Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Pardon: Okay, I'll click the button so it's on. All good? Speaker 4: Councillors, in the absence of Councillor Frank Wilkie, who's the chair of the meeting, I'll declare the meeting open. If you're probably aware, Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Wellington are both at the LGAQ annual conference working their way through a stack of motions, having a look at the broader local government issues, the both of them will be back this Thursday night for the council meeting. So, in the absence of Councillor Wilkie, I'll call upon someone to nominate a chairperson for the meeting. Councillor Jackson: I'll nominate Joe Jurisevic. Speaker 4: Moved by Councillor Jackson. Second. Seconded by Councillor Pardon. Any other nominations? I didn't think so. I'll put the motion. All those in favour? Against? Carried. I thought you were going to come around and assume it was the chairperson. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll grab that.
00:01:00 It's all right. Thank you. It's like getting voted in an army style. Speaker 4: Press game. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, good morning everyone and welcome. Before we begin, I'd like to pay respects to the traditional owners of the land upon which we meet, the Gubbi Gubbi or Kabi Kabi people, and pay respects to their elders past, present and emerging. Speaker 4: We've got apologies. Apologies from Councillor Wellington and Councillor Wilkie. Both will be back for Thursday night. We have no presentations. No, no presentations and no deputations. The first item will be... Straight on to the first item which has been referred to the Planning Environment Committee. The proposed local law amendments, advertising devices, post-public consultation, proposed changes. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to move the staff recommendation. Do I have a seconder? No one's seconding that motion. That motion would lapse. Do I have an alternate motion?
00:02:00 Councillor Pardon: Mr Chairman, I'll move an alternate motion. The motion as printed with an amendment to Paragraph 4 and I'll read it. If you want me to, I'll just read out the amendment to the staff's recommendation there in Paragraph 4. You're right, Mr Chair. Should I read that out? Councillor Jackson: Yes, you should. Councillor Pardon: I was just waiting for a response. I'm happy to read it out. Councillor Jurisevic: Everybody have that... I think that was circulated anyway. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, it was circulated. Councillor Jackson: It's for the purpose of the people who are watching. Yeah, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: If you'd like to read it out, absolutely. Councillor Pardon: Thank you. I was just waiting for the Chair's response. And it says, allow one A-frame sandwich board as self-assessable per tenancy.
00:03:00 Placed on the property to which it refers or where this is not practically possible or practically possible, immediately adjacent to... ...to the property. Councillor Glasgow: I'll second that. Councillor Jurisevic: Mr Deputy Councillor Glasgow. I may ask a question of staff if... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. No, you can't. Ask a question after a motion's been seconded and then you can... Speaker 4: Once the motion has been seconded... Thank you for correcting me there, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Pardon should be speaking to it. Okay. Councillor Pardon. Councillor Pardon: Yes, thank you, Mr Chairman. Yeah, look, I've been consistent. Yeah, look, I've been consistent. On this matter, with regards to small business A-frames, the advertising devices, I think sometimes governments, there's some overreach at times and I think this is one of those times. I think if we look at the big picture past councils, this council and the old planning
00:04:00 scheme, which was regulated, signage under the old planning scheme, and changing that to a new local law. So under the old scheme, people were allowed to have their A-frames and I think that was fine. I think, and the amendment here, if we restrict the people to their own property, as we know, many of the businesses are built to the property line, so it's not possible to put your A-frame within that property. So naturally, you're on public property with your A-frame. Over the years, I've not seen or heard great progress. I don't see any problems at all with A-frames. I think when we regulate and have a look, it's a sensible thing to educate the shoppies, business people, so that they don't put the A-frame in some place where someone might trip over
00:05:00 it or have an accident with regard to it. And if I go back through my history to 1997, there's not been a problem with A-frames in regards to legal matters. So I don't have a problem with them. As I said, I've been consistent on this point. And I think the main thing we talked about signage in the old council was the pylons. There was a big debate over McDonald's, big signage. That wasn't in keeping with the Noosa values and I support that. But I just think the little fish of the day sign or a cup of coffee sign that goes with small business. I think the way we can take that away is an overreach. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor. Councillor Youssef? Another councillor wants to speak to the amendment? Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: An amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jackson? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Once again, point of order, you can't amend an amendment. Councillor Jackson: That's not an amendment. That was a motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, sorry, yes, thank you. I apologise.
00:06:00 I forgot I was unsuccessful. Councillor Jurisevic: You were unsuccessful. That was the motion. This is an amendment to the motion, so Councillor Jackson, and the amendment to be. Councillor Jackson: This is about real estate. Shall I read it before? Yes. This is an amendment to the recommendation that only one real estate direction sign be allowed in front of the house for sale, property for sale, and instead that it go back to how our local law was in previous to the last change, which allows for real estate signs, directional signs. Speaker 4: My suggestion would be to read it out. Read the whole thing? Yeah, I think you need to. Councillor Jackson: That amendment, that item A, set 5, be amended to read as follows. Allow for real estate directional signs per auction. Open for inspection. And open for inspection with the following criteria.
00:07:00 One, signs may only be placed on the day of the auction open for inspection and removed immediately after the auction open for inspection. And two, a sign must not exceed 750 millimeters times 400 millimeters or 0.3 meters squared in area per side. And three, only four directional signs per event are permitted. Including the auction and open for inspection signs erected at the property. And four, signs may not be placed on the roundabouts, center, traffic islands, median strips, or any state controlled road. And five, only one sign may be placed at each intersection. And six, signs shall not be illuminated or animated. Speaker 4: You need to call for a seconder. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm calling for a seconder. Can I call for a seconder? Do I have a seconder? Speaker 4: I'll second that. You can't. So, just as we go through, I suspect this won't be the last amendment we get.
00:08:00 We'll have several. Just a quick bit of advice. So, with Councillor Pardon and Councillor Glasgow moving the original motion, either Councillor Pardon or Councillor Glasgow will be able to second any, move any amendments. So, I think it's all second. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second that. Thank you. And we'll allow it to be discussed. Councillor Jackson: Good. I'm moving this amendment because we have received, I believe, a petition with 98 signatories saying that they would prefer to see real estate agencies to be able to put directional signage on the streets. Can I just ask a quick question as I, before I continue? My, the questions around the current existing rules around directional signage allow six real estate signs. That's correct. When did that change and what was it before? Speaker 2: So, under the former local law, which was number 16, which predates the current local
00:09:00 law, it was four. And then under the current local law, it became six. And how long ago was it changed to six? Councillor Jackson: Do you know? I don't know. Oh, it doesn't. Not immediately. I don't know the exact. Speaker 2: I'll have to find out the exact date of that. It doesn't matter. It doesn't bother me. But the- Speaker 4: 1999. 1999. 1999 was local law. Changed to 16. Speaker 2: No, that was the date of the number 16 local law. I'd have to find out the date when it changed to the current law. Councillor Jackson: That's fine. Okay. So, look, I'll just speak further. My understanding is that we've had the 98 signatories in favor of allowing directional signage by real estate agents. I have been aware that we have been allowing six, and I understand that previous to that, I think it's only about a year or two ago, I don't know. It changed from four to six. And I think the aim in-
00:10:00 In this review of signage is to reduce the clutter in general around Noosa. I do feel we've had, I know that we've received a letter from one of the very large real estate and very successful real estate agencies saying they don't see the point of having signage because people can find things through a GPS on their car. But I think this actually could- I think this actually could discriminate against the small agencies, the small businesses that also are agents because they don't get the big jobs. They get the little places all around the hinterland. And I've had feedback from agents that in the hinterland where it's a bit hard to find things and often also in new estates, which aren't any, haven't been, Google Maps hasn't caught up with all the roads on the new estates and hasn't caught up.
00:11:00 And neither have the, you know how cars, their GPS systems, unless you spend a lot of money become out of date fairly quickly. So there are actually quite a lot of houses located in places where these GPS things don't work. And my concern is that this, first of all, disadvantages buyers, but it also disadvantages small businesses. Also I would argue if adhered to correctly under the law, which is that they'd be put up just before inspection and removed immediately after, you could argue that it's not really a pure advertising sign, it's helping people find the house, it's directional, that's what it is. So in contrast, the recommendation in the draft local law currently suggests that instead of allowing the directional signages on the streets, that the directional signage be placed, only one be allowed.
00:12:00 And that it be placed directly in front of the property for sale. Now the property for sale assumedly has a for sale sign. So to put a directional signage right in front of it isn't actually helping anyone find the house. So I feel that that's a totally inadequate solution. And therefore I'm suggesting going back to the previous local law, which had four, I think six may be, sure, you know, there may be lots of reasons to have 12, but I mean, let's go four back to the one that was less clutter. And I said, you know, that's what I recommend. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask a question if I may. With regard to all the other parameters there apart from the four signs, are they as per the current signage local laws? Councillor Glasgow: Local laws. That's correct. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. Councillor Jurisevic: Any other council want to speak to the amendment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh yes, I won't be supporting it. There's a good reason staff have recommended a change to this is because it's become a plague on their roads. It's degrading the Noosa brand because every Saturday and Sunday and most of the days
00:13:00 you've got people just littering the intersections throughout it. It's one where the industry hasn't been self-managing and as a result, in my opinion, the aesthetics and the non-commercial feel of our roads and entranceways into towns and villages has been impacted. So I don't believe that the amendment as proposed has the interest of the Noosa Commission at heart and therefore I won't be supporting it. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Pardon. Councillor Pardon: Mr Chair, take at all of the councillors' comments here. It's never easy to make these decisions. I guess given that the amendment before us talks about one day only, I think that's good, 24 hours. The other thing is in a month. We have the, because it's a local law, and we'll be putting on in the future, offices, at least one, and maybe more in the future, given the regulation we're bringing in with other local laws as well.
00:14:00 So, on the face of it, I don't have a particular problem with that 24-hour full of signs that Councillor Stockwell's quite correct in when he says, well, you know, we've had a lot of issues with signs and clutter, and that's what we're trying to address, but I think if we've got the... If we've got the people in place to actually regulate, I mean, we've been shorthanded with regards to regulation, I believe, where staff haven't had the resources to actually regulate lots of things. I know we had a signage audit, but there's a but ongoing here, and we have to have regulations
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 and people to actually enforce these regulations. So, on the face of it, I'll support the amendment. Councillor Cussco. Councillor Glasgow: Question, what's the actual timeframe now for the signs out there in the day? Speaker 2: So, as per the recommendation, it has to be moved immediately after the auction opened for inspection. Councillor Glasgow: But they're not being hang around for... Speaker 2: That's one of the issues. Councillor Glasgow: Quite a bit longer. They're staying over the weekend. But as the Councillor pardoned saying, with a local law officer coming in there targeting them all now to have these signs in place and that might not be the case. Mayor Tom Speaker 2: Well, a compliance officer would have to probably operate over the weekend because this is mainly when the issue is to regulate it or check it, count the signs, and I guess ensure that real estate agents are removing them after the .
00:16:00 Councillor Glasgow: Mayor Pat Do you know if there'll be two strikes out, three strikes out, straight up infringement, how you'll enforce it if they're busted? Speaker 3: We don't have two or three strikes you're at in this local law. However, you know our practice would be to advise verbally if we can then in writing before we move directly to infringements. Obviously if there was multiple occurrences it is likely that we would move to infringements. Councillor Jurisevic: And as such that would result in a fine? Yes. So there is an element there of the possibility of providing education as well to real estate agents? Absolutely, that would be the first instance. Absolutely, always. Could we be even more proactive if this was implemented and on a periodic basis remind all real estate agencies of their obligations under the local law, particularly if this starts to become an issue?
00:17:00 And issue a means of educating? Yes. Speaker 3: Do we do that now? Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: And do we have a compliance officer available on the weekends when real estate agents typically have their, we don't? Local laws officers aren't available on the weekend? Speaker 3: Local laws officers are available on the weekend and we do have rotation and rosters. At the moment we're not doing signage cases. Councillor Jurisevic: But if a complaint was raised over the weekend could an officer be available to attend and deal with the issue with the real estate agent? Speaker 4: I think with our current level of resources we put into weekend regulation the local laws officers are really focused on traffic issues, dog attacks, those sorts of things. They're not actually dealing with signage so we need to put in additional resources if you want to have a look at weekend enforcement. Councillor Jurisevic: The alternative to that could be Monday morning a complaint is received and someone then visits the real estate agency and discusses the issue?
