2015-04-07 General Committee Agenda

Section 2

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                        7 APRIL 2015


TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM                                                                                          PAGE


ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES                                                                             -
Nil.

PRESENTATIONS                                                                                      -
Nil.

ITEMS REFERRED FROM INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES COMMITTEE                                            -

1      PROPOSAL TO AMEND CIVIL OPERATIONS BRANCH STRUCTURE
       (Previously distributed in Infrastructure & Services Committee Agenda, Page 3)
       Reason for referral: I&S Committee disagree with recommendation

ITEMS REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE                                              -

9      LOCAL ECONOMIC PLAN
       (Previously distributed in Planning & Organisation Committee Agenda, Page 43)
       Reason for referral: Significance of issue


REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE                                                               3

1      CORPORATE EVENTS - PROPOSED FEE 2014/15 GENERAL COST RECOVERY
       FEES AND CHARGES SCHEDULE                                                                  3
2      JOINT TRANSLINK & NOOSA ELECTRIC BUS PRE-FEASIBILITY OUTCOMES                              5


CLOSED SESSION                                                                               -




                                                                                         Page 2 of 9

Section 3

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                              7 APRIL 2015


REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE


1                        CORPORATE EVENTS - PROPOSED FEE 2014/15 GENERAL COST RECOVERY FEES
                         AND CHARGES SCHEDULE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION




Author                           Property and Facilities Manager, Clint Irwin
                                 Corporate Services Department

Index                            ECM/ Subject/ Fees and Charges & Subject/ Licences/Permits/Registrations

Attachments                      Nil


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable

RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Property and Facilities Manager to the General Committee
Meeting dated 7 April 2015 and agree to include in Council’s 2014/15 General Cost Recovery
Fees and Charges schedule an additional fee ‘Temporary Event Commercial Applicant
(Corporate) – High Impact Price on Application (POA)’ for corporate events.


REPORT
The unique characteristics of Noosa Shire and the ‘Noosa Brand’ combine to make Noosa an
attractive destination for corporate events. On occasion Council receives applications from event
organisers to run corporate events on community land. The applications generally come from
professional event organisers who have considerable expertise and skill in managing high profile
events.

There is a corresponding cost for Council to consider corporate event applications and issue
approvals. The cost pertains to managing the application process, including assessment of the
event application which is broader and more comprehensive than other standard temporary
event applications, processing of fees and issuing of approvals. Some events will also require
physical works to be undertaken at beaches (e.g. construction of sand platforms), parks and
foreshore areas.

Council’s General Cost Recovery Fees and Charges schedule does not include corporate events
within the fee structure. Therefore it is proposed that Council consider the inclusion of the
following fee within Council’s General Cost Recovery Fees and Charges schedule:

Temporary Event Commercial Applicant (Corporate) – High Impact Price on Application (POA)

Price on application is required for the proposed new fee due to the size, scale, complexity and
other factors which are likely to differ for each event, requiring varying levels of administration,
assessment and potential physical works for each application.

POA fees for each event will be determined by the Property Officer, Property and Facilities
Manager and the Director Corporate Services and where appropriate based on comparison of
like events at other local government areas.


                                                                                                Page 3 of 9

Section 4

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                7 APRIL 2015


Previous Council Consideration

Nil.

Finance & Risk

The costs that will be incurred in the assessment and administration of corporate event
applications will be accommodated within the Corporate Services Department.

Consultation

External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder

Nil.

Internal Consultation

Director Corporate Services
Property Officer


Departments/Sections Consulted:

       Community Services                       Planning & Infrastructure
       Disaster Management & Public Order       Building & Plumbing Services
       Waste & Environmental Health             DA Planning
       Community Facilities                     Strategic Land Use Planning
       Cultural Facilities                      Asset Design & Investigations
                                                Asset Planning
                                                Civil Operations
                                                Environment

X      Executive Office                     X   Corporate Services
       Community Engagement                     Finance
       Customer Service                         ICT
       Executive Support                        Procurement & Fleet
       Governance                           X   Property & Facilities
       Human Resources                          Revenue Services




                                                                                 Page 4 of 9

Section 5

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                                             7 APRIL 2015


2                        JOINT TRANSLINK & NOOSA ELECTRIC BUS PRE-FEASIBILITY OUTCOMES
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION




Author                              Martin Drydale, Director Planning & Infrastructure
                                    Planning & Infrastructure Department

Index                               ECM\ Project\ TP000300,      ECM\ Subject\ Commercial Bus Routes
                                    ECM\ Subject\ Transport Levy

Attachments                         1.    Pre-feasibility Study of Electric Bus Routes in Noosa –
                                          Planning Report (copy provided in Councillors’ Room)


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.

RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Director Planning & Infrastructure to the General Committee
Meeting dated 7 April 2015 and:
A.                       Note the pre-feasibility study report prepared by consultants GHD Pty Ltd, provided at
                         Attachment 1 to the General Committee report;
B.                       Based on the findings of the report, approve the commencement of a six month live trial of
                         electric buses in Noosa during the 2015/16 financial year:
                         1.   In a 50:50 cost sharing partnership with the Department of Transport and Main
                              Roads, TransLink Division;
                         2.   Covering the existing 627 Tewantin – Sunshine bus route;
                         3.   Leasing up to 3 x Optare 10 metre electric buses based on the submitted pricing in
                              the GHD report; and
                         4.   Facilitating the installation of suitable charging infrastructure to support the live trial.
C.                       Authorise the CEO to negotiate with TransLink, Sunbus and Optare regarding the
                         implementation, monitoring and reporting of the live trial; and
D.                       Approve the funding of the live trial to a maximum of $550,000 to be met from the Public
                         Transport Levy Reserve.



REPORT
In 2014, Noosa Council and TransLink jointly appointed GHD Pty Ltd to undertake a pre-
feasibility study to examine the operational practicalities of introducing electric buses into the
existing TransLink route network.
The study scope and objectives were:
 To assess the feasibility of electric bus routes in the Noosa area in order to provide sufficient
   evidence to justify a decision to progress the project further;
 To undertake an assessment of the available technology, required infrastructure, network
   planning and passenger utilisation needed to determine the future costs and operational
   effectiveness of such a service; and
 To develop a Strategic Outline Case (SOC) in order to introduce a trial electric bus service in
   the Noosa area expected in mid to late 2015 for a continuous period of 6 months.

                                                                                                               Page 5 of 9

Section 6

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                    7 APRIL 2015


1.   Key Tasks

The key tasks associated with the project were:
 Determining the preferred operating environment and bus route for an electric bus service
   within Noosa;
 Undertaking a market sounding exercise to understand the Australian and international
   electric bus market including interviewing electric bus manufacturers to develop comparative
   product (fleet) profiles;
 Interviewing clients (bus operators and transit agencies) globally who are currently operating
   electric buses to understand the costs and benefits, risks, opportunities, issues and lessons
   learned from operating electric buses;
 Undertaking a literature review of legislation, policy, standards, regulations and contracts to
   understand the parameters in which such a service may be deployed in Australia and more
   particularly in Queensland;
 Determining the most appropriate solution for a Noosa trial based on fleet size and
   recharging options (i.e. back to base or in-operation fast or inductive charging);
 Developing an assessment criteria framework to guide decision making on fleet procurement
   options;
 Developing a SOC identifying the indicative costs of establishment and operations of a
   recommended option to proceeds to a live trial, together with potential funding sources; and
 Recommendation of one or more potential electric buses that should be part of a live trial.


2.   Preferred Route

Following an assessment of all routes in the Noosa area, route 627 Tewantin – Sunshine Beach
was determined to be the preferred option as it:
 is easy to implement with no changes to timetables or public information;
 provides a variety of catchment areas and topography to test operational effectiveness;
 allows 2-3 buses to cover the route with a 30 minute frequency on a 60 minute circuit time;
 is not linked with other routes; and
 services highly frequented tourism areas between Tewantin and Noosa Junction.


3.   Market Research

The market research undertaken provided a historical context regarding the current number of
electric bus operations around the globe. The main historical barriers identified were:
 ‘range anxiety’ – today’s batteries last 150 to 200km between charges;
 battery cost – issues around new technology and the lack of scale for manufacturers; and
 network solution – the charging infrastructure required to support electric buses.
However, new battery technology, an increasing global interest in electric vehicles and the
evolution of charging infrastructure of buses showed that times are changing making such
methods of transport more affordable and viable. Industry predictions are that such barriers will
continue to reduce making battery technology better and cheaper.



