Financial costs of settlement patterns in rural Victoria. Presentation and training session

Transcription

1 Financial costs of settlement patterns in rural Victoria Presentation and training session

2 Introductions 2

3 Agenda Introduction and welcome Project background and purpose Project approach 1.00 Settlement patterns definition & infrastructure requirements 1.15 The assumptions of the model approach and evidence 1.30 The electronic tool inputs and outputs - example scenarios 2.00 How to vary assumptions in the model 2.30 Close 3

4 Objectives for today How settlement patterns can influence local government finances How to use the model to test development scenarios and reflect local characteristics 4

5 Background MAV identified a gap between revenues and the costs faced by rural councils in providing and maintaining infrastructure and services, placing significant financial pressure on local governments. 5

6 Background SGS undertook a study for MAV on the financial and triple bottom line impacts of different settlement patterns to local government. The study s findings were: A significant information gap exists around the cost of different settlement types Non-contiguous development is more expensive to service Ongoing costs were higher than the initial capital outlay over the life of the asset 6

7 Background The study highlighted that closing the information gap needed: Expert input around costs of different settlements Council input to ensure outputs were relevant and useful Involvement from councils which had experienced growth in recent years, as they were more likely to have access to recent infrastructure provision and cost data 7

8 Project brief Based on the findings from the previous project, RCV, together with MAV put together this project s brief Purpose of the project was to provide a tool to help with costing various settlement pattern options from an infrastructure and servicing point of view SGS Economics and Planning in association with Aurecon were appointed to the project 8

9 Purpose To provide a strong evidence base for council via a simple modelling tool which can be used to understand and quantify costs of different settlement types in rural locations To enable councils to use the tool to inform planning decisions, broader strategic planning initiatives and budgeting over short, medium and long term To benefit all departments/portfolios within local government in forward planning 9

10 Approach Identify case study councils that we would consult with to obtain cost data Establish an Expert Reference Group that can provide feedback along the way and ensure the tool is practical and useful 10

11 Approach Identify settlement patterns Collect data from councils and supplement this with cost data from Aurecon Connect settlement patterns with standard infrastructure provision baskets Develop a tool that was easy to use but could be tailored in various ways 11

12 Identify case study councils and introduce project Expert Reference Group Project plan Confirm settlement types September July 2013 Council consultation Data collection Expert review of data Database development and tool framework Draft Electronic Tool Expert Reference Group Pilot of tool and evaluation period Expert Reference Group Final Electronic Tool Wider briefing on the Tool PAGE 12

13 Settlement patterns Use of settlement patterns to simplify model. Encourages planners to use the model as they often make decisions about settlement policy. Settlement patterns are a challenge because there are so many variants Best approach > define three but enable the assumptions to be changed by end-users (thereby allowing countless settlement types ) 13

14 Greenfield development Brand new development in undeveloped locations which requires all infrastructure to be provided Typically of a low density, developer driven, single dwellings In rural Victoria, often located on the outskirts of a town/city or in high amenity locations (i.e. Coastal locations). 14

15 Greenfield development Usually zoned Residential 1 Zone/General Residential; Urban Growth Zone; Low Density Residential Zone; Rural Living Zone. Often has a Precinct Structure Plan (PSP). Examples in Warragul (see images), House & land package Drouin 15

16 Dispersed development Ad-hoc development which occurs over time Often through subdivision of farms Undeveloped land, but can hook into neighbouring infrastructure networks (existing roads, existing water pipes). 16

17 Dispersed development Usually zoned Farming Zone Examples in Ballarat, Torquay, Colac, Bairnsdale, the list goes on! Source: Domain.com.au grazing/cropping land for sale Mirboo North, marketed as one with excellent house sites 17

18 Infill development Development which takes place in established areas Usually occurs within towns, but more focused in regional cities Least common development type 18

19 Infill development Usually zoned Residential 1 Zone/General Residential, Township Zone. Examples in regional cities and large towns. Leongatha, Wonthaggi, Shepparton, Ballarat, Bendigo, Broadford, Seymour 5 unit development in Leongatha, 2-3 bed each now for sale. 19