00:18:00 Speaker 4: Only if you'd have the evidence there at that time that the sign is still out on a Monday. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Or it's been left out over the weekend or whatever. Councillor Pardon: Okay. Just a question. Question? Through you, Mr Chair, to start. How many points, when you say the fine, how many points is they up for? And that points totals X amount of dollars. Speaker 3: I just have to check that, Councillor Parton, because it does vary. It does vary depending on... That's a good question. That's a good question. Speaker 2: Is it 10? I think it was 20 for temporary. Speaker 4: I think it's 20, which is two points, which is about $265. $265 approximately. Speaker 2: Temporary is 20 and permanent infringement is 50. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. Any other councillor wish to speak to us? Councillor Jackson: No. I might just ask a question. Councillor Jurisevic: You can ask another question, sir.
00:19:00 Councillor Jackson: Was it a question about enforcement? I'm encouraging people to use something called SNAP. Send and solve. Send and solve, where you can use your smartphone, take a photo. It automatically recognises where the thing is and then sends it to council. Would digital photos like that sent to council be sufficient evidence of real estate agency signs being left somewhere longer than Saturday or Wednesday? Speaker 4: I can answer that. Yeah. So if we issued a fine and someone wanted to contest it at an applicant court, we'd have to call the person who took the photo and get them to demonstrate what time they took the photo and where they were and so on. So technically that would be the case. Whether that person wants to get involved would be another question. Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding of SNAP Send and Solve is that it is GPS located and timestamped as to ... Correct. Speaker 4: But in terms of evidence before a court, you'd have to call a witness to put that forward. Councillor Jackson: If you went that far.
00:20:00 Yeah. Speaker 4: If someone paid a fine, you know, had a ticket or whatever and paid the fine, then it's a bit of an academic question. Yeah. If they contested. Correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Just a quick question. Do you want to speak to the member? Councillor Glasgow: No, just a quick question. Only one sign be placed at each intersection. How many intersections could there be in an entry though? It could be four intersections, right? Four corners, is it? Councillor Jackson: I think that's to the amendment. Is it to the amendment? Yeah. Sorry. Oh, sorry. So if you have an intersection, that means two roads cross over. Yeah. It means you can only have one sign there. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. I get it. Councillor Jurisevic: If there's no one else, I'll speak to the amendment. I'll support the amendment. Quite often we're told that these are issues, but I think the way to deal with an issue is not to denigrate the industry or to turn around and take away the privilege of signage, but it's to educate and to resource accordingly to ensure that where necessary, enforcement
00:21:00 can be undertaken. I don't find this a ... Personally, I don't find this an offence seeing some real estate signs. I find it quite a useful tool. I find it as a directional tool and I've often utilised the opportunity of seeing a sign of open for inspection to partake of an open for inspection just to see a particular property, maybe one that I have shown an interest in in the past. So I think a lot of people do that. I think a lot of people, particularly around a neighbourhood, might turn around and take the opportunity to go and find out that, oh, look, I didn't know that house was open for inspection. I think the current wording in the local law of one sign out the front of a property where, as Councillor Jackson alluded to, is a little strange. Because there is, as Councillor Jackson stated, already a sign out the front of the property stating the property is for sale and that could have open for inspection sticker across the front of it. So I think the idea of a sign out the front of the property is quite a nonsense. I think two or three or even four signs on the roadways leading up for a few hours on
00:22:00 a Saturday morning before a sale and taken down immediately afterwards is not going to offend anybody. In six years of being on Council, I haven't had one email or one phone call telling me that ... That real estate agents' signs are an issue, but I have had one comment from one real estate agent that gets offended when agents don't do the right thing because it sets a bad light on their industry as a whole. And I think we have received some comment from one of the larger agencies in that regard. Again, it sets the industry in a bad light. So as the industry, I think they should be aware of the problems that they do set, and with a bit of regulation and a compliance officer, I think we can ... We can manage this. So I'm supportive of the amendment. There being no further discussion? Do you want to close, Councillor Jackson? Councillor Jackson: Sure, I will close. Yeah, I'm encouraging returning to our existing rule and leaving it as it is, except reducing
00:23:00 it to four real estate agent signs, which was the case a while back. That way, we ... I don't know. We're trying to offer a compromise towards reducing clutter. I will respond to Councillor Stockwell's suggestion that removing real estate agent signs, or that having real estate agent signs is not in the interest of the local economy. I would suggest removing them is not in the interest of the local economy. I think that part ... We are, aside from being a tourism place, we're also very much a real estate location. And I think that part of the reason that we're moving to the local economy is because we want to support both our residents, our visitors, and of course, our small businesses are dependent on these real estate agent signs to help this operate properly. So I would suggest we want to support our small businesses, and that is one of the things,
00:24:00 an example that we can do that. Thanks. Councillor Jurisevic: Very good. Okay. There being no further debate, I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? I need to call up the names. Oh. I will. Councillor Powell. Councillor Martin. Jackson. Glasgow. And Jurusevic. Those against? Councillor Stockwell. I declare the amendment carried. So the amendment becomes part of the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I have a question of staff, please, Mr Chairman. Both the amendment and the original motion propose signs on public land. I know staff have previously brought up the issue of liability and insurance cover. Does allowing continued signage, does that have any impact on the quality of the land? Does that expose council to any risks associated with potential damage or injury caused by signs on public land? Speaker 3: Brett, you might want to comment here also.
00:25:00 Yes. Liability of these signs on public land does create some exposure to council. We have had some complaints of particularly temporary signage blowing over in the wind, being in the middle of the road. Being in the middle of pedestrian pathways, being obstructing access ways and movement, which has been part of the reason we've been looking at signage and appropriate placement and considering how we regulate them going forward. So yes, there is potential when signage is placed on public land. Speaker 4: I thought I'd just add that I'll confirm that and on the other side of the equation is that I can't recall any signage being placed on public land. I can only claim where we've had to pay out over recent years, but that possibility is there. Answered my question. Councillor Jurisevic: So the question I have, would the sign placer having public liability insurance cover any
00:26:00 Speaker 4: element of that? No. We are the public authority in relation to the public land for want of a better front. So one of the attractive things about council is we're always here and we've got deep pockets. So if anyone's going to sue someone in this area, we're always here. So in relation to what happens on a footpath, it's going to be the council. We might try and join the owner in that action, but it's always the council that is a very attractive defender in any public liability fund. Councillor Jurisevic: So by permitting signage on public land, public liability insurance has no element of, what's the word I'm trying to find here? Responsibility with regard to any damages that may be caused to, or any damage that may be caused to a person or a property? Are you talking about our public liability? No. I'm talking about the person that's placing the sign, the business that's placing the Speaker 4: sign. Yeah. They might be a joint defender, but as the owner of the land upon which an event or
00:27:00 an accident occurs, we also have the liability. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if there was a permitting system whereby such liability cover was requested, such like if you hire a public call these days, you have to show that you've got a public liability insurance. If you have actually permitted it subject to that, does that change the legal situation at all? Speaker 4: It would certainly make the owner of that sign or whatever the event jointly liable, but as the owner of the land, we have liability for that. The potential liability, I should say. Councillor Jurisevic: With regard to other property on public land, such as public place dining, we have a permit system currently. How does that, how does a sign on public land, on public land, on public land, on public land differ from dining equipment, such as tables and chairs on public land? Speaker 4: Joe, I'd have to take that one. I notice I haven't thought that element, whether there's different in terms of how that works. So I'll take that question on that.
00:28:00 Councillor Jurisevic: And I've got a question. Now that we've gone through that amendment, I've got a question relating back to Councillor Pardon's initial change to the staff proposal. So with that change there, does that take into consideration elements such as sign placement, sign safety and stability? Or would we have to specifically add those criteria relating to those elements with regard to O frame size? Speaker 2: We would include the current criteria associated with that recommendation. So the current criteria relating to the placement and size and everything. And the local law. We would add to that recommendation. However, I guess you could. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm suggesting, do I need to, do I need to make that amendment now, to that, to incorporate it now? Or is that, would that automatically be covered if we didn't add it into the motion as it
00:29:00 stands? Speaker 4: I would automatically include it. Yeah. Can you maybe just explain what you. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'm just saying, you know, does the, does the, does the four need to add the provisions with criteria? The criteria relating to sign placement, sign safety and stability and public liability insurance. Speaker 3: Yeah. Speaker 2: I would say, I would think you would include that. Or you could include the current requirements, the current criteria verbatim. Councillor Jurisevic: Can, can you just read out the current requirements? Speaker 2: So we'll use that one up too. Councillor Jackson: That's all. Speaker 2: The sign may only be used when the business is open and a maximum of one sign per tenancy is permitted. And the sign must be placed on the property to which it refers or where there is, where this is not practically possible, immediately adjacent to the property. And the maximum size permitted is 900 millimetres by 600 millimetres or 0.54 metres squared on each side of the sign.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 And we would not be including this next one, which is one teardrop sign may be displayed instead of using an A frame. Well, I'll move. So we would exclude five of what I've just read out. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. What do you. Exclude five? Speaker 2: Sorry. Exclude the last criteria that I just read out, which is the current one, which is Speaker 3: regard to teardrops. Joe, can I suggest that it would be easier if you just put, if it struck out, subject to the, um, the mender, struck out only on private land and just include with criteria relating to sign placement, site, size, safety and stability. Councillor Jurisevic: That's not getting to it. Yes. But we require an amendment to do that. Yes. Yes. So I'll, I'll move an amendment to, uh, include those, uh, those criteria. Speaker 4: So we need to get that wording right. Councillor, I'll just make an observation as well. We've got, um, as you know, a couple of Councillors away. Um, this is probably the, one of the trickiest issues I think the Council's dealt with for a while. I made a statement the other day. It was half in jest, but I think it's half true as well.
00:31:00 I think amongst the seven Councillors, there's probably eight different opinions around this issue. Um, and there's not much doubt in my mind it'll have further discussion at the Council meeting on Thursday night. So, um, my advice would be whether we'd be a little bit careful about trying to make amendments, um, on the run and we look at how we then, um, get wording that will be debated when, on Thursday night. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. Can I, well, rather than, rather than make the amendment here, I'll, uh, ask staff to, to consider what wording, what wording may need to be added to that and, uh, and bring it forward for those. So just, just before that, you're comfortable that would work? Speaker 3: I am. Yep. Okay. With what Kylie's just done? Yeah. That, that revised. Have we changed it or is it the same? No. Councillor Jurisevic: So you're happy with that wording? Yep. Okay. All right. In that case, I will move that amendment. Okay. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I ask for a second? Yeah. Can I have a seconder, please? Yeah, I'll second. Speaker 4: You can't. You'll be asked for a second. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, okay. Speaker 4: It's only Councillor... No. We can't. Councillor Jackson: I've seconded. Thank you, Councillor Jackson.
00:32:00 Speaker 4: Uh, speak, sir. Can I suggest you read it out? Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: What is your view about the current laws regarding A-frame signs, adjustment, size, safety, and stability? Can you speak to that, please? Is that clear and understood? I think that, uh, I said I had, uh, supported, uh, the, uh, the original motion by Councillor Pardon, but I think this just clarifies some of the, uh, criteria around which, uh, A-frame signs to be placed and, uh, is in keeping with the current laws regarding to A-frame signs. Councillor Jackson: I might just speak to that as well. I support this amendment, and I'm always in favour of making everything very clear and documented, so I think that's a very helpful addition. Councillor Pardon: Anybody else wish to speak? I support the amendment, naturally. I guess I thought that it would automatically be in there, because it wasn't excluded.
00:33:00 Thank you, that's why I saw clarity. Yeah, and good work, Mr Chairman, to tease that out. Councillor Jurisevic: Anybody else wish to speak to the amendment? I don't think I need to close, so we'll take the vote on that. All those in favour? That's Councillor Pardon, Jackson, Glasgow and Jurisevic. And against? Councillor Stockwell, the amendment is carried and becomes part of the motion. Councillor Jackson: Mr Chair, I have another amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jackson. Which one have you got here? Councillor Jackson: Yes. I'd like to make this amendment about the definition of tenancy, but perhaps before I move that, I'll ask about where the current recommendation is that the tenancy not include separate sublet businesses. Where are examples, what are examples of locations or tenancies where this would apply?
00:34:00 Speaker 2: So probably the main obvious example is along the river. Where you've got lease areas, which is regarded as the tenancy. However, in those tenancies, there might be five businesses operating. So it might be the coffee shop, the boat, hire, a tourism operator and another business. So each of those sublet businesses, it's one tenancy, putting out the example is the A-frame sign per business. So the intention of this was to clarify that the signage allowance, which is the ten square metres and four square metres of individual signs, applied to the principal holder of the lease, the tenant. And so that regardless of the number of sublet businesses operating there, the ten square metres only applied once. Councillor Jackson: Are there any other types of properties where this would apply, or is it in particular related to the tenants?
