Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 8: Yes please, can I just give about 10 seconds? Good timing, clear? Okay. Oh, I'm on. Yep, first one up. Councillor Wilkie: Well, welcome everybody to the general committee meeting. I declare the meeting open. I begin by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Kabi Kabi or the Gabi Gabi people, and pay respects to our elders past, present and emerging. We have one apology from Councillor Jurisevic. Do we have any presentations? No, not today. No presentations or deputations. And the first item referred from the Planning and Environment Committee is the Noosa Biosecurity Plan. There's a further report in the general committee agenda on page three. Welcome Peter Milne, welcome Kim. Counselors, do you have any questions for staff? Ingrid. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I have a question.
00:01:00 Peter, at the Monday Planning and Environment Committee meeting, I asked whether the biodiversity plan. Mayor Wellington: I think it was a Tuesday. Councillor Jackson: Sorry, Tuesday's Planning and Environment Committee meeting. I asked whether the biodiversity plan is planning for the impact of climate change and bushfires on native vegetation and whether any steps will be planned to protect against invasive species. Can you explain to what extent you've addressed this or how you've addressed this in the revised version that you've got put before us today? Speaker 6: Sure. So on page 14 of the revised biosecurity plan, there's a table in there about some of the climate change pressures and one of the rows there includes some information on fire management. Essentially what it is, if there's a fire management plan, if there's an added risk from climate change to vegetation and habitat
00:02:00 and encouraging more weed species, for example, we'd actually build that into the prioritisation table to say that this is a higher priority for management basically. So it elevates the position of the different species in terms of priority management. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Speaker 8: I'll move it. I'll second it. Move it, Councillor Lange. Just clarify, you're moving to one in the further reports. Yep. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Seconded, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lange, do you wish to speak? No, thanks. Do you wish to speak to the motion? Do you think Councillor's got to speak to the motion? Yeah, I will. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Firstly, I'd like to thank staff for the prompt response because the weekend before the planning environment, I raised a few concerns about both not being really transparent and how it's linked to the environment strategy and the monitoring of the outcomes. And I think that the changes that we made is exactly what I was thinking would actually make the plan a lot more robust in identifying why we do these things.
00:03:00 It's not just to kill a weed, it's to protect our ecosystems and protect productive lands. I also raised the same issue as Councillor Jackson in terms of it. The previous one, you said one paragraph about climate change. I didn't think that was adequate. I do think now that we've put this table in, it makes it really clear that what we're facing right now is change management regimes. It's going to affect weed management, pest management, and having that table there just reinforces to Council and its employees that we must always be thinking about how things might change going forward. I cleaned out my shed when I was getting my grab pack the other day, and I came across my second year. It was a bit of a mess. So in 1977 climate scientists were identifying what potential futures were. We're now living that and it's going to affect all our operations and I think it's really important that in all our plans we make really overt reference to it and keep it at the top of our mind what might be the changing circumstances and how is that going to affect both what we do and how we do it.
00:04:00 So I think overall the approach to biosecurity in the plan is good and I think it's even better now that we've got some linkage to the higher level strategy and some forward thinking in terms of what might be priorities going forward. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Parker? Councillor Pardon: Yeah, yeah. Firstly I'd just like to thank staff for all their work and as well Councillor Stockwell because of his keen interest in these matters. He's worked with staff to get some changes which is positive of course. Understand, I don't know the council, but there's 23 million feral pigs in Australia and that's just one particular pest but they're looking at eradication or at least reducing massive numbers.
00:05:00 And we know we've got the foxes and wild dogs and all the problems we've got with regards to native animals. And feral cats of course. Big issues here. But I'd like to support our staff who's, Cameron in particular, is out there doing a lot of eradication, feral deer, etc. in our Shire. But it needs to be a holistic approach because little areas are cleared out. There's other Shires around us, there's a biosphere north of us, there's a biosphere proposed south of us. But we need to look at the big picture and marry in with some of these Shires with some of this stuff. I mean we can fight in our patch of dirt forever but that's just not going to cut it. So for me it's a holistic approach.
00:06:00 Some of the stuff in here, I note talking about technology. It's technology that's possibly caused a lot of, well not possibly, it's caused a lot of our headaches. But it's also technology gives us opportunity to help clean. Clean up a lot of headaches. And I notice the targeting of drones these days. They're using drones. The farmers are using them across the nation now. Not all farmers but some who are up to speed. Targeting weed species, etc. It's very effective and it's very targeted. So I note in the report that type of activity also assists. So we've got to get in the game too. We've got to get smarter, work smarter, not harder. But I guess beating weeds, I think as long as I'll be on the planet we'll be trying to beat the weed problem. As fast as you eradicate they pop up elsewhere. Needs tremendous resources. And we don't have them.
