process

Approvals Determine approvals process and timeframe estimates Development Permit and ERA

approval



Economics and cost-benefitLegal considerationsNegotiations with Site Owner and site preparation works

• Dewatering the pit - approx. 3,030,000m3 (6 months)• Reshaping the low wall – approx. 2,900,000m3

• Filling the pit floor to RL 136 – 1,500,000m3

Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill –––– NonNonNonNon----Technical Feasibility ConsiderationsTechnical Feasibility ConsiderationsTechnical Feasibility ConsiderationsTechnical Feasibility Considerations



Determine Feasibility

Negotiations with Site Owner

Dewatering of Pit

(6 months)

Reshaping low wall (12 months)

Filling the pit floor (18 months)

Site Investigations / Design / Approvals Process

(24 months)

Tender and Construction (12 months)

Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill Proposed Landfill –––– TimelineTimelineTimelineTimeline

June 20, 2016 Page 12

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020


By Others


Flooding and Surface Water ManagementFlooding and Surface Water ManagementFlooding and Surface Water ManagementFlooding and Surface Water Management

June 20, 2016 Page 13

• The model is based on SRTM levels, with survey across the actual mine site.• In the locations where the surveyed levels can be compared to the SRTM levels, it

appears that the SRTM on average ~1.5-2m lower than the surveyed levels.• As there is predicted to by ~4.0m before the levee will overtop in the 1,000yr

Corkscrew Creek event, this gives some confidence that the levee is achieving the required immunity.

Ramp 20




June 20, 2016 Page 14

• The 1,000yr levee predicted water surface elevation is ~158.1mAHD.

• The top of levee is at ~162.1mAHD.

Probability of Flooding(from Corkscrew Creek)

Assume landfill lifetime of 100 years- 100 year ARI - 87% chance of flood of that

magnitude- 500 year ARI – 18% chance of flood of that

magnitude- 1000 year ARI – 9.5% chance of flood of

that magnitude

Question Question Question Question –––– what flood immunity should be what flood immunity should be what flood immunity should be what flood immunity should be accepted?accepted?accepted?accepted?




June 20, 2016 Page 15

HOWEVER

• Pit will be inundated due to rainfall within pit catchment

• Currently modelling inundation with the pit for:

- 1% AEP (100 yr ARI)- 0.5% AEP (200 yr ARI)- 0.2% AEP (500 yr ARI)- 0.1% AEP (1000 yr ARI)

• Provided capacity at southern end of pit for detaining surface water




June 20, 2016 Page 16

Because of the real risk of extended inundation of the pit, CHRC will need to maintain a site that can be used in prolonged periods of inundation (or agreement with

surrounding council)



Groundwater ManagementGroundwater ManagementGroundwater ManagementGroundwater Management

June 20, 2016 Page 17

Potential groundwater and seepage inflow- Through base – regional groundwater at RL 131

• Groundwater collection and extraction system (pumps)- Through wall between Ramp 20 and Ramp 21

• Collection curtain and vertical riser



Geotechnical StabilityGeotechnical StabilityGeotechnical StabilityGeotechnical Stability

June 20, 2016 Page 18

Potentially unstable areas- Highwall (western side)

• Information provided by Site Owners indicates factor of safety between 1.15 and 2.0 • May need localised support – to confirm when dewatered and proper geotechnical

investigations can be completed- Low wall and saddles (eastern side)

• Currently unstable• High erosion rates expected



Landfill DesignLandfill DesignLandfill DesignLandfill Design



Landfill DesignLandfill DesignLandfill DesignLandfill Design



Approvals to be consideredApprovals to be consideredApprovals to be consideredApprovals to be considered

June 20, 2016 Page 21

SiteSiteSiteSite----based based based based assessmentassessmentassessmentassessment

Environmental Environmental Environmental Environmental Protection Act 1994Protection Act 1994Protection Act 1994Protection Act 1994

Sustainable Planning Sustainable Planning Sustainable Planning Sustainable Planning Act 2009Act 2009Act 2009Act 2009

Assessments to inform a risk-based approach to site-specific circumstances and identified hazards across landfill development, operation and rehabilitation.

Queensland environmental legislation, including tools for protection of environmental values such as environmental authority to operate.

Planning instruments (State, regional and local) for assessing development application for material change of use .

• Risk assessment• Tenure• Native title• Cultural heritage• Hydrological and hydrogeological risk

assessment• Stability risk assessment• Detailed design• Construction quality assurance

Environmental authority (EA) Environmental authority (EA) Environmental authority (EA) Environmental authority (EA) application(or amendment) for to permit environmentally relevant activities e.g. ERA 60 – Waste disposal.An EIS may be required if EHP deem the proposed change involves a significant environmental impact, or high level of uncertainty about potential impact, or involve a high level of public interest. Cumulative impacts could also trigger an EIS requirement.

Financial assurance to guarantee that the costs of remediation, site closure and post-closure liabilities.Model operating conditions for landfill activities.

DevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopmentDevelopment approval approval approval approval for a material change of use, under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009, if the ERA threshold is defined as a concurrence ERA.If the activity is assessable under the planning scheme, the assessment manager will be the local government and Department of Infrastructure Local Government and Planning (DILGP) will be the concurrence agency. Notification requirements.



EA amendment (major) process as per EP ActEA amendment (major) process as per EP ActEA amendment (major) process as per EP ActEA amendment (major) process as per EP Act



Questions

June 28, 2016



MINUTES – CENTRAL HIGHLANDS ARTS AND CULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (CHACAC) AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FUND APPLICATIONS

Communities Standing Committee

28 June 2016

JM/BWD

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Regional Arts Development Fund (RADF) Program has four primary application rounds in February, May, August and November annually. Applications were recommended for approval by the Central Highlands Arts and Cultural Advisory Committee (CHACAC) and then endorsed by Central Highlands Regional Council. The CHACAC held a meeting on Thursday 2 June 2016 and the following applications and strategic initiatives projects were recommended for approval in the May round 2015/16 financial year. Applications and Strategic Initiative projects:

The Emerald Patchwork Group requested - $858 Rubi Recycled Art Cardboard mazes for artist precinct in Emerald and Blackwater - $3,683 Blackwater Film Workshop - $3,000 Queensland Ballet - $2,500 Museum Projects – Rainworth Fort Committee Significant Assessment - $7,450 and Capella

Pioneer Village- Significant Assessment - $7,450 Drumming Workshops - $5,000 Art Group Resource kits - $2,400.00 Any remaining funds to be assigned to Mosaic table tops for the Arts precinct area - $7,000 plus.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the Central Highlands Regional Council Communities Standing Committee recommend that Council endorse the minutes of the Central Highlands Arts and Cultural Advisory Committee (CHACAC) held on 2 June 2016.

INTRODUCTION

The Communities Standing Committee is responsible for considering the minutes as presented and endorse any proposed action taken or refer back to the Committee items that might need further clarification.

BACKGROUND:

Joint programme with State Government.

COMMENT:

Nil.

CONSIDERATIONS: (Compliance/Risk Management)

Statutory:Joint programme with State Government.


Policy:Joint programme with State Government.

Financial: (Including whole of life costs where applicable)In accordance with 2015/16 Council and RADF budget.

Social:Capacity building across communities in the region.

Corporate Plan:Strong and Vibrant Communities.

RISK MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT:This risk management analysis pertains to the context of Council supporting the recommendation and implementing same.

Operational:Not applicable

Strategic:Not applicable

Reputation:Not applicable

Project:Not applicable

Political:Not applicable

Environmental:Not applicable

CONSULTATION / ENGAGEMENT:

Via the Central Highlands Arts and Cultural Advisory Committee (CHACAC) and then endorsed by Central Highlands Regional Council.

WHOLE OF LIFE:

Not applicable.

OPTIONS:

Not applicable

CONCLUSION:

That the minutes of the Central Highlands Arts and Cultural Advisory Committee (CHACAC) held on 2 June 2016 be endorsed and the RADF projects be approved.


ATTACHMENTS:

1. Central Highlands Arts and Cultural Advisory Committee (CHACAC) Minutes

Janice MoriartyManager Community Planning and Engagement Brad Duke General Manager Communities

Central Highlands Arts and Cultural Advisory Committee (CHACAC) – Minutes

2 June 2016 – 10:05am

Apologies: Cr Gail Godwin-Smith, Ann Marie Joubert, Lisa Hodge

Present: Cr Gail Nixon, Maureen Burns, Anna- Jane Gordon, Kathy Hawkins, Sharon Gimbert, Leaonie Hinsbey, & Karen Newman (RADF Liaison Officer)[RLO]

Minute Taker: Karen Newman (RLO and ACO)

Item Action Person Responsible Due Date

1. Opening and Welcome Cr Gail Nixon chaired and opened the meeting.

A welcome to new member Anna-Jane Gordon

RLO – RADF Liaison Officer

ACO – Arts & Cultural Officer

2. Apologies Apologies noted are from Cr Gail Godwin-Smith, Ann

Marie Joubert and Lisa Hodge.

3. Review of Action from Previous Meeting Approved minutes of the previous meeting were read

Leaonie asked about the Communication Plan and

suggested CQ News advertising as option, most

committee members considered local newsletters,

social media, email networks, face to face discussions

and CHRC website targeted a greater audience and be

more cost effective.

Requests for an elevated profile within council of

CHACAC, discussion regarding many departments and

too large an organisation to constantly know all the arts,

heritage and cultural projects being undertaken within

other departments.

RLO indicated that she would be making a RADF

presentation to the new council to elevate the profile of

the program.

Leaonie enquired regarding hat workshops for Capella

and Rolleston. RLO indicated that the artist involved

has sold her business and is no longer available to run

these workshops.

