Page 2148 - Week 06 - Thursday, 8 June 2017

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video

Jacka	Budget Allocated	Costs Incurred
(a)	9,200,000	8,600,000
(b)	723,207	959,915
(c)	-	5,638
(d)	-	-
(e)	96,134	64,421
(f)	407,519	184,595
(g)	200,000	165,099
(h)	-	-
(i) (j) (k) (l)	13,848,387	9,547,836
(m)	133,636	35,849
(n)	-	-
(o)	1,681,317	24,791

Casey	Budget Allocated	Costs Incurred
(a)	-	58,000,000
(b)	-	115,223
(c)	-	-
(d)	-	-
(e)	-	35,649
(f)	-	428,584
(g)	-	92,549
(h)	-	-
(i) (j) (k) (l)	-	-
(m)	-	106,839
(n)	-	-
(o)	-	17,123

Note: The Casey estate was sold englobo to a private developer. The majority of the cost incurred by the LDA relates to the cost of land.

Crace	Budget Allocated	Costs Incurred
(a)	-	40,513,949
(b)	-	6,820,612
(c)	-	-
(d)	-	-
(e)	-	22,734
(f)	-	586,273
(g)	-	176,097
(h)	-	84,854
(i) (j) (k) (l)	-	-
(m)	-	25,883
(n)	-
(o)	-	6,168,226

Note: The budget for Crace was not set or administered by the LDA as development of the estate was undertaken by the Crace Joint Venture.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video