Original source · versioned page text
2017-10-13 Special Meeting
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 13 OCTOBER 2017
Page 43 of 48
SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 13 OCTOBER 2017
No. |Category rating | (movement in previous for future
risk rating from |review treatment! or next
[previous review) review
12 |Project fails to meet community expectations | Reputational Preliminary project briefings have been presented to environmental levy working group, LT and Unlikely Decrease Sep-17| Education component regarding rehab and Dec-17|Principal
- As this is a new project concept in respect of Council. Council has included ‘Pursue potential Yurol and Ringtail Forest Environmental Project’ in management plan for the area will need to be Environment
use of Environment Levy Funding there is the the 17/18 Operational Plan. developed in due course should project proceed. Officer.
possibility that project outcomes will not meet
community expectations. It is noted that project aligns with Council's sustainability principles, particularly in terms of
environmental opportunities. Acknowledge that the Noosa Community is in favour of
environmental protection of the Region given its environmental, community and economic
benefits.
Tenure pathways and certainty for project Financial / Legal advice has been obtained from both Council's Lawyers and Crown Law, which have Unlikely Decrease Sep-17| Formally signing of MOU by parties and Nov-17|CEO/Principal
Parties cannot be obtained Project confirmed transactional documents can be drafted that are enforceable and will protect various subsequent binding Legal agreement (including Environment
Failure to obtain binding and enforceable Deliverables Parties interests. At the end of the day, if Council's tenure requirements are not by the sunset NPA funding agreement) needs to be approved Officer/Governa
agreement, which suits all parties interest could date, which is set at 7 years, contribution funds will be returned to Council. and signed off before funds are transferred. ince Advisor
result in significant financial loss and
reputational damage. Whilst funds would be returned to Council, significant resources invested in the project in terms of
staff etc. would not be recouped.
Financial modelling for rehabilitation Project Principal Environment Officer and other Team members have undertaken investigations in Possible Decrease Sep-17| There is reasonable assurance based on Council's Nov-17|Principal
itis critical that data provided to inform financial |deliverables/ —_| respect of future environmental rehabilitation for the site based on site inspections, comparable Due Diligence, LandCare Peer Review and Environment
modelling is accurate and research based. Finance / national examples, liaising with relevant experts and State Departments. DEHP studies can be information from State that rehab estimates are Officer.
Failing to have accurate data may result in Reputational used to inform estimates. reliable.
significant financial costs and reputational
damage to Council. Council has engaged Landcare to conduct a peer review of the Principal Environment Officer's Additional control will be to ensure that formal legal
rehab assessments to provide assurance on estimated rehab funding contributions put forward by agreement caps Council's rehab requirements at 5
Council. years.
Obligations have also been included in the draft MOU that Council's active rehab obligations and
responsibilities cease at 5 years as Trustee of Conservation Park.
Completed by - Project Group, October 2017
Pit eed) ee
Page 43 of 48See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.