4. RADF Evaluation Exercise by committee • Who, What, When, Where, Why activity

5. Correspondence: • Emails as circulated

• New changes to RADF including Outcome reporting

Email

correspondence


• RLO noted the new Arts Queensland Bid information

which was emailed out to all members

• Out-Of-Round Applications did not go through

• Online Bid will be shown to committee today

• Blackwater Art Competition received funding from

another source

• Drumming Workshops confirmation held off until

new Strategic Initiative Projects explained and

clarification by committee

• Blackwater Film Workshop change of date

RADF Out-Of-Round Applications

will be resubmitted for

additional approval

and phone calls

regarding Out-Of-

Round application

not necessary as

the round did not

go to council

6. Arts and Cultural Officer Project Updates

1. RLO went through CHRC RADF Online Bid for new

2016-17 financial year with CHACAC committee.

Proposed program

The 2016-17 RADF Program delivery:

Community Grants for individuals and community group

projects where a portion of the RADF grant funding to

address community projects regionally

Council Initiated Projects

CHRC Regional Promotional Arts, Cultural and Heritage

Booklet

Regional Committee and Community Training

of Individuals and groups

Elevating the Profile and Impact of our CHRC Arts in August

Program (a Roaming Regional Artist Retreat has been

suggested for inclusion in the Arts in August Program as an

annual event as we have a number of iconic and

picturesque sites)

Animating Spaces to Create Welcoming Places


Concept designs for Public Art Projects

These will meet with the Arts Queensland KPOs of:

Impact, Quality, Reach and Viability

Local Priorities

Explain how the proposed program delivers on local arts

and cultural priorities

* Artist and Groups development and promotion,

* Cultural Tourism,

* Partnership Programs and Projects

* Economic Development for the Arts, Heritage and Cultural

sectors of the Central Highlands region

We will again be applying for the $40,000 maximum based

on population from Arts Queensland

2. RLO noted the Out-of-Round RADF Applications had

already been discussed as not approved so

endorsement would be necessary during the

meeting for all RADF applications and Strategic

Initiatives to reach the $0 balance of the funding for

the Annual RADF Bid.

3. RLO discussed applications may be less this year

due to too complex an application process and an

unsatisfactory budget area (which we changed as

requested to match Arts Queensland Outcome

report). Mackay seems to be using their old budget

model and we will change our current application

form and offer more assistance to applicants. All

committee members should be able to help

applicants and Committee member names will be

available on the CHRC RADF website as additional

support contacts for the program.


4. RLO advised that all recommendations have to be

approved by Council so with the financial year

pending all RADF finances need approval today.

5. Resolution:

Moved by Maureen, seconded by Kathy

That the Out-Of-Round applications be approved

and a resolution recorded to support previous and

current Strategic Initiatives

Strategic Initiative Projects

As part of this new model CHRC RADF model of 2014;

Strategic Initiative projects are council recommended and

also the arts and cultural advisory groups recommendations

and will be recorded in the subsequent minutes. These

Strategic Initiative projects will be funded from the RADF

budget by discretionary funding with an overall total project

limit being put forward to council for approval for each

project. Strategic Initiatives will be project managed by the

CHRC Arts and Cultural Officer in partnership with the

proposer of the project and will also include council projects

instigated during the Annual RADF Bid application.

6. Applications and Strategic Initiative projects were

discussed:

The Emerald Patchwork Group requested

$858 approved

Rubi Recycled Art Cardboard mazes for artist

precinct. In Emerald and Blackwater

$3,683 approved

Blackwater Film Workshop $3,000 approved

Queensland Ballet $2,500 approved

Moved Maureen and seconded

Kathy.

Moved Sharon seconded Leaonie

100% for travel and

accommodation not tutor


Museum Projects – Rainworth Fort Committee

Significant Assessment $7,450 approved

and

Capella Pioneer Village- Significant Assessment

d $7,450 approved

7. Drumming Workshops RLO to again liaised with

Duaringa, Dingo and Bluff and the smaller schools–

The Committee reaffirmed on $5,000 for the

Drumming Workshops Strategic Imitative

d $5,000 approved

8. Similar to Emerald Art Group Resource kits to be

obtained for Blackwater, Gemfields and Rolleston.

Moved Kathy and seconded Sharon.

$2,400.00

9. Any remaining funds to be assigned to Mosaic table

tops for the Arts precinct area.

The Heritage strategy was discussed.

Lunch.

Meeting closed at 12.45 pm.

Priority Actions Complete and submit RADF Bid by 3pm 2nd June.

Send through minutes to council community meeting.

Finalise all strategic initiative applications.

Check with finance and establish a $0 balance for 2015/16

RADF budget. Any remaining funds will be allocated to the

mosaic project approximately $7000 plus.



GENERAL BUSINESS

LATE AGENDA ITEMS

Documents

AGENDA - Central Highlands Region · 2016-06-27 · Tuesday 24 May 2016 . Commenced at 9.00am Agenda - Communities Standing Committee Meeting - 28 June 2016 - Page 3. MINUTES –