Criterion 3 – Reasonable costs The proposed development contribution is based on a reasonable estimate of the cost of the proposed public amenities and public services. IPART must advise whether the proposed development contributions are based on a reasonable estimate of the cost of the proposed public amenities and public services. Reasonable may be based on estimates that have been provided by consultants or the council’s experience. They should be comparable to the costs required to deliver similar land and facilities in other areas. To assess costs we examine the works schedules and identify any cost differences between what was recommended in the supporting studies and the contributions plan, and why these may have occurred. We draw comparisons with the costs contained in industry guides and other sources where appropriate. An example may include our Local Infrastructure Benchmark Cost review. Consultants may also be used to help identify whether costs are reasonable for some types of infrastructure. Checklist for the contributions plan Does the contributions plan … Contributions Plan page reference(s) Include a statement about how costs have been derived and when these cost estimates were prepared (eg, Quantity Surveyor, standard costs used by the council)? Yes No Relevant background studies Explain how and when the land has been valued? Yes No MMJ Report Include full costs of each item of infrastructure? Yes No Work Schedules Explain how the council will respond to cost fluctuations and inflation? Yes No Section 2.22 of the Plan (page 11) Include a schedule of the contributions rates charged under the contributions plan (eg, this could be presented as $/ha, $/person, $/dwelling)? Yes No Part 1 of the Plan (page 1) Provide details of accounting processes for s94 funds (eg, does council ‘pool’ funds from other s94 accounts or use internal borrowings to deliver infrastructure projects)? Yes No Not applicable If using a Net Present Value (NPV) approach, include assumptions made in the modelling of costs and revenue? Yes No Not applicable Include a schedule of land acquisitions required for the proposed infrastructure? Yes No Work Schedules
Council’s “Have Your Say” exhibition website contained FAQ’s prepared for the draft Plan as well as the maps, draft Plan and Council reports. The website received three hundred and six (306) visits. Eighty nine (89) people downloaded documents from the webpage. One hundred and eighty seven (187) downloads were received. Council received seven (7) submissions in total. What actions did the council take in response to the submissions? Council received five (5) submissions during the exhibition period, and two (2) submissions following the exhibition period. Please refer to Councillor Information Report for a copy of all the submission received and Council Officers response to the matters raised. Apart from a number of minor corrections to text within the Plan to ensure consistency between figures, no major amendments were made to the Draft Plan. There were also no amendments made to the Work Schedules. Does the council intend to undertake any further publicity or community liaison? No. Council resolved at its Ordinary Meeting of 30 November that the Draft Plan be forwarded to IPART if no significant issues were raised during the exhibition period. As no significant matters were raised within the submission no further public exhibition or consultation is required.