00:35:00 Speaker 2: Do you have examples where there's been an issue? Councillor Jurisevic: There'd be examples in the industrial area where there's been an issue. Within other primary, primary and secondary. Yeah, where you've just got one property, but there's a lot of tenancies within that one property. Councillor Jackson: One property, not separately titled. That's correct. Speaker 2: So it is the intention when the legal drafting is done, that where there is one premises, and probably the industrial area is an example where it hasn't been separately subdivided, but they are obviously tenancies. So the application would apply in that instance. Councillor Jackson: In the same way? Speaker 2: Yes, in the same way as if they were a tenant with their own lot. Councillor Jackson: So they wouldn't be allowed to have their own? No, they would be allowed. Speaker 2: They would. So an example where you've got, say, one lot hasn't been subdivided, but it has one building on there with separate tenancies within it.
00:36:00 Yes. Each of those tenancies, the obvious tenancies, would still get the ten square metres allowance. Yes. Are they called sub-tenancies, or are they tenancies? No, so the way that we will draft the, it'll be a legal drafting exercise, will ensure that each tenant is related to a lease area, so they have a lease area, or a lot. So it's quite clear. That lease area or lot area may have three businesses operating in there, but the application of the signage only applies once. Councillor Jurisevic: So how will you clarify the difference between a primary lease and a sublease? Both leases in legal text. Speaker 2: Yeah. So I guess that's something that we're working with the lawyers on to clarify the intent there, to make sure that we get it right. But the intent is that if there are, that example down at the river where, you know, if there are five small businesses operating there, but there is only one lease area there, that they don't get five times the ten square metre allowance.
00:37:00 It only applies once to the lease area. I thought you were talking about airframes. Oh, no, that was an example of where they're taking up the rights for each business in that instance. Oh, I see. Speaker 3: So that definition applies to all the signage, not just the airframe. Councillor Jackson: Okay, yeah. Can I ask Jamie or yourself, how many jetties, public, or whatever they are, commercial jetties on the river are there, and how many of those would have five subtenances? Councillor Glasgow: I think there's approximately seven jetties down there. And the majority would have, like, coffee shops and subtenances. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, but I'm hearing the word five, and I'm wondering whether that's the case for most of them. Up to, sorry. Yeah. I probably should have said up to. I mean, I do walk there every morning. Yeah. I'm not under the impression I'm seeing that many airframes, let alone that each of those jetties has that many subtenances.
00:38:00 They seem to have, some of them just have one or two. Okay. Speaker 2: So, in the council workshop, I did provide an example of one of the jetties that had, I think, four or five A-frames each for whatever they were operating in that tenancy. I wouldn't suggest it's all of them, but we're trying to ensure that there's only one per lease area. Speaker 4: Just to assist, Michael, you probably couldn't answer that off the top of your head about, you know, what makes up each of those seven at the moment. But you can probably take it on notice and have that information for Thursday night, Councillor Jackson, perhaps, I think. Councillor Jackson: Well, I'd like to have another look at this amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just clarify an element of that, of your wording there? Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Are you trying to write that to signage overall or just to A-frames? Councillor Jackson: Well, I had thought it was, I was thinking of A-frames because I wasn't thinking of the, I didn't envision four square feet size. Speaker 4: You were meaning the definition of the whole thing.
00:39:00 That's right. Councillor Jackson: I wasn't. That's right. I'm okay. I might have it reworded. If I could request a rewording to specify this is about A-frames. And then I'll move this at the . Speaker 4: So my suggestion is from today that Councillor Jackson notes that she's withdrawing the proposed amendment and request staff to work on the wording to bring forward the Thursday night. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Speaker 4: Okay. So that the tenancy just applies to the A-frame. Yes. In terms of that definition. Yes. That's fine. Speaker 3: And that there's one per. Yeah. Anyway, we can clarify that. Speaker 2: So we would probably amend the criteria around A-frames in that regard. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Speaker 2: Yeah. As opposed to some. As opposed to the definition of tenancy. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: I'm happy to work with you on that. There's a different way to do it. Yeah. Okay. All right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question. More generally, would it be appropriate because we are going to have quite a few amendments that request staff bring forward a report.
00:40:00 So on this one, I'm aware that we do have complaints. I'm aware that we do have a range of additional issues that I would prefer to make an informed decision on each change that is proposed. Is that needed to be a motion or is this something we can request from this meeting that a subsequent patrol forward? Speaker 4: My suggestion is you get to the end of this process. We're working through now and we'll make that determination. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Mr. CEO. Councillor Crenshaw. Councillor Jackson: I do have one more amendment to offer. And I had, thank you for helping me draft this amendment. When in May, we originally were presented with recommendations from the staff about changes to the local law and the, of course, the integration of the. Yes. Supply and local law details.
00:41:00 One of the recommendations was the one I'm putting up here and I'll just read it over that item A13 be added to read as follows, increase the maximum individual sign allowance in the Cooroy and Noosaville industrial zone to six square meters on a sliding scale of 0.75 square meters per linear meter of street. Okay. bill expressing the need for new building, excluding rust road and Waterham Drive of the gateways to Noosa in recognition of the larger buildings and industrial nature of the area. Councillor Pardon: Seconded. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just. Councillor Jurisevic: I think. I'm in the moment. I think I'm in the moment. Sir, you're a new fella. Councillor Jackson: I'll speak to the motion, yes. Well, perhaps I'll ask staff if you could comment on the rationale why you got this recommendation forward in May.
00:42:00 Speaker 2: So at the time, I guess we were looking at the scale and size of the buildings and the land use nature of the area and thought it appropriate that, again, still on a sliding scale, that these larger buildings could accommodate an appropriate sign type up to six square metres. And so we thought it was appropriate, but not along the gateways to Noosa, being Misty Mundy Road and Walter Hay Drive. Councillor Jackson: And while it's not written in the wording of the motion, as I understand it, Anita, this would not change the maximum signage area for the property, which I believe is ten square metres.
00:43:00 Ten square metres, yes. So even though they could have a bigger sign. One bigger sign. It doesn't mean they would have a lot more signs, is that right? Speaker 2: That's correct. So currently, the draft local law, as is the current requirement, is four square metres for an individual sign. This was proposing the individual sign be increased to six square metres, but still the upper total of all signs on the building be ten square metres. So there would be no change to the overall maximum allowable signage on the site, just the size of the sign. Councillor Jackson: And I may also ask, I believe that it was perhaps last month or the month before Council dealt with another matter, which was a sign in Noosaville industrial area, where a report was written by a consultancy for, was it for Council? For Council. Speaker 3: Sorry, Councillor Ingrid, that the applicant did a visual analysis.
00:44:00 Yes. And submitted that. And we had it reviewed. Councillor Jackson: You had the, and there was a report presented. That's right. And as I recall, I haven't got it in front of me, but as I recall, there was a point made that by allowing such a larger sign, it would actually potentially reduce clutter because there'd be less signs likely on that property. So it would just be a more visible sign. And that was actually a reasonable idea. Speaker 3: That report, as you're referring to, was a report that was submitted by Council. You might recall that we were in appeal over that sign because it exceeded the maximum sign size. And through a process of contextual analysis, character analysis, visual analysis, a number of issues were considered. And officers proposed to Council that we agree to that sign because of its context and size, and also an agreement by the landowner that they would reduce other signs on the site.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 And to settle that appeal. And to settle the appeal. Councillor Jackson: But I was also asking about the report that was presented to Councillors, which I'm, that's what, I was asking about the rationale provided in that report, and that, that I understand you are confirming. Speaker 3: Yes. Yes. There was a number of considerations. Yeah. And reducing signage on the site proposed by the applicant was one of those considerations. Yeah. To allow that one big sign and reduce their other signage. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Yeah. And I do recall that that sign was bigger than six square metres. Is that correct? That's correct. Speaker 2: Yes. Councillor Jackson: So that was unusual, unusual. Yes. Okay. Okay. Well, I'll just, oh, yeah, I'll just speak to the motion. I feel that, I guess I'm suggesting that in an industrial area, and that's mostly New Civilian, Cooroy, that we have industrial zones, that we have quite a different type of building.
00:46:00 They're quite often larger lots with large-ish warehouse-style buildings. Sometimes they're set back from the road and not so easily visible. So and other times they are closer, but nevertheless, it is clearly an industrial area. People don't necessarily drive up and down those streets. They're not allowed to access industrial things. And I think it is a perfectly reasonable thing to allow just slightly larger signage. And it's got a sliding scale. So that means that if it's a very narrow property, the sign couldn't be bigger. It's a matter of, what's the word, customising or suiting the situation. And I think that's a very reasonable thing. That proposal that came to us previously, and I'm now putting again, is a very reasonable
00:47:00 approach in a particular context, which is industrial. Councillor Jurisevic: Nicky? Any further counsel, Mr. Speaker? Councillor Pardon: Councillor Parton? I will, Mr. Councillor. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Councillor. Well, you are a councillor. Mr. Councillor. Mr. Chairman. Yeah. Yeah. I guess, looking back, I sort of suggested that to different precincts, if you like, the industrial estate. And talking about different precincts, treating this differently, because it is an industrial estate. I'd say over, going forward in the future, there'll be amendments looking at other future councils will look at amendments to these local laws, what fits, what works, what doesn't. Nothing is set in stone forever. And we're doing the best we can here, or what we think, to make Noosa what it is, or visual
00:48:00 clever, et cetera. Just a question here. I'm not sure. It's like laws we set in. Councils can set many laws. And that's fine until they're tested in the court of law. And sometimes, those laws are set in the court of law. And sometimes, those laws are challenged, et cetera. So the question, Eumundi Noosa, Noosa Road, and Wildhay Drive, and I support that, absolutely. I'm just wondering, through staff, with regards to the differential, I guess, in the industrial estate, when they're drafting, the difficulties of this. Does that seem difficult? Speaker 2: From a drafting perspective, we could just map the area. And that would be very clear what properties were in and out. And that would probably be the easiest, clearest way. Speaker 4: I don't have any concerns. You could draft up something along these lines that would stand out.
00:49:00 Okay. It was just a question, a challenge, if you like. Councillor Pardon: Okay. Yeah, I'll support the amendment. Council Stockwell. Yeah. Hang on. Councillor Jurisevic: Hang on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You shouldn't be surprised, because we've talked about this as a concept for a couple of years now. And I've always said, I think it's something that's reasonable to consider. It is contextual. It is about, the maximum sign-face area is about retaining character. Within industrial estates, we have a bulk and scale of building where an extra two square metres is unlikely to have any influence on character whatsoever. I think it's a reasonable approach. It's not increasing overall site. Therefore, I support it. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jackson. Yeah. Glasgow. Sorry. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah. It's all been said. This is a great idea. And I'll support it as well. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Question to staff. My understanding from the feedback we've got with regard to signage laws, that there was some community support, or quite significant community support, for a differentiation between
00:50:00 industrial area signage and commercial signage. Is that correct? Speaker 2: That's correct. And the joint submission from the business associations also requested a need to look at commercial signage. So, it's a more pre-synced location-based approach in the future. Councillor Jurisevic: On that basis, I'll be supporting the amendment. I think the amendment has merit. I think I've argued long about size and scale. I think when we've talked about shopping centres in the past, I've referred to size and scale. I think there is an element where the size of a, as Councillor Stockwell alluded to, the size of a building does give credence to looking at the size of the signs there. The second issue that was brought up before us in recent times, is the premises in the industrial area that brought forward a visual analysis. It did shed signage in a different light with regard to, you know, distance back from the road and the like. I mean you may have a 4 metre sign right up close, compared to a 4
00:51:00 metre sign that's set back 20 metres, I mean there is a significant difference there and I think there is merit in going back and reviewing this further in the future. So, but for the moment, I'll be supporting the amendment. So I'll put Councillor Jackson, do you want to wish to close? Councillor Jackson: Oh, no, I think I'm fine. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, well, I'll put the matter for a vote. All those for? Carried unanimously. Are there any further amendments from any other councillors? All right, I'll start on mine then. I had a similar sort of a vision with regard to the tenancy definition. So I wanted to make the following amendment. I believe the girls have got it there. Speaker 3: Which one was that? Councillor Jurisevic: It was six and the ones that you typed out for me. That one? That one.