00:07:00 So we need to look at state and federal governments to give us a hand with funding when we're targeting various species. We have the fire ant problem. They're trying to hold them off. In Brisbane they seem to be continually moving. Very hard to get out of the country. So when we're talking biosecurity, it's not just us, weeds, etc. Swine fever. African swine fever. If it gets into this nation, we're decimated. Our whole pork industry is gone. It's already decimating Asia and other countries. But out of those decimations for them, if we can do the right thing, it's opportunity for us. And there's many opportunities. But yeah, it's about working smart. It's about collaboration with all governments. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Powell. Any other councillors wish to speak? Would you close, Councillor Wellington? No, thanks. Okay. Put the motion those in favour? Against? The motion's carried. Thank you, Peter. Thank you. Thank you.
00:08:00 Thanks, Peter. Thanks, Peter. Thanks, Peter. The next item is the Planning and Environment Court Appeal. Refusal of application for operational works prescribed title works extension of jetting at 180 Kimpy Terrace, Noosaville. Referred here for further consideration. And that's on page 29 of the Environment and Planning Committee agenda. Welcome, Patrick. Thank you, Frank. Councillors, do you have any questions for Patrick? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a question that's probably better to the Director rather than Patrick. It's just a point of clarification. About the nature of this application and our role as councillors and how that might affect the way we go forward. And it's in relation to comments that Councillor Jackson made which were reported in the press on Friday where it was referred to that Councillor Jackson wouldn't support this particular recommendation because she believes the extra $150,000 involved in moving the jetty back will still have many
00:09:00 boats refuelling outside the area. It appears at least that Councillor Jackson was in part relating to the financial implications of enforcing compliance with development conditions. And from reading the report we've got in front of us, the original application was for prescribed title works, which is code accessible. And the relevant codes are Noosaville Calgary Code, the Watercourse Works Code. And after reviewing both these codes, I can see no overall specific authortude. This is a question. It certainly is, yeah. It's a long one. It has to get to context because it's important to planning regulatory. Our role as a council is guided by the Planning Act and it's important when councillors vote they know what they can and can't consider. After reviewing both these codes, I've seen no overall or specific outcomes that in any way refer to the financial affairs of the business proposing the development. So the question is, considering that the Planning Act clearly specifies that code assessment is a bounded assessment and must be assessed only against the purpose of the development
00:10:00 or against assessment benchmarks and must have regard to matters prescribed by the regulation, is it therefore correct to suggest that council is prevented at law from considering such factors in the deliberation on this matter, financial matters? Speaker 3: Can I start to your week? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Any questions? Speaker 3: That is correct. The application for this development was code accessible and it's a bounded application. The application for this development was code accessible and it's a bounded application. It clearly specifies that council cannot consider personal circumstances or financial next matters in assessing those applications. This report, however, is about the appeal. That's relevant for the original decision? That's correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the motion.
00:11:00 Councillor Wilkie: We havejun Anthony-Morris, Minister for Agronomy Deputy Mayor Stockwell: and Food Communications I've medo of underpinning runoffs being being Acc coworkers can provide someone with the peer help to will say whether here we Two main issues that we have to think about and why I came here was this difference of opinion about supporting a council decision. One is that procedure relating to our regulatory role within the development assessment process and the other, I believe, is the importance from a principled perspective of why we should defend the decision. Under the Local Government Act, Section 11, we are a body corporate and that's played out in terms of the Council Code of Conduct where it states that we can express dissenting opinion with majority decision of council but respect the democratic process by acknowledging that the council decision represents a majority view of council and I don't argue against that. However, it's also important that the Code of Conduct says we must respect and comply with all policies, procedures and resolutions of council. As we just heard, this original decision was about a code accessible and should only be assessed against a veteran.