20 Linking infrastructure requirements to settlement types Difficult because there is no standard can vary between local governments Also influenced by local conditions terrain, soil, proximity to facilities Most strongly influenced by availability and capacity of existing infrastructure But this information is typically only known at a local level 20

21 Default assumptions Council provided infrastructure New/Upgraded Infrastructure Local Roads Greenfield Dispersed Infill Drainage Paths Street signage, furniture, lighting Open space, recreation facilities, playgrounds Community facilities Landfill and recycling Council Provided Can be developerprovided. 21

22 Default assumptions maintenance and renewal New/Upgraded Infrastructure Greenfield Dispersed Infill Local Roads Drainage Paths Street signage, furniture, lighting Open space, recreation facilities, playgrounds Community facilities & services Landfill and recycling Council Provided Can be developerprovided 22

23 Determining infrastructure needs by settlement type Can be highly variable need to create a basket of standard infrastructure SGS developed evidence to shape infrastructure design manual & GIS analysis Important that users can alter this information in the model to suit local scenarios. 23

24 Standard basket of infrastructure - roads Road Type Maximum traffic volume Dimensions (vehicles per day) Rural living access road 1000 Reserve of 20m, 6.2m width, 1.5m shoulder Rural living collector road 6000 Reserve of 25m, 6.6m width, 1.5m shoulder Rural living/low density n.a Reserve of 32m, 10m width, 1.5m shoulder residential court bowls Low density residential access road 1000 Reserve of ~17m, 6.0m width, 1.5m shoulder Low density residential collector road 6000 Reserve of ~18m, 6.0m width, 1.5m shoulder Rural access gravel 0-50 Reserve of 20m, 4.0m width, 1.5m shoulder Rural access asphalt Reserve of 20m, 4.0m width, 1.5m shoulder Rural access - asphalt 150+ Reserve of 20m, 6.2width, 1.5m shoulder 24

25 Standard basket of infrastructure - paths Path Type Widths Asphalt path, one or both sides of road 1.25m, 1.5m Asphalt path, one or both sides of road 2.5m (shared use) Gravel path, one or both sides of road 1.25m, 1.5m Gravel path, one or both sides of road (shared) 2.5m 25

26 Standard basket of infrastructure - drains Street based Brick Drain mm wide Barrier Kerb - concrete Concrete open drain 300, 400 and 1200mm Concrete kerb and channel mm Kerb of timber construction Laid back kerb 900mm Open drain (earthen) Plinth kerb concrete 15mm Semi-mountable kerb and channel mm Semi-mountable kerb and channel 600mm, and Semi mountable kerb, no channel. Underground Semi mountable kerb (300mm), no channel, + underground drainage, Inspection opening to house and standard house drain. 26

27 Standard basket of infrastructure open space Landscaped parks/gardens (including clearing of site and planting) Retention of a natural reserve 27

28 Standard basket of infrastructure community infrastructure Childcare Centre Youth Centre Senior Citizen Centre Civic Centre Multipurpose Centre Community and Neighbourhood Centre Performing Arts/Exhibition/Convention Centre Main Library Branch Library Sport field (local active open space) District Parks and Facilities Aquatic Centre Playground 28

29 Default settlement type assumptions - Dispersed Infrastructure New infrastructure provision Ongoing maintenance requirements Type Roads No new roads provided Assume additional maintenance equivalent to the length of road typically associated with each hectare of development. Assume the existing road is a Rural Living Access Road (Asphalt) Paths No path provided Not applicable. Drainage Council does not provide drainage infrastructure. Council may incur additional maintenance costs associated with increased infrastructure utilisation. Open Space Assume no new open space provision. Assume no open space provision. Environmental No infrastructure required. Assume recycling and rubbish collection for each Management new dwelling. 29

30 Default settlement type assumptions - Greenfield Infrastructure Type Roads New infrastructure provision Assume this is provided for by the developer. Assume council responsible for renewal. Ongoing maintenance requirements Assume additional maintenance equivalent to the length of road Assume the existing road asphalt Paths Drainage Assume provided by the developer. Assume council responsible for renewal. Assume provided by the developer. Assume council responsible for renewal. Council face costs of repairs, ongoing maintenance and replacement. Councils responsible for maintenance and repair of drainage infrastructure Open Space Assume open space to be provided by the developer Council faces ongoing maintenance requirements for open space. Environmental management No infrastructure required. Significant Assume recycling and rubbish collection for each new dwelling. population increases may trigger the need for upgrades to landfill and recycling sites and transfer centres. 30