00:52:00 I did circulate them. I'm just not sure that all councillors had a chance to do it. So if you'd like, I'll read out the change. Item A6 will be amended to read as follows. Amend the definition of tenancy to clarify signage allowances of 10 square metres applies to the principal tenancy holder inclusive of any subject business signage. And I'll ask a question of the staff before we go. I'd second it if I may. With regard to what Councillor Jackson alluded to there, I mean, the intent here was to limit signage for, you know, being able to define a sublease and a sublet as opposed to the principal lessee. Given that we're talking about getting some clarification, some legal clarification, I'm happy to leave this if other councillors want
00:53:00 until we've got that legal advice. But the idea here was... to prevent one business from then subletting a space and each business then within that sublease area having the take-able of having a four-square-metre signage out the front and 10 square metres overall, which in the case of a lease along the river, for example, of having, you know, one lease and four subleases of five lessees in one occupancy to turn around and have the potential to have 50 square metres of signage out the front. So that's the intent of what I was trying to draw here. Speaker 2: I think that's consistent with our intent. That's right, Matt, regardless of how many businesses we're operating. And I think it's clarified that the maximum is still 10 square metres. Councillor Jurisevic: That's irrelevant of A-frame signage. Speaker 2: That's got to do with... That doesn't include... A-frame signs actually aren't calculated in the 10 square metres. They're kind of like a bonus allowance anyway. Okay. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that's a separate issue.
00:54:00 Before it's seconded, I wanted to just clarify my understanding of them. By doing this, it would have the unintended consequence of not including that clarification for A-frame signs. So they'd be referred only specifically to the 10 square metres. So it's the same amendments to clarify for A-frame signs. Speaker 2: That's correct. That's correct. And so we would amend the definition of the criteria around A-frame signs to... If that was what got up, the allowance for businesses within it to have an A-frame sign, regardless of... Speaker 3: A-frame signs aren't included in the 10 square metres. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I know, but they are included in the definition as you put up the amendment, the clarification on the definition up here, which didn't previously relate to 10 square metres, just said signage allowances covers A-frames. Speaker 2: Yes, you're correct. It would... The allowances would...
00:55:00 Oh, yeah. The general term would include the A-frames. So we would have to clarify it. Councillor Jurisevic: This would then... Speaker 2: So, yeah, sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: So we'd have to bring the matter of A-frames up separately with regard to the tenancy definition? Speaker 2: Yes, actually different issues. Yeah, if you resolved on the A-frames that you wanted to allow one A-frame per business within the tenancy, then we would need to then further amend this definition to make that, to facilitate that as well. Councillor Jackson: So, just to clarify, and I'm clarifying the same thing Vaughan is clarifying, but I'm not sure we've gotten quite to the bottom of it. Earlier, when the motion simply said amend the definition of tenancy and to not include subletting, not separate subletting, did that included the concept of the 10 square metres area and it included temporary signs such as A-frames? That's correct. We now have a recommendation here, or amendment, that this clause be changed to specifically talk only about the 10 square metres.
00:56:00 Speaker 2: As my understanding, the purpose of this was to not exclude the sublet businesses from the definition. So, the allowance of 10 square metres applies to the principal tenancy holder. But... And it's inclusive of the sublet. Councillor Jackson: It becomes only, this particular thing that we might be voting on, is only applying to the 10 square metres allowance. Can I make a suggestion? Speaker 4: It would be four square metres and the 10 square metres are supposed to... I'm going to suggest that we deal with this similar to the other one where we, rather than trying to look at this on the run, we get some advice just about how that definition, I'm a bit nervous about amending a definition and amending one part of a definition. Let's just make sure we get the wording right, so... Councillor Jurisevic: And I'd be happy for that to go back and include with the consideration of that tenancy definition with regard to A-frames as well. Just be looked at as to how it all comes down.
00:57:00 Speaker 4: So, my advice would be Councillor Jurisdict withdraws that and then we can get some advice from staff on Thursday night. Happily withdraw that. Councillor Jackson: Okay, thanks. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. The next amendment I'd like to move. Is that item C be amended to read as follows. To fund ongoing signage compliance through Council's general revenue, and this is the change, for commercial industrial properties and not an annual allowance fee and referred to next budget 2021. The question I've got for the CEA before that goes any further is, is that possible to do through a rates review? Is just... Is that possible to do through a rates review? What I'm trying to do is that if we're going to fund compliance that those that fund the
00:58:00 compliance are those who it relates to and if it's going to be signage compliance it should be the commercial industrial property where signage applies rather than the general rate base of households as well. Speaker 4: I would have thought there would be other signage that applies for properties other than commercial and industrial. That would be my first initial thought whether it's home based businesses or anything like that. Can I ask a question? Councillor Jackson: I think that I thought that the motion that has been put to us has already removed the annual. Can you explain that? It's in there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's what that is. Speaker 3: That's correct. That's correct Councillor Jackson. So the proposed changes to the local law as you can see in A2 remove any requirement for annual approval, licence and ongoing annual renewal fees for signage.
00:59:00 So the proposal only requires approval for the reduced number of signs which are pole, pylon, freestanding and illuminated. It was a one off application fee and proposes to remove any annual renewal fees. But that's correct. The proposal already does that. Speaker 4: The proposal is brought up for me on the board. The original motion from Councillor Pardon that includes A2. Just highlight that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a question. So what we're currently looking at is amendment of A2 which is now called C. Is that right? Councillor Jurisevic: No. I was amending C to fund ongoing signage compliance. Through general revenue. Speaker 4: One relates to the signage application and the other relates to council's enforcement of it. That's right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And so if we can go to the current amendment being proposed, I am presuming what's intended
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 is not to fund ongoing signage compliance through general revenue. I think it's the council's general revenue which by its name is general. But are you suggesting that there is an increase generated from commercial industrial properties? Because once it's gone in. It's my motion. You say revenue for commercial industrial properties. We don't get... Councillor Jurisevic: Well we do get a rate space. We get a rate space from commercial and industrial properties. We get a rate space... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's generated by? Councillor Jurisevic: Generated by. The wording may be incorrect and I'll be quite happy to amend the wording. This was what was given to me by staff when I requested it, so the wording has come from staff. But it's relating to where compliance applies to commercial industrial property signage that they are the ones who should be paying for the compliance and not home properties or... Speaker 4: Can I make a number of quick observations in relation to the proposed amendment?
01:01:00 Firstly, is that probably a discussion for a budget process, not a discussion for the signage? Because really what you're talking about there is changing differential rates. Yep. That would be my first observation. The second is that I'm not convinced that all signage would relate to those properties. I think that's a debate you've got to have at the budget time, not at this time. Councillor Jurisevic: Would we be able to differentiate the compliance officer at that time? I suppose the compliance officer being put forward. Yeah. Okay. I'll let you... Good point. I'm happy to withdraw that motion. You raised a good point there. You raised a good point there because the compliance officer would be a new budget consideration. That's a good point. Thank you, Mr. CEO. All right. The next amendment. That item D be amended to read as follows. Permit teardrop flags at the rate of one per 20 metres of street frontage and not at the
01:02:00 rear of properties backing onto a road. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Jackson: Could I ask a question first? Yeah. The rate of one per 20 square metres of street frontage. No, it's square metres. Linear metres. Sorry. Linear metres of street frontage and the not at rear of properties backing onto a road. Where did those come from? Is that something that already exists in any of the laws? Councillor Jurisevic: No, it's something I've come up with. It's relating to properties that may, like in the industrial area, backing onto any creek road. That isn't considered street frontage to differentiate the back of a property as street frontage to the front of a property.
01:03:00 So that you don't then get a calculation of the rear of a property and allowance of more flags as a result of that. It's strictly what is considered the front of the building towards the, as far as access goes. That was my intent. Mm-hmm. Whether that's clear in that amendment, I'm happy to take that. I think that refers to that. Okay. That reflects your intent. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: I'm sorry. I keep asking. So that implies that there are certain buildings that have two street frontages, the back street frontage and the frontage. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, there may be, and a side street frontage as well. Councillor Jackson: Oh, okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Some may actually front the main roads. Others may be considered the back of house. Right. I'll give you an example of, in the car yard area, the fronting onto Lionel Donovan Drive would be considered the frontage. Mm-hmm. In my view. Mm-hmm. And the rear facing Enid Creek Road would not be. Mm-hmm. So the consideration would be the lineal meterage along Lionel Donovan Road would be
01:04:00 the rate at which teardrop flags would be set. Councillor Pardon: Mm-hmm. Councillor Jurisevic: Do I have a seconder? Councillor Glasgow: You have a seconder. You can't. Oh, I can't. You can't. Councillor Jackson: I'll second it for the second discussion. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Seconded. The current local laws as they stand, or proposed local laws as they stand have gone to remove teardrop signs. I've heard it debated here a number of times. Again, I've never had a complaint about the teardrop signs apart from a couple of councillors' perspective, but I've also heard a number of councillors supporting teardrop signs that they are inoffensive, that they do add and in fact break up some of the the more stark frontages that we have in amongst cars. It doesn't have a detracting appearance. For me personally, I don't find these teardrop signs offensive. I find them far less offensive than bunting, which was something that council never supported in the past. They're fairly insignificant and I don't see the point of where a number of businesses already have them in place.
01:05:00 I'm happy to support businesses to maintain those rather than have to get rid of them and no longer support teardrop signs. That's my justification. Anybody else wish to speak to it? Councillor Jackson: I'd like to ask a question. Not being familiar with total legalities in the local law at the moment, is there currently something around you can either have an A-frame or a teardrop sign? Is that how it works? That's correct. So you can't have both? You can't have both. In the current local law? In the current local law. You can have one or the other. So in this case with D, does that capture that choice?
01:06:00 Speaker 2: No. Councillor Jackson: No. Speaker 2: It would be an addition. Councillor Jackson: So you could have both? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Speak to it. This place is built on its own. Here are how to fix sign laws. Staff came to us and we started first looking at this with a couple of key areas where non-compliance was causing what the staff in their professional opinion was considering to be a reduction of the urban design and character of this town. One of the key areas was in terms of proliferation of teardrop signs. That's why staff recommended they'd be down the way. We have to be very clear what has made Noosa different from the rest of the eastern seaboard. It is because we don't look the same. It is because we've had strict sign policies. I've described teardrop signs and the way they're used as the cane toad of advertising
01:07:00 because they have just proliferated beyond belief to suggest that we go from the current policy of either a A-frame sign or one teardrop to one which might allow half a dozen to ten is a very big step backwards. It's saying we're not serious about clutter. It's saying we just want to be seen to be good to business where in fact if we look at the impact of our historic sign settings to be good to business, we want to have less. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Councillor. Councillors, I've just noted that the Channel 7 news crew was has got their camera in the room. I'm just seeing if everybody's happy to have cameras in the room. Are there any objections? And you are quite within your rights to object. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, it's okay. I'm sitting this way so they don't get the ball spot this time. Councillor Jurisevic: What happened to the object?
01:08:00 Quite within your rights to object. Yeah, you can. Can you kick him out? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: They need a second opinion. Proven. Councillor Glasgow: No, I'll just leave it. Okay. Councillor Pardon: All right. Thank you, guys. Didn't go on my hair either. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, so Councillor Stockwell has spoken. Any other councillors wish to speak to us? Councillor Jackson: I think I'll speak perhaps feeling that this is another one that perhaps needs a little bit more consideration. I'm, like Councillor Jurisevic, supportive of businesses having an opportunity to put forward teardrop signs where appropriate. I haven't had enough consideration of whether one per 20 square metres. I don't know what that means at the moment. Somebody talked about six or 10. I don't know. And also, I'm not sure how that interacts with A-frames. Also, I, I mean, when I'm driving around the Shire, I see little businesses, home-based,
01:09:00 selling eggs with a little banner saying, you know, get your fresh eggs here or things like that. And I actually want to be able to support because if I'm driving down one of the roads and I see a flag, it can bring attention to something being available. So, I think to, to not support totally teardrop flags, I think that's a bit counter active to successfully encouraging small businesses. All businesses. There's another element to banner signs, which is quite a different sort of scenario. And that's the what's called a car yard where there are lots of banners. Finally, I'm the one that's been arguing that I should be able to visit a whole lot of cars without banners. So, so, you know, I actually don't have a problem with those particular things. But I at the moment would have a preference to explore this concept.