                                                                                        Page 6 of 9

Section 7

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                     7 APRIL 2015


In total, the research identified 26 electric bus manufacturers comprising of 19 international and 7
on-shore based companies. Additionally, 14 transport agencies and councils operating electric
buses around the world were contacted and asked detailed questions about their operations.
In order to narrow down the field of potential bus manufacturers, a multi-criteria analysis was
used covering the following areas:
 Vehicle performance (15%)
 Battery performance (15%)
 Charging infrastructure – complexity of deployment (15%)
 Capital cost (25%)
 Operating cost (5%)
 Cost of charging infrastructure (10%)
 After sales support (15%)
As a result of this assessment, four manufacturers were shortlisted, these being ranked in order
of highest score to lowest as:
 Optare – United Kingdom
 BYD – China
 OLEV – South Korea
 SOLARIS – Poland


4.    Strategic Outline Case (SOC)

The SOC was prepared considering the top two shortlisted manufacturers, and adopted a Net
Present Cost (NPC) approach which included:
 Initial upfront purchase costs including anticipated energy and maintenance costs of a single
   electric bus on a ‘like for like’ basis;
 A 15 year time horizon for capital expenditure; and
 Indicative operational costs of running the electric bus as a fleet on route 627 Tewantin –
   Sunshine Beach.
The findings indicated that:
 BYD were cheapest in terms of upfront costs;
 Optare were cheapest in terms of servicing and maintenance costs;
 There were only marginal differences in fuel efficiency between the two buses; and
 On total lifetime comparative costs, Optare was likely to be the most cost effective option for
   route 627 Tewantin – Sunshine Beach.
A further significant advantage of the Optare bus for Noosa is that it is a 10 metre bus compared
to a 12 metre BYD bus, however passenger capacity of the smaller bus is greater.
The SOC also identified a number of qualitative benefits if electric buses were introduced into the
Noosa network, including:
 increased economic development and tourism visitation;
 encouraging greater use of public transport; and
 better value for money through reduced operational costs.

                                                                                       Page 7 of 9

Section 8

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                                   7 APRIL 2015


Other secondary benefits include:
 reduced carbon emissions from diesel buses;
 improving urban air quality; and
 ambient noise reduction.
The full GHD report is available in the Councillors’ Room.
Following completion of the report, further analysis was undertaken by GHD at the request of
TransLink that identified the operation of electric buses was cheaper than running diesel buses
and therefore provided a positive business case for the strategic transfer to this form of public
transport.

Previous Council Consideration

A presentation to Councillors on the draft outcomes of the pre-feasibility report was made on 19
November 2014. A similar presentation was made to the TransLink Service Operations Board on
21 January 2015. Council provided in principle support to commencing a live trial subject to
consideration and approval by TransLink.

A letter of support from the CEO was provided to the TransLink Leadership Team (Strategic) in
March 2015. TransLink considered the GHD report at its meeting held on 1 April 2015 and
approved the commencement of a live trial in partnership with Noosa Council.

Finance & Risk

An assessment of the six month trial costs undertaken by GHD indicate that the net additional
costs of establishing and operating a live trial will be approximately $1million after taking into
account costs already incurred in operating the 627 Tewantin – Sunshine Beach route and fuel
savings.

TransLink have agreed to move forward with a live trial on the basis of a 50:50 operational cost
sharing arrangement with Council meaning that the net cost to Council will be $550,000 after
allowing for capital expenses associated with the in-route charging system.

It is recommended that the funding be met from the Public Transport Levy Reserve which
currently stands at $1.6 million.

Consultation

External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder

TransLink Division of DTMR
Sunbus
GHD

Internal Consultation

Nil.




                                                                                     Page 8 of 9

Section 9

GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                             7 APRIL 2015


Departments/Sections Consulted:

    Community Services                   X   Planning & Infrastructure
    Disaster Management & Public Order       Building & Plumbing Services
    Waste & Environmental Health             DA Planning
    Community Facilities                     Strategic Land Use Planning
    Cultural Facilities                  X   Asset Design & Investigations
                                             Asset Planning
                                             Civil Operations
                                             Environment

X   Executive Office                     X   Corporate Services
X   Community Engagement                 X   Finance
    Customer Service                         ICT
X   Executive Support                    X   Procurement & Fleet
    Governance                               Property & Facilities
    Human Resources                          Revenue Services




                                                                              Page 9 of 9