31 Default settlement type assumptions - Infill Infrastructure Type Infrastructure requirements Roads No additional roads required. Assume council responsible for renewal. Paths No additional paths required. Assume council responsible for renewal. Maintenance requirements No additional maintenance required. Council face costs of repairs, ongoing maintenance and replacement. Drainage Assume drainage only required from legal Some additional maintenance required. point of discharge to property which is paid for by the owner. Assume council responsible for renewal. Open Space No new open space required. Not applicable. Environmental No infrastructure required. Significant Assume recycling and rubbish collection for management population increases may trigger the need for each new dwelling. upgrades to landfill and recycling sites and transfer centres. 31

32 Determining infrastructure quantities by settlement type GIS analysis of rural dispersed and greenfield settlements was undertaken to understand the typical quantities of infrastructure provided. Case studies used from case study councils Baw Baw, Macedon Ranges, and Surf Coast Shires Mapping lengths of roads and comparing to density 32

33 Determining infrastructure quantities by settlement type Initial approach make users input number of metres/km/item of each infrastructure item required Approach not well received only useable for engineers who often had processes for estimating costs already in place Decided on high level units per hectare or units per dwelling measures 33

34 Determining infrastructure quantities by settlement type Infrastructure Item Provided by Council? Provision of infrastructure (per hectare or per dwelling) Maintained by Council? Maintenance and operation of infrastructure (per hectare or per dwelling) ROADS per hectare per dw elling per hectare per dw elling Dispersed Rural Living Access Road N Y Greenfield Low Density Residential Access Road N Y Infill Low Density Residential Collector Road N 0 0 Y PATHS Dispersed Gravel path, one side of road, 1.25m wide N Y Greenfield Concrete path, both sides of road, 1.5m wide N Y Infill Concrete path, one side of road, 1.25m wide N 0 0 Y DRAINAGE Dispersed Earthen open drain N Y Greenfield Underground drainage N Y Infill Underground drainage N 0 0 Y OPEN SPACE Dispersed Mix of landscape and natural open space N 0 0 Y 0 0 Greenfield Mix of landscape and natural open space N Y Infill Mix of landscape and natural open space N 0 0 N 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.. Dispersed Recycling and landfill Y 0 1 Y 0 1 Greenfield Recycling and landfill Y 0 1 Y 0 1 Infill Recycling and landfill Y 0 1 Y

35 Determining potential revenues Average rate revenue from rural councils collected users can select their LGA s average and apply it to the new number of households being tested Users can also update/change the average provided Users can also add in other funding streams Developers (DCPs, Negotiated funds) State or Federal funding for facilities Aggregate rate revenue streams Revenues from levies and fees, etc. This allows the tool to compare potential costs to council and rates to measure the gap 35

36 What do the results say? Results of analysis using the default assumptions showed that: If only considering maintenance and renewal costs, rate revenue often covers these. Rate revenue is usually insufficient to cover costs associated with new infrastructure provision Infill performs best in terms of lowest costs, followed by dispersed and then greenfield The model is highly sensitive to changes in assumptions, highlighting the need to enter your own for reasonable results 36

37 Implications? Not all development costs councils the same A range of other factors need to be considered: environmental considerations, biodiversity, traffic, infrastructure plans & capacity Also, there are intangible benefits from increased population that may outweigh financial costs, such as renewal of places and increased business activity 37

38 The model How to use the model Basic Scenario How to vary assumptions in the model to suit local conditions. 38

39 Conclusions The default assumptions provide evidence that different settlement types have different financial implications over time. The default assumptions and report can help to guide policy settings and encourage discussions about criteria used when deciding settlement patterns 39

40 Conclusions Tailoring the model to suit local conditions can provide useful evidence for decision making. However...there other costs and benefits that must be considered. It s not all about the financial implications. 40

41 Thank you Please any thoughts and feedback to: 41