01:10:00 of teardrop signs a little more. And we have time to do that by the ordinary meeting, which I think we could then look at how this can be managed so that it's not just specifically, I'm a little unclear about what exactly the outcome is here. So it's hard for me to support it without that clarity. Yeah. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, Mr. Chairman, look, I agree with Councillor Jackson. It's not clear. And we've talked about precincts with regard to industrial estate. And I agree with Councillor Jackson with regards to teardrop signs, etc. I agree that to me, they look better than just a heap of cars on the front of the road. So it sort of adds to the character. And so when I refer to precincts, once again, an industrial precinct with that type of teardrop,
01:11:00 when it's one at 20 or whatever someone picks, that's not a lot anyway, one every 20 meters, that's a fair run 20 meters. So you're not putting a lot up there anyway. But I agree with those comments that they don't offend me. And in a precinct like industrial estate, it's less offensive to me. But having said that, what's before me doesn't cover the whole with regards to signage. So I can't support the amendment. Councillor Stockwell's comments in the big picture, quite right, with regards to we have to be careful what we're doing here with regards to the visual clutter of the whole Shire. And I agree with a lot of those comments. The only thing I disagree in the fact that, well, I guess I agree that staff went out there, did an audit, because we asked them to. And most of the people, about 80% of them, did an audit. And most of the people, about 80% of them, did an audit. And most of the people, about 80% of them, did an audit. And most of the people, about 80
01:12:00 percent were compliant anyway. So I was never looking at causing a problem with regards to whether it's teardrops, signage in general. And it's all right. As a consensus of council, or whatever the decision of the majority of council is, or councillors is, staff have a view and that's fine. But we make the decisions at the end of the day. And staff can bring me in a report they like. But we make the decisions here. And staff can bring me in a report they like. And staff can bring me in a report they like. And staff can bring me in a report they like. And staff can bring me in
01:13:00 Councillor Glasgow: So the one to 20 linear meters, does that mean that something like the cafes and so forth in front of us, say Kim Terrace and so forth, that only got quite small shop owners, it wouldn't occur there? Councillor Jurisevic: They'd have one. One, that's it. Councillor Glasgow: Up to 20. If they had a 21-meter linear meter cafe, they could technically have two. Could we possibly make it longer, so the car yard and stuff is... You could move an amendment to... You can't amend the amendment. You can't amend the amendment. We could all agree that... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: One per kilometre. Councillor Glasgow: Why not nooses? We could all agree that the car yards and the sort of industrial style uses are all longer than those cafes and type uses in Noosaville and so forth, and we could argue that under there. Is that right? But not cafes? Who are you asking the question of? Staff, sorry. I think that's probably... It's probably one to me. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, I bet it's Joe. Yeah. Yeah. Look, the figure of 20 metres was a nominal figure I picked. I looked at most commercial spaces and industrial spaces, looked at where teardrop flags are
01:14:00 currently being used, and I picked a nominal figure just as an arbitrary point to start at, to at least enable the opportunity for teardrop flags to be considered, because at the moment, in the draft, they aren't being considered. They're being excluded. I think there is a place for them, and again, the 20-metre street frontage meant that your typical... We were talking about one A-frame or one teardrop sign. I thought one teardrop sign in the industrial area, for example, out the front of a car yard, was probably a bit minimalistic, and I saw scope to increase that, but I saw where we've got a number of smaller tenancies, perhaps out... out front elsewhere, that they don't exceed 20 metres, and so that would enable them to have the one sign. I thought that would bring in the restriction of one sign for the... for smaller tenancy
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 areas, but where there's a larger tenancy area, some more flags could... some more of those flag signs could be permitted. Can you speak to the motion? Councillor Glasgow: I'm talking to the question. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm just... Well, that's where the 20 metres came from, and so the scope of... Very good. Very good point. The scope of allowing that area to increase or decrease is an arbitrary figure that I came up with, and it could be argued either way to increase or decrease that figure or... Councillor Glasgow: I can't make an amendment to the amendment, can I? No. Not this one. I'll speak to the motion. I'm on the fence about it. I'll need some convincing team. I'm not convincing. I think it's meriting what you say totally. I don't like the idea of teardrops being littered in our more pristine areas. Teardrop flags, sorry. I don't know how to jump on the fence and go, should we do it between businesses 20 metres and over? We can't do that now. Could you maybe think about that? Chucking in 20 metres and under, because you're going to get all those smaller type ventures
01:16:00 up doing this, where we can agree that, you know, box shops and car yards and so forth, it's very powerful. I actually know through teardrops as good as car yards because it defines where the cars are. Toyota, Holden, blah, blah, blah. So you can get around easier. So there's a winner for me, but, you know, I'll have to be convinced. Councillor Jurisevic: Question for staff. Now, when Councillor Jackson alluded earlier about there being no A-frames and no teardrop signs in the current draft. Speaker 2: In the revised draft that's in the report, we're proposing to continue with the prohibition of teardrops. So none, but allowing one A-frame per tenancy on private land, so not on public land. Councillor Jurisevic: So where we don't refer to A-frames and teardrops in the same sentence, my bringing in that amendment just to point C, D. D would only refer to, that would keep teardrops as a separate
01:17:00 entity, separate, separate. That's right. Speaker 2: So it would be an addition. Completely separate. Councillor Jurisevic: So it would take a change elsewhere to have the option of either an A-frame or a teardrop. Speaker 2: Yes. We would run with the similar style drafting now, which in the combined A-frame, teardrop provision, where you could have either or. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. Well, that's something that could come back before Thursday's meeting if this is defeated here in that regard. Because that's not my intent. My intent wasn't to. Addition. To prohibit that. It wasn't to be an addition. It was to be in the same manner as to be one or the other, as it had previously been in the law. It was just a ways and means of giving a definition as to what was permissible and preventing proliferation. Thank you. And I'm essentially speaking to my closing arguments there. Again, that was the intent, was ways and means of raising some sort of a median, a
01:18:00 way or means of raising some sort of a median, a way or means of raising some sort of a median, a way or means of raising some sort of a median, a way or means of raising some sort of an option to allowing these, but to prevent the proliferation of these going forward and giving some definition. The 20 metres was an arbitrary figure that I picked based on the fact that I thought most of the commercial tendencies would preclude them from going more than one. It was never intended to be teardrops as well as A-frames. It was supposed to be teardrops in all A-frames as has previously been the case if we decide to go down that path. In the event that A-frames don't get up, then that may be an option. But again, that was the ways and means of at least discussing the option of teardrop signs, their proliferation and how we may be able to deal with that. I mean, there is scope for this if this is defeated for that to be reviewed and looked at before Thursday night's meeting as well. So I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Those against? That's Councillor Glasgow and Jurisevic for, and Councillors Pardon, Jackson and Stockwell
01:19:00 against. The amendment is lost. And I've got a couple more to go. Should have ordered lunch. Okay, the next amendment. Or dinner. Speaker 4: We'll keep going. Councillor Jurisevic: And this way I may have to review the figures on this, but that a new item he added, A-12, or 13, sorry, A-X-1-1. It's been reviewed. We'll get it to read as follows. Just the first one. Thank you. Speaker 4: Kylie. Councillor Jurisevic: And having talked to Anita, there may be a better way of defining the glazed area without the door. Speaker 2: So currently. Councillor Jurisevic: I suggest you read out. Read out what's there. Speaker 4: Yeah, read out what's there. Councillor Jurisevic: Allow a maximum of 80% coverage of the glazed area of the building. Exclude product images representing the goods sold on the premises from the sign, face,
01:20:00 area calculation. That's the first one. Speaker 2: So currently, the reference to, it doesn't refer to windows. It refers to the glazed area of the building. So any part of the building that's glazed. So it includes the doors or any upper level. And the proposal here was to suggest 80% coverage of the windows, excluding the doors. Is that correct? Councillor Jurisevic: That was supposed to be 80% of the glazed area. Glazed area. Excluding the doors. Excluding the doors for safety reasons. And I picked the 80% trying to come up with an arbitrary figure of which the door would be in relation to the glazed area. But I realise now that that probably isn't an adequate description. I mean, how you differentiate between the windows and the doors in a glazed area is the question for me now. Speaker 2: Oh, well, we would describe that specifically. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I would say 100% of the window area, excluding the door.
01:21:00 Okay. Speaker 4: Can I make a suggestion? Maybe just clarify what you're trying to achieve here, Joe. And this might be another one. One to bring back to Thursday night. You have to think about whether you withdraw this and come and debate it on Thursday night. Yeah. All right. Maybe just explain exactly what you're trying to achieve. Councillor Jurisevic: I said, what I'm trying to achieve here is enable, to differentiate between imagery and wording, which I think signage is intended to define. Wording and logos I think are what signage is intended to define. So I'm seeing more and more promotion of a business through an image on a window. And a window image to me is no different to a product display. And a product display can be put behind a window. So I'm trying to find a way, some means of using the more modern type of graphic design work that we're seeing on building windows as something that we permit and allow.
01:22:00 Rather than calling signage and not permitting. And I think there are some good examples around town of that. And some that have been critiqued and accepted quite widely by the community. So that was what I was trying to say. Speaker 4: So my suggestion, and it's up to you as the mover, would be that you withdraw this and we get some more information about what wording we're trying to achieve. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy to withdraw that and bring that back on Thursday night with regard to the wording of trying to define window and door separately. Speaker 4: And I think I've mentioned before the question from Councillor Stockwell. I think at the end of this debate I'll do a bit of a summary of some of the issues where you might need more informational wording for Thursday night. If we don't summarise that you might end up with another report. And I'll just come back at the end of this debate. Councillor Jurisevic: Well similarly my next. Speaker 3: Can I also just advise Council that reference to window coverage of glazed area is actually in the planning scheme. Not just the, it's not just the local signage. We'll have to go back and get some more information. It would actually require a change to the planning scheme.
01:23:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Speaker 4: So that's the information Council will need for Thursday. Councillor Jurisevic: Alright. Well then my next amendment refers similarly to, with regard to LCD screens and window signage. I think I'll take that on notice as well and refer that to the review that you're doing in that regard rather than amending it. There are two other amendments. The second last one is that a new item 8.2. A15 be added to read as follows. And it's to increase the number of community service organisations for sporting clubs sign on days from six to ten. Carly can you change with six permitted within five kilometres of the club and four permitted outside the five kilometre radius. The reason I've changed it from six and four is because it's six is what's currently proposed Speaker 4: in the draft law. Can I suggest that you read that out for those who are watching on the video. The reason I've changed it from six and four is because it's six is what's currently proposed
01:24:00 Councillor Jurisevic: in the current draft. With six permitted within five kilometres of the club and I believe that's the perimeters that are in the draft. And four permitted outside the five kilometre radius of the club. Councillor Jackson: May I ask a question? Councillor Jurisevic: Please. Councillor Jackson: What is permitted right now? Can you explain? What is permitted with respect to community service organisations signs for sporting clubs? Speaker 4: Ingrid are you asking about what's in our current local law or what's proposed in the draft? Councillor Jackson: Actually I'd like both. Speaker 4: Yeah. That's good. So can you just both what's in our current local law and what's in the proposed local law in relation to the... Speaker 2: So currently in the current local law community service organisation signs don't specifically reference sporting club signs. So in the draft local law we have specifically referenced sporting club signs with specific
01:25:00 provisions around that. So currently the local law has... Is silent on that. Is silent on that. Is silent on the sporting sign on area. So it's a new provision. Councillor Jurisevic: But we do have a definition of area in the new draft? As I understand it? Speaker 2: No it's a community organisation. Yeah. So in the draft... Sorry. Same thing. Councillor Jackson: Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Speaker 2: Sorry. So yes in the draft we've included specific reference to sporting sign-on days and the number must not exceed six and the area is the advertising device must not be displayed outside
01:26:00 a radius of five kilometers from the site of the sign on a day in a coastal urban area or outside a radius of 15 kilometers from the site on the sign on day in a rural hinterland area. Five kilometers from the site within the coastal urban area and 15 kilometers from the hinterland rural area. So the advertising device must not be displayed more than 14 days prior to the sign-on day and removed within 24 hours of the conclusion of the sign-on day. Councillor Jackson: Is that clear Councillor Jackson? I'm just clarifying so that the only change from what you have proposed here is the number of signs.
01:27:00 Speaker 4: Increasing the number of signs from six to ten and also changing the distance and I assume that's in the coastal area from six within five kilometers and four outside the five kilometer. Whereas the current definition defines it to be outside of 15 kilometers. Councillor Jackson: That's in the hinterland and in the urban you couldn't have outside of five. Correct. Thanks. That's good. Thank you for the answer. Councillor Jurisevic: Do we have a seconder? Do I have a seconder? That's the question. There being no seconder? Councillor Jackson: I'm willing to second just for the sake of discussion. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you Councillor Jackson. Well then I'll speak to the motion. I thought the definition of staff adit was a bit restrictive. What it did is that it meant that sporting clubs were not allowed to have a staff adit. It meant that they couldn't advertise a sign on day in the hinterland regions and vice versa.
01:28:00 I thought there was some restriction there. I thought it was easier to try and come up with a set of parameters that I thought were more really able to be understood and also to permit some more signs. Six within five kilometers is great for that but then there's no allowance to go beyond that. Then go and place one in each of the hinterland towns. Which I think when a sporting club such as the soccer club at Girraween puts six around within five kilometers, there's no way that they can attract hinterland residents or hinterland members to the team readily without them taking those ones close to their premises. So I was just trying to give a little bit more allowance to clubs during that two weeks to reach a wider audience within the overall Shire region. I thought the 15 kilometers was good. In fact, prevented them from reaching some of the hinterland towns. Kin Kin would never get a sign.
01:29:00 Councillor Pardon: Mr Chairman, look, I'll support this. Sporting clubs are always involved. And it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference to me. The difference is, I don't like the idea of the division. The hinterland and the coast have never had. And so for all permitted areas, I don't like the idea of the division. I don't want to be outside that radius. I mean, pick a number. But I think that radius would have been better. I would have thought that there's no particular radius. People want to advertise their clubs, sign on days for the kids, wherever, given the timing of the 14 days, et cetera. I would have thought that, from my perspective, that's fine. I mean, that's who we are, community here. 80% of the people here, they don't want to sign on days for the kids.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We've got a conflict of interest with your example. If there happened to be two sporting clubs of the same code in the same division, I think a hinterland club would be really annoyed if the coastal club went and put a sign on day up in Cooroy, for example, outside the Croix Sport Complex and go and sign on somewhere else. I think that's what we have to worry about, is that where there's only one code, we don't want to create turf wars between either of them. None of the clubs that I've been involved with ever use them. I think we're forgetting that these signs are towards the edge of ineffective, that the most important sign any club or any business can have is about that big. And it turns up on your phone. And any suggestion that this is a great thing to have, very little.
01:31:00 It's, to me, I don't like the concept at all of signs on road. I can understand for events and I can understand for short periods, but sign on days, particularly in rural areas where it is, you know, people in the Croix might know that there's an AFL club in the uptown, that's probably a useful sign. But round the coast, yeah. So we don't need 10. Councillor Jurisevic: Any other councillors? 10 closing, 10 was an arbitrary figure. 6 was permitted within 5 kilometres and I just thought that became restrictive if we permit. 6 within 5 kilometres and I agree with Councillor Pardon. I think the limitations with, and that's probably what I should have looked at, removing the limitation of the kilometres where the signs can be spread. But I think, you know, 6 is fairly limited. I don't think 10 is over stretching. And I think, you know, this is intended to support community groups from
01:32:00 getting membership as well as, you know, the obesity issue and all the rest of it. Getting kids engaged in sport in some way, shape and means of promoting that. I mean, not everybody does do all the research and the look up. Not everybody does know when the sign on day is up. Not everybody's aware of all the clubs in the region. So an opportunity for those clubs to just flag themselves for a couple of weeks across the entire Shire was what the intent of this was. And that's, you know, I think in supporting our community groups as much as I possibly can. So I'll put the amendment to the vote. Those in favour? Those against? That's Councillors Pardon, Glasgow and Jurisevic in favour. Councillors Jackson and Stockwell against. The motion is carried. And I may review that on Thursday night. And the last item I've got. I've got
01:33:00 a point of G. And that is to undertake a further review of advertising devices when the signage audit is complete. My understanding is the signage audit is still being undertaken? That's correct. Thank you. So that's the reason for moving that. So that when we've got all of the information, I'll put that first and ask for a seconder. Councillor Glasgow: I'll second it. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Councillor Jackson. Speaking to it, I've got a motion and a seconder. I've said my intent here is that once the audit review is, the audit has been complete, that we can have a full assessment of compliance and any other issues that are brought forward. And then we can go back and review based on quantity of information and quality of the information provided, but that the audit should undertake. The audit to date has given us a reference of something like 85% compliance. One of the reasons I've objected to a number of the new parameters in the draft signage laws is because they are changes that have
01:34:00 been done without necessarily an audit being completed. 85% compliance tells me that basically the rules and regulations that have adhered for many, many years, as Councillor Stockwell alludes to, are in the main adhered to and appreciated and respected in that regard. There is only a small element of compliance and we don't know what element of that 15%. We haven't had it clarified. That could be the teardrop. The teardrop signs that, you know, the excessive teardrop signs might constitute 10% of the 15%. I don't know. I haven't got those figures in front of me. So until that comes back before us and we've got clarity of that, I'd like the opportunity to, once that's complete, to go back and have another look and see if there's areas that we can tweak, amend or go, guess what, you know, we've gone too far. There was never any need to go there because nobody, you know, nobody did, was not complying with that or this is the element where the most significant non-compliance is and just work on that area. Councillor Pardon: Councillor Pardon? Yes, I'll support that.
01:35:00 I recommend Mr Chairman. I would have thought probably staff down the track that having a look. And the points you make... Is there, is there a... The only thing I'd point out is, and we know that's why we've had an audit, we've had a lot of slippage in the past when we've amalgamated and there has been slippage and there has been some creep, not to a great degree as you point out, but we're trying to hold the line here in Noosa and do improvements where possible with regards to signage. Thus, that's why we're doing local law. Over time, you know, things drift a bit. But you make a good point. Many of our shoppies around the town, various centres, industrial centres, have listened to our officer going around and have made changes. I know that for a fact.
01:36:00 So, how many are non-compliant by the time? This law is even inactive. It'll be interesting. But look, in the main, I'd have to say, I would have thought that we've got a lot of feedback. We've copped a lot of flack, I guess, over advertising devices and signage and proposed laws, etc. And I would have expected that on some of the issues. But some of the issues, there's been great support. And the general public, I would say, is supporting Council's endeavours to try and hold the line and actually, you know, do some regulation with regards to signage to stop creep over time. So, but, yeah, I'll support the amendment. I think it's good. And I think it was obvious that we have a look in the future going forward anyway.
01:37:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Any other councillors want to speak to me? Councillor Jackson: I'll just say that I will be supporting the amendment because I think any further information that can help Council have good quality of rules that work for the community is a good approach. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Anyone else? I'll close and I'll follow with that sentiment. I think this sends a clear message to the community as well that we haven't closed the door. These drafts are there. But once an audit's complete, there is room and scope to go back and review these and see that the changes that have been made do or don't happen. I think one of the clear things that the audit has brought is the level of compliance. And as Councillor Pardon alluded to, that having a compliance officer speaking to businesses and an element of education is obviously having some impact and the level of compliance, as I understand it, is further being enhanced by that process.
01:38:00 So I await the final outcome of this amendment. I'm going to go to the audit to see if there is any further action needed to be taken with regard to signage in the future. So those in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. Alright. We're back to the, that's the last of the amendments, we're back to the original motion. There are... And only Councillor Pardon has spoken to the original motion. Councillor Jackson: That's what I've got. I shall speak to the original motion. Councillor. In support of the original motion. And I'd like to start with a general... A general statement that I have been very happy to see the work the staff have done in order to respond to the feedback from the community and from the business community about this. It's very important to our businesses and has a massive impact on their ability to attract customers and costs.
01:39:00 And I've been, you know, really appreciative of the responsiveness. I think some of the... Well, I think the amendments that have been added today and Councillor Pardon's alternate motion, which has some slight change, are all constructive and responsive to the business community also. And I strongly support this motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor. Anybody else? Councillor Jackson: Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillors, I think we're going backwards. I think we... When I went looking for evidence to support anything different to what the staff recommendation, I spent a couple of hours looking through the literature, trying to find evidence that A-frame signs on footpaths work. I couldn't find any. So, I went to the main evidence.
01:40:00 The main evidence is this document here that was in place between 1986 and 1997. And it had settings... Almost identical to what the staff have recommended. And that decade was where Noosa's brand was established as far as urban design was concerned. This document here is what established the ethos that when people came to Noosa, they experienced something different. They didn't walk down Hastings Street and have the same retail experience or whether it's a junction, that it was something different. It was uncluttered. It wasn't city-ified. It didn't have banners everywhere. It didn't have blocked walk paths. It had open-air dining. It had a lot of I have gone out publicly and had my opinion on this. And interestingly, David Nicholson, who was one of the original members of the committee that wrote this, he's a designer assistant, he took the opportunity to email me. And I thought, well, if there's no evidence in the scholarly literature, maybe evidence from a professional would come in handy. And he's lived in Noosa for a long time.
01:41:00 And he said, I have a vested interest in this matter. I was the original Noosa Shire Advisory Design Committee in 1986. Okay. I'll keep on going. In my view, even with the passing of time, the core values and messages are still sound of this document. And the Noosa Shire has retained its unique character, which is that this day still attracts so many visitors. As a design consultant for many years, working mainly in the area of architectural signage and graphics, I've been involved in numerous projects for both the Noosa and Cooroola Shire Council, as well as several architectural practices and developers. This has put me on both sides of the fence. When dealing with this issue of public and wayfinding signage, I have always managed to convince my commercial clients that less is best. All good planning and policy documents need to be visited from time to time. And despite some minor tinkering with council signage policy over the last 30 years, the current document basically remains true to the values outlined in the 1986 manual.
01:42:00 It is only one policy, but an important one. When developed responsibly, it can only assist in maintaining the core values of the Noosa brand. And councillors, I did find something in the literature about the Noosa brand. And it was a study done by the University of Queensland Business School. Tim Brailston. And while it was an experimental approach, or exploratory approach, what his research showed that the Noosa brand just about doubled on average restaurant and accommodation business compared to the Australian average. He had pointed that if you were a business in Noosa, the brand doubled your likely income. But retail was only about 20%. Now, it might not be double, it might not be, but we do know that doing business in Noosa and setting up business in Noosa, you come with the added benefit of having a community that has respect for certain values. To me, councillors, we have to be very careful when we consider this that we don't start just letting things, bit by bit, reduce those high standards.
01:43:00 And it is that death by small thousand cuts that we have to worry about. Because out there, all the other towns along the east coast have got there because they've just kept on just being a little bit better. And unlike a number of councillors, everyone who's been emailing me has been about in support. In support of a strong approach. And it's not just the design consults are saying it. We know, we've all seen the letter from one of the biggest employers in our town where he employs 250 people. And he says that it's critical the council does all in its power to maintain the character and the look and feel of Noosa. And the items listed as prohibited items, including A-frames and revolving signage, et cetera, creates the visual clutter. And it significantly reduces our general amenity. I agree with those two gentlemen. I believe it is really important between now and Thursday that we really have to think about are we listening to the majority?
01:44:00 Or are we listening to those vocal few who perhaps don't understand the importance of having less is best as our signage policy? Councillor Pardon: You've already spoken. Yeah. Councillor Glasgow: No. No, not yet. I'll just say quickly, all the emails I got was about staff and how you went back and actioned it and revised it and looked over what you've done and brought back to us this masterpiece in front of us. So, you know, it's never ever perfect, but I'd like to say it's a lot more than, a lot less than what Councillor Stockwell says it's not perfect. But you've come back and you really protect it greatly. I think we've got a good compromise here for various contingent signs. So, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thanks. Thank you.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 I'll add my two cents worth in here. I don't know about going backwards, Councillor Stockwell. The Noosa brand is important and it does provide that. But if businesses can't be found and can't be located and they get the opportunity, they don't get to do customs. So, I think there's an element of what we've been hearing. Is that the businesses still want their opportunity to be located. And that's with clarity and with some options there to individual. I think that brand is respected. And I think that comes with the element of the audit that are being undertaken with the high level of compliance. I think most businesses appreciate and respect it. I don't think there's any challenge there. But some of the things that were proposed were going beyond where we currently stand. And again, that high level of compliance shows that there's an amazing level of respect to what currently exists and the differentiation between Noosa with regard to signage and elsewhere.
01:46:00 But there's still scope to then try to find some sort of a compromise that does allow business to undertake business the way business should be undertaken. And that's all businesses have been requesting. And that's why there was such vehement opposition to the vast number of changes that were being proposed here. But also, a level of voice there of a lack of understanding of the current signage laws that exist. And I think that's the small minority that don't comply currently. And it's a matter of education and better responding and better informing those business operators. We're differentiating the way that they operate here in the Noosa region. It doesn't mean that we have to restrict signage to the point of nullifying it, but it does
01:47:00 mean we have to manage it and manage it well so that all businesses do have an equal opportunity to display their wares and their prominence and be able to be located readily within the region. One of the ways of doing that is, as you stated, less is more. It's an understanding that clutter doesn't define your business. Clutter turns around and loses your business. Clear, concise messaging in a format with minimal signage is the way to go, but everybody should be allowed to display that signage and be found in the same way, shape or form. So that's where I'll end it. I'll leave it to Council Pardon to close. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, thank you, Mr Chairman. Yeah, I will close. And thanks, staff. Absolutely. I mean, what a job trying to sort this out. The CEO is correct. There's seven, a mayor and six councillors, and there's eight different opinions.
01:48:00 Eighty, eighty. And out in the community, my God, there's a raft of different opinions with regards to this. And so, yeah, Dave Nicholson, Dave Nick, I owe him. He dragged me out of a fruit shop to play rugby union and got the hell belted out of me to launch the... Noosa Dolphins. And in fact, he got the hell belted out of himself. I think he was the only one older than me playing in the old days. And I have a lot of respect for Dave. He's a good bloke. With regards to brand, it's kind of interesting. So you're right. Councillor Stockwell's right. Over many, many years, the Noosa brand has been through planning strategies by its people, people long before. I've been here 38 years, but they came before me as well. And looked after the place and managed the place. And that brand has grown into, we know, international brand now.
01:49:00 It's a big brand. And then it depends on your circle. See, some people now got to the state, done such a good job. There's too many turning on. That's another conversation, interestingly enough. We're so popular that we can't fit them in anymore. So I don't think... A-frames in front of shops have destroyed the Noosa brand or would in the future. I think that's drawing a very long bow. And for me, the Aussie knockabout and the circles I move in, and I understand we all have our own circles of influence, councillors, and I move in business circles as much as the wider community. And I can tell you where business sits with regards to discounts. We're all in this council, out there looking at us. And I'd suggest people move outside of what their little circles are, and get wide across
01:50:00 the community. Otherwise, there's already been some backlash with regards to signage. And I know some players here that are big owners of property. But if you look at the rents they're charging, that's why people are out there struggling. You'll see it on the back of my head. I'm not going to impinge them. The motion I moved originally, part of this motion, and the only thing I die in the ditches for is allow them to have a little A-frame if they choose. If that's going to upset the whole brand, Noosa, it's look and feel, I'd be surprised. Because it was allowed in our previous planning scheme, and I don't think it's done us any
01:51:00 damage at all. So on that one, I'll let them die on the councillor's ditch, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Against? We've got a call. So that's councillor's pardon. I am. That's all right. I can remember where your hands were. I don't need them on. Speaker 4: Councillor Glasgow, Jackson, Pardon, and Jurisevic in favour? Councillor Stockwell, against? Councillor, just before we move off that, I said I'd give you a summary at the end in terms of what more information might be involved or needed on Thursday night for the council meeting, bearing in mind this is only a recommendation to council. There were five issues that arose during that debate, some of which were withdrawn, but I think would be beneficial to have them on this on the agenda. Thank you. The first two are actually interrelated, which come to the motion that councillor Junction originally moved in terms of definition of tenancy and A-frames and what that definition
01:52:00 would apply to in terms of A-frames. And the second one was the councillor Jurisevic moved also in relation to the definition of tenancy and dealing with the inclusive of sublets. So I'll get staff to give some advice to council about how that can be, those two issues can be dealt with. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Is it possible we get some legal advice here as we go to leases and sub-leases as well? Speaker 4: The third one was about the wording that councillor Jurisevic used in terms of the teardrop flag. That amendment was actually lost, but I think the question arose about whether or not there would be wording that it would apply differently from having one A-frame end or one teardrop. The question there is what wording would allow that. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: The other possibility came up there was regard to differentiation of where teardrop signs may be allowed with industrial area versus commercial spaces. Speaker 4: And also the definition of glazed area and doors and how that might work and issues around
01:53:00 that. And that's the differentiation between images and words. The other one that came up, which I think won't necessarily, I'm just checking on this, I think, won't need to be revisited on Thursday, even though it was withdrawn in terms of the term, was the question of funding out of general rates. I think that's a budget issue rather than having that on Thursday. I'm happy for that. I think you clarified where that funding would be. If I can ask, Kim, we'll arrange a report on Thursday. I missed one? Councillor Jackson: There's one little thing that I think needs to be included in the report, and that is that when we were discussing the definition of tenancy, and in the back of, I asked the question about which properties this would affect. There was discussion or response from Anita that some work was being done on buildings that were one tenancy but had a whole lot of sublets, and that that would be treated
01:54:00 differently. And I think if we're looking at tenancies, that needs to be in the report as well. Sure. Speaker 4: So what we'll do is identify the types. We won't be able to identify every individual building in New York. Councillor Jackson: Sure, I understand that. Speaker 4: So it's the type or the categories. I think it's a pretty better way. Councillor Jackson: There was an implication that something that was not in our list of things that were not in the motion was in fact being looked at by staff to be changed. So I think that should be there. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, good point. And I'd add to that. I mean, there must be some understanding from the audit as to how many potential sublease area or where is it where subleases may be more prevalent than others. I mean, are they prevalent in the industrial area? Are they most prevalent along the riverfront? Where are they? Speaker 3: Yeah, they occur in both, the industrial area and the river. I'd have to have a look to see whether we've got those actual figures. You might be able to give some. You might be able to give some examples. Yeah, examples, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Speaker 4: All right. Can I thank the staff for working through all the details? Yeah.
01:55:00 It's been a great, great work. Councillor Jurisevic: Thanks for your patience all that time. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And the response from the municipal business association said that, you know, in general, the business community was happy to see that you did listen. Certainly, when I met with them and the Hastings Street Association, they were also very appreciative of the approach you took in talking through what your response to the submissions were. So, well done. Thank you, guys. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. We'll move on to item two in the general committee agenda, which is reports to public question time guidelines. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Questions for the CEO or? I just have a very small question. To the CEO. Yeah. And I do appreciate that you have already asked for our feedback and that we've been working on this with consideration of that. Something small that I noticed as I read it on the agenda is that people are invited to either lodge their questions by email or by walking into the building and handing them
01:56:00 in. What happened to sending things by mail? Is that? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm probably a bit of. I thought I was old fashioned. Councillor Jackson: You got to hitch your horse to a cart. I suggest the postman does that. Councillor Jurisevic: It brings them in and. The postman would bring them in and hand them in on behalf. Speaker 4: Get a box. Yeah. Yeah. I think mainly it's because we wouldn't know when the timing arrives. If it comes into my office through the system, so to speak, if someone writes in on the Friday I think it's clear that it has to arrive a few days before, it has been received, I think Councillor Jackson: that word received is in there anyway, so I think I would, I don't think this needs an amendment, I think this is something, yeah I would suggest, I don't know.
01:57:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, there's no other questions, somebody want to move it? Councillor Glasgow? I'll second it. Seconded Councillor Stockwell, would you like to speak to it Councillor Glasgow? Councillor Glasgow: No, I think it's really all been said. Anybody else like to speak to it? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll speak to it. I would expect, I would have fully expected it to come, as the person that brought the matter forward. Councillor Jackson: That's right, so I'm really excited that this is something Council has agreed to, I had raised this as sort of adding to our responsiveness to the community and transparency, so I'm really excited that this is going to happen, and I think the guidelines are going to be helpful, clearly people have to understand how the process will work and what's allowed and what's not allowed, and like what Councillor Jurisevic was saying about the signage, we're also going to be able to test it once we've used it for a while. We'll know if it's working well for us, but I think it'll be great to be able to invite
01:58:00 people to ask questions of Council, and that it'll be minuted in the minutes, which I think is also a valuable element of this guideline, thanks. Councillor Pardon: Councillor Patterson? Yeah, I'll thank Councillor Jackson for bringing this forward. I don't have a problem at all, never had a problem with questions, probably me downfall. I always tell them, ask me anything, and you get some interesting ones, but it's fine. There's certain protocols, CEOs written out here, and I think that's fine, and I understand Councillor Jackson, or I think I've put some input into it as well, and I think that's good. The interesting thing about question time, the bloke that came in here to shoot a councillor
01:59:00 one day and got me by mistake, at least he might be able to ask a question, which councillor he needs to shoot, we'll get the right one going forward in the future, and I was warned after the meeting, which I thought was a bit crooked, but anyway, I think that's part of the democratic process. It'll be interesting. I'm sort of interested to see what happens. We put this out here and see how it works. That's the proof's in the pudding. I'll be very interested to see how this goes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. Just a question. If it's adopted in this round of meetings, does that mean this commences in November round of meetings? Councillor Jurisevic: Correct. Anything further? No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think, as I said last time, when this first idea came up, I had some reservations, but I did go out and ask the question, and people thought if there was this opportunity, if they'd be exhausted, the other opportunity is to get their questions answered, and they want to come straight to the political level.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 I suppose the guidelines have alleviated any concerns I had about what we could potentially turn into. I'm happy to support it. Councillor Jurisevic: Likewise. I'm happy to support it. I think there's been a raft of change, and change doesn't come easily to any entity, any organisation or that. I'm happy to support it. But going through a due process and the parameters around this, I'm highly supportive of it. I think there's always scope to broaden your horizons. I think there's always scope to listen and to adhere, and there's always scope for clarity and transparency, and I think this is part of that process that Councillor Jackson has been alluding to through her time on Council, and I congratulate her for presenting this idea and option before us, and I think it's a great new initiative, and I look forward to seeing it in operation. Seeing it in action. Seeing how we deal with it. Councillor Glasgow, do you wish to close? Councillor Glasgow: Councillor Glasgow Yeah, just quickly. I congratulate my fellow colleague. Very progressive. I like it. Transparency, very good as well, and reiterate.
02:01:00 Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Councillor Jurisevic: Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Reiterate. Right on, right on time. Councilors, any questions or comments, sir?
02:02:00 Councillor Jackson: I have some questions. Fire on. Yeah, okay. One is that I noticed that Noosa community support fees are below year-to-date budget by $13,000, and then later I noticed there's a reduction in annual grant funding. Is that the reason that we're below budget? No, they're separate issues. They're separate issues? Yeah. So what is the reason for the running below fees, Speaker 1: support fees? Look, I'd need to take that on notice. Okay. Dr. Perry, continue the director. Okay. Investigate that, that's not an issue. Councillor Jackson: You may have difficulty answering my next question then, and that was around, there's been a reduction of 10,000 below budget of property change ownership fees, and that seems to indicate fewer sales, 19% fewer sales than you expected. Speaker 1: Potentially, yeah. But obviously it's, it's all market-driven, isn't it? Yeah. Change of ownership's all linked to property sales,
02:03:00 so we'll just keep having to monitor that, and then determine whether we need to make any adjustments to the future of the other. Generally, we've been tracking, we did slightly increase the budget for property search fees and change of ownership, this year, to reflect previous years, where we have come in over budget, so we might have been a bit optimistic. We'll find out. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, no worries. What about waste disposal fees coming 86,000 below year-to-date budget? I wonder why that would be, given that that seems like a standard fee. Speaker 1: Well, waste disposal is, it's based on volumes. It's not a standard fee. So they're fees over the weighbridge. So it could be green waste disposal, general waste disposal. So look, it's, again, it's volume-driven, so we'd need to monitor that as well. Councillor Jurisevic: Maybe an element of kerbside clean-up has just been undertaken? Speaker 1: It could be, but also, obviously the waste levee's
02:04:00 having an impact over the gate for commercial waste. So there's, we did expect some sort of impact there in terms of maybe waste not going over the weighbridge. Councillor Jurisevic: That's an interesting question that, that, that comes in. I mean, I said, you've got no idea, volume was what we've got been getting going through there. But is the waste levee, it mentions the waste levee timing here, but to resolve, is it an element of the waste, the waste levee that could be having that, that impact there? I mean, is it, people are holding off to see the impact of the waste levee, or they're getting there and finding out, I mean, as a strategy, give us any indication as to, as to whether there's been a lesser volume of traffic coming in since the waste levee was implemented? Speaker 1: Well, we, I haven't spoken yet to waste regarding year-on-year volume movements, but that's something we can look at. Councillor Jurisevic: Volume versus movements are two different things. I mean, are we still getting the same number of movements in? Speaker 4: You might recall that Wayne does a detailed report to Council every four to six months on that,
02:05:00 and I think the next report will cover that. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Speaker 1: The volume and movements is, they're directly correlated. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Councillor Jackson, didn't mean to interrupt there, just wanted to continue on that train of thought. That's all right. Have you got some more questions? Councillor Jackson: Yes, I have a question of the CEO, relating to staff salaries down and overtime up, quite significantly, under-expenditure on staff salaries and wages by about a half a million, and then employee overtime up by 40%. So, I'm just wondering, are we having some difficulties with staffing here? Speaker 4: No, we have, you might recall when we put in new positions into the budget, we then advertise them, so they're not filled straight away. And also, when staff leave, there's a period between when that position is vacant and when the new staff member arrives. By and large, we haven't had any problems recruiting staff in terms of those positions. It's just normally a timeframe between when someone would leave and when a new position starts.
02:06:00 That would be the majority. Councillor Jackson: Okay, thank you. Thanks. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I just have a piggyback? Fire? Would the overtime relate to the fire? That was my question, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Wouldn't have got into there yet, would it? No. How is staff training going with regards to its budget? I notice it's not in there. It's not mentioned whether it's above or below. I'm assuming it's running... Deleted. On target, Mr CEO. Speaker 4: Well, that clearly means it's on target, Councillor Jurisdict. It's your standard question, so it's not there. It's good news. Councillor Jurisevic: And, of course, capital expenditure, I mean, a significant showing below budget there, but I'm assuming that's just down to a timing of when projects are undertaken. Capital expenditure is never a lineal figure, and, of course, I'm assuming budget-wise, we do have more of a lineal target than we do with regard to wind projects. Speaker 1: Yeah, look, that $3 million year-to-date variance is... A lot of it's... There's a million of that's fleet. We did expect to purchase... We're bulk purchasing our... We've got 12 utes we're replacing.
02:07:00 We were expecting to purchase them last month. However, there's been a bit of a timing issue... Councillor Jurisevic: That's just a timing issue with regard to availability of vehicles? That's right. Speaker 1: Another chunk of that is the North Shore Tank Ground redevelopment. So, obviously, we thought we'd get a couple more progress claims in, because that's tracking quite well, that project. However, they haven't... They didn't quite come in prior to the end of the month. Councillor Jurisevic: So, the work is progressing well, Speaker 1: which is just a matter of the timing of the invoicing coming in for payment. Correct. Thank you. And the other probably major item there, in terms of that variance with Rupert Street, there's probably a couple of hundred thousand there, just in terms of that tender being decided, I think, last month, and now getting things moving there. So, it's an ongoing cash flow phasing issue with our infrastructure services guys to make sure that the year-to-date budget reflects what we're delivering. Councillor Jurisevic: You've related to two fairly significant projects that are being undertaken at the moment, Rupert Street with the community house redevelopment and the North Shore Campground. They're two significant projects that'll have a large part of that slice of that budget.
02:08:00 Speaker 1: So, that's... Look, the three million year-to-date variance, I'd expect that to be chewed up by the end of this calendar year. Okay. Councillor Jackson: Any other questions? Yeah, I have another one. Go right away. On page 12, there's a couple of things that seem to me to be community services. Parks and gardens operations and maintenance programs are 86,000 below year-to-date budget and public amenities materials and services, 77,000 year-to-date budget. So, I'm just wondering, that seems to be things that we are committed to making sure that there are services to the community and I'm wondering what's happening. Business as usual activities? Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Cool questions. The parks and gardens, the year-to-date variance, a lot of that relates to mowing. As you can appreciate, we've had quite a dry spell until probably the last couple of weeks. Yeah. So, they're actually able to negotiate with our contractors to reduce service levels because you don't need to...
02:09:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Until the grass starts to grow again. Speaker 1: So, we're not going to... We live like fields, to be honest. We'd grow if we mowed dirt. So, they reschedule with our contractors to delay or defer under our contract. Councillor Jackson: Right. Speaker 1: The other one, there's arborists. So, they're a little bit... The arborists have annual programs quite significant in terms of tree maintenance. That's about 20,000 below year-to-date budget. So, but again, I'd rely on Matt Hanson and his team to manage their spend around that. So, again, that's potentially a timing issue given the fact that in previous years, I've actually come back asking for more money in their budget each year. Councillor Jackson: But there was also public amenity materials and services. So, is that to public amenity? Again, that's very low as well. Speaker 1: Yeah, look, and in that, about half of that variance relates to water and sewage charges. So, we need to probably investigate. Our budget's based on a little bit of historical actual there
02:10:00 and also a bit of phasing. So, we just need to have a look why that's below year-to-date budget. It may be a phasing issue in terms of the invoice didn't come in or wasn't accrued. The rest of it's around contract services. So, we need to understand, is it maintenance? I know they have a reactive maintenance budget within the public amenities. So, that could be the history. The fact that there's less, potentially less vandalism than what they're expecting. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, so it could be a good message and... Yeah. Unity Water holding off on their water bill is not a bad message, is it? They never hold off on their water bill. Yes, a partner had a question or... Councillor Pardon: Oh, yeah, just in relation to the interest rates. Obviously, we know that interest rates are virtually collapsing across the land, Reserve Bank, et cetera. So, the question to Michael and I'd expect he's factored this in going forward, but just a question in regards to, as we unwind our fixed rates, the good interest rate,
02:11:00 you look into the future, Michael, with regards to our investments, with regards to that going forward. Councillor Jurisevic: Any return? Speaker 1: Yeah, we have got some locked in. QDC always gives a good return above benchmark. Yeah. The fact that they've got significant... They've got significant pull in the industry. They've got a lot of cash that Council has to put with them to invest. So, we've got that bulk buying opportunity there. But, look, it's still a risk. You know, we've only so much of our money locked in to turn deposits that have a decent interest rate component. However, we're always looking to maximise where we can, you know, steal an extra dollar here and there. So... Councillor Jurisevic: Insurance premiums, 33k above budget? Have we had some increases in insurance premiums? Speaker 1: No, I think... Well, we've got our Workplace Health and Safety. We're starting to take a... It's not... No, it's not Workplace Health and Safety.
02:12:00 It's our general liability cover. And that's... A lot of that's industry-based. So, we were given... We budget what we think back in February. However, when the premiums come in, obviously, LGM have decided that it's based on, you know, their factors and their actuary calculations. It's... They're passing on a bit more cost to councils. OK, so they have... So, they have increased... Improved premiums have increased... There is a slight increase, though, in our industrial special risk component of the premium. That's effectively our building insurance because we do have some new buildings that have come on. And since they've come on, then they've adjusted. So, we're paying a bit more. But overall, the insurance market's going up a bit. Yeah. Mm-hmm. Councillor Jackson: I have another one. Please. The budget for legal appeals, Development Assessment Legal Appeals, is $1.1 million. And in one quarter, we appear to have already spent $448,000, which is 41% of that budget.
02:13:00 How does this augur for the rest of the full financial year? Speaker 1: It's... It's... It's probably a risk, to be honest. Councillor Jackson, it's... It's the cost of defending our planning scheme, and we need to closely monitor that in terms of potential budget impacts and the ability to fund any potential budget overrun through additional revenues or cost savings. So, that's something we're going to closely monitor in the next six months. Speaker 4: The other thing that tends to happen around there is that if it's like a trial season, for want of a better phrase, a lot of court appeals are heard leading up to Christmas, and the court goes into recess, so you don't tend to incur as many costs around that... December, Christmas... Councillor Jackson: The next quarter, yeah. Speaker 4: Correct. Yeah, but we... You know, there are... Whenever we have a trial, we spend a lot of money on that. Councillor Jackson: Mm. And I have one final one, and that's on page 16, Net Financial Liabilities Ratio. And it's probably just some explanation here,
02:14:00 because it appears that... It shows a new-to-date actual at minus 41.1%, and I probably need an explanation. Speaker 1: So, the Net Financial Liabilities Ratio is effectively your net assets, so your current assets, which are liabilities, divided by your revenue. So, what we're seeing here is the reason that that... Negative means good here, so it means we've got more capacity to borrow. However, part of the net assets is our cash, and our cash position at the moment is very healthy, because we received our rates revenue in July, or actually August, is when the cash comes in. So, our cash at the moment is very healthy, which we'll be spending over the next few months as we lead into Christmas, and then our next rates runs in January, hence why that net assets figure is higher than at this point in time in the year.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 But that will slowly reduce back to budget over the course of the year. It'll probably go down to possibly around that 5%, 10%. It'll jump back up probably in August, February next year, when we receive our cash for our next rates run, but then it'll come back towards budget figure again. So, it's a cash timing issue. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd even say the budget's at minus 5.7%. I mean, that's a very healthy position to be in overall, isn't it? Speaker 1: And that reflects the fact that we've got $20 million. We've got $20 million of debt. We're in a healthy position. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I have a mover? Thank you, Councillor Jackson. Seconder? Okay, I'll move. Councillor Glasgow. You should speak to it, Councillor Jackson. No, I won't. Councillor Pardon: I think Michael and his staff are always prudent, the guys and girls down there. And, you know, it goes without saying,
02:16:00 and you heard Councillor Jackson call into that for minus 41%. I mean, the position Noosa Council is in, compared to a raft of councils, not only across Queensland, but probably across Australia, is a very powerful position, really, financially. And really, you know, it doesn't keep me awake at night, this part of my council hat, because being in this position, I suggest a lot of states and Australian governments have a look at this. The shocks that come, things that change, and I just mentioned interest rates before getting lower, and so your capacity to earn, if you like, investments. Council's no different, too. A lot of self-funded retirees. It's just a bigger pot that's managed here with a far, of course, raft of different issues, of course,
02:17:00 and businesses, et cetera, that we deal with. But, you know, we have to look at our opportunities, and we will go on forward, as being alluded to, upgrading caravan parks, et cetera, some of our other businesses. I see the legislation, for example, in here is up about $30,000, $40,000. This is credit to the staff running that. It's a game of unders and overs at the moment. Some revenue will be up, some down. But at the end of the day, that reduction of debt has put us so strong that the council can absorb shocks here. And we don't know what shocks are coming. You know, and I suggest the world, the International Monetary Fund doesn't know shocks are coming. So if you've got it, it's the old adage, if you've got a quid in the bank, you can absorb those shocks. And that's where we are. If you haven't and you cop them, you've got all sorts of trouble.
02:18:00 So I thank staff very much. I mean, I'm always trying to spend money as a councillor. No different. On the good things, I'll add, for, you know, my community. But the prudence that the staff have shown for us and the way forward has been tremendous Speaker 1: and sets us in real good stead. Just a quick update too. Sorry, I was going to mention, we've started a discussion with Queensland Treasury looking at that current 6% and, you know, doing a bit of modelling over what would that look like if we actually retired that debt and re-borrowed. Yeah. My gut says yes. It won't work given the fact that there's a market value adjustment. So it could be, which effectively, you know, banks don't let you do that effectively because why would they? However, we're still going through that exercise to determine whether there is any opportunity there
02:19:00 to retire that 6% debt. Councillor Jurisevic: I appreciate the fact you're at least looking at the opportunities there. I mean, you know, it is, we've shown that it's a significant saving to council itself. Councillor Pardon: Just a question through you, Mr Chair, and then I'll pass it over to Michael on that issue. Could we retire QTC and then go to the banks and borrow it, you know, under the guise that... No, under the act, we cannot. OK. Always looking at the smoky deals. Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. You were interrupted during your discussion here. Did you finish your counsel at that? Yes, yes. Nothing further to add? I don't know. Anybody else? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell? It's a question. So we've looked at where we are under and over in our revenue, but how's our project about looking at alternative revenue sources going? Seems to be quite high. Speaker 1: It's going. We've only just employed a person, haven't we? Yes. We are... Well, the property side is progressing, but we'll need to bring back an update on the project.
02:20:00 The working group's formed. We're reviewing the strategy, which we still need to bring back to council in terms of looking at the overall strategy and timeframes. But obviously, it's... I'm having a joke on that project among my other responsibilities. So... There's no mine interest in the property side of it? Yeah, we're... I'm conscious of the fact that we... Yeah, we... It's hanging there ready to progress. So there's a lot of opportunity there for us. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, including that is the redevelopment of the North Shore Campground. That's one of the projects that's certainly in there. It's pent up demand, Mr Chairman. Pent up demand? I think we're looking to expand which is great. I'll only add, lovely to see the water bottle filling station MAU and the Unity Water contribution towards some more water stations being added. But I have got a question with regard to the spur revenue down. Is that an indication of how difficult money is, how tight money is at the moment? And the difficulty spur having, acquiring that revenue?
02:21:00 Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll need to talk to Phil Anson about that, whether it's a timing issue, because they're forecasting how much they might get out of spur in terms of, and that's passed on obviously to, if someone doesn't pay their fine, then they get lost. Councillor Jurisevic: In times of financial difficulty, I assume that there's going to be a lot of, you know, it's going to be harder to acquire outstanding debt. Speaker 1: I'd suggest it's the opposite. I think if it was higher than budget, it would indicate that fines are not being paid. Councillor Jurisevic: But because it's under budget, I think it's, oh, the other way around, okay, that we're actually getting, okay, but it could be, I haven't thought of it that way, yeah, timing issues, okay, yeah, okay, I haven't thought of it that way. All right, no, nothing further from me. Conclusion to close? All good? So, I'll put the motion. All in favour? Carried unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Michael. I think that's the last item on the agenda.