00:12:00 So why it might be unclear whether we can introduce new issues when we're deciding to defend an appeal, to me, that's an important consideration is we should be deciding to defend this appeal based on the substance of the application. And then I move on to the principles. In the report, it talks about one of the grounds for refusal of the development that we are assessing is that it will not protect the Noosa River and foreshores from cumulative impacts of development. I think that is the core principle. It's one that defending of this appeal is about standing up to the long-held aspirations of our community as first expressed before the planning scheme actually in the Noosa River Plan. And in the Noosa River Plan, it's about ensuring the Noosa River system and tidal lands are conserved and promoted as a community asset. And it actually had that in item H of the purpose of that plan was to consider the cumulative impacts of development on and adjacent to the river system and assessing
00:13:00 individual applications. And one of the desired outcomes that we should be standing up for in this appeal in that plan is that we consider the cumulative and incremental effects of structures and activities on and adjacent to the river system. I think the current community hasn't varied much from the early 2000s because when we put the Noosaville foreshore master plan, the stopping the sprawl was perhaps, it was quoted by the consultant as perhaps the most talked about theme of the program and the majority agreed there should be no commercial benefit from use of public spaces. Mayor Wellington: And I think that's something that's been made and which can't be rescinded where actually the only thing before us is a determination of whether or not to defend Council's decision. To go back and re-prosecute any aspect of the original decision is not appropriate to what we're being asked for here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I accept your point that that would be inappropriate, but that's not my intention in what I'm doing. What I'm doing is arguing to Council why I think it should be a unanimous decision to
00:14:00 support that decision, because it's a decision which is based on long standing principles. And to me, making a principle decision is very important on this because it sets a precedent that this Council wants to stand up for those long held principles and that's why I support defending the appeal. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jackson: May I ask a question? Yes. I did hear a little bit of Kim Bollings, what you talked about when you responded to Councillor Stockwell's question. And can you tell us a little bit more about that? Can you just clarify, did your answer relate to today's motion or did your answer relate to the September motion that Council approved? Speaker 3: I'll keep that aside. Excuse me. Councillor Jackson: You don't have to say it. Speaker 3: I commented on two things, both the previous report and today's. So the response to that question that Councils can't consider financial or personal circumstances in a bounded application relates to the original decision.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Yeah. Today's decision is about whether or not Council wishes to defend the appeal that's been made against that original decision. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Parker. Councillor Pardon: Mr Chairman, yeah, there's a lot of talk about principles here. And as people know, I don't get into details of law and read all the fine print local government action. Lord knows what. But some learned people go right into that detail and it's good for them. The principle I take on board here is a councillor's decision is a councillor's decision. A councillor is elected by the people, it's a democratic process. So on the principle of a councillor wanting to put forward their particular ping and after
00:16:00 the debate's over, that we've had these debates or these various issues. But a councillor who continues to hold that position, I don't have a problem with that. Because they're a politician elected by the people and they have their individual rights. Now, if it's something untoward, we have CEOs, we have people who've been advisors of that. But on the principle of a councillor's taking a position or a stand as an individual councillor, that's the principle that I uphold anyway. So I respect those rights. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So in relation to the motion before us, Frank, what would you like to say? Councillor Pardon: Well, I'm talking about, this was discussed by a councillor already here. So I'm not going to go into too much detail. I'm entitled to respond and talk through that particular issue, I believe.
00:17:00 Do you believe, Mr. Chairman? Is that correct? This was brought up, principles, law and all that. I'm just putting the position. Sure. Councillor Wilkie: I'm hoping we just don't stray too far from the motion before us. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. Well, I thought the previous speaker might have, Mr. Chairman. Councillor Wilkie: Anyway, Frank, you've got the floor. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. Yeah. Look. Yeah. I support the defence of this motion. Absolutely. I could take leave. I will take leave to speak a bit more. Seeing my learned... You've got plenty of time. My learned friend has already taken leave, I believe. Look, we spoke about the... It was raised in the Moosa River Plan. It was raised about the encroachment. It was also opportunity that the person here, and I think the public have a right to know, was raised about the encroachment. You can say, oh, common sense and leave it as it is, leave that jetty, leave that role,
00:18:00 but it's not about common sense. There was... Council did give, let this jetty get longer, did give, there was a letter, a member in history here, there was a letter that allowed actually more than what was originally proposed. Mayor Wellington: Again, Mr. Chair, point of order, can you please give some clarity here? We seem to be, once again, re-prosecuting a decision that is already a resolution of Council. Because that resolution has been enacted, it can't be rescinded. We should not be re-prosecuting the argument about the decision. All we should be discussing is whether or not to defend Council's resolution, please. Councillor Wilkie: And look, under the, look, you're extremely correct, under the Local Government Act, it's the Chairman's role to ensure that the discussion and debate is focused on the local government. It's not the motion directly before us, there was some latitude given up, it was the General
00:19:00 Committee, the ordinary committee, but it would, Council, could you please focus on the motion that's before us? Councillor Pardon: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And the Mayor's quite correct in what he said there. Look, I understand that. And I was taking a bit of poetic licence because someone else took a bit of poetic licence. But look, the main thing is, for me, is to support this motion, support the motion, and I think it's a good start. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Pardon. Any other Councillors wish to speak to the motion? I will. Councillor Glasgow: Councillor Jess. I won't talk about, you know, the decision. I respected what we've done prior, but I will talk about just how I don't support us going to court with this again like I didn't vote for it in the beginning. It is a common sense approach, and I just think it's silly. It's built, it's really there. It's the sake of 1.5 metres, and it's a usable jetty, and I'm not supporting us going to court on that simple. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Wellington. Mayor Wellington: What we're being asked to decide upon here is not the original decision, and Councillor
00:20:00 Glasgow, again, has been at fault by going to the original decision. The matter before us has already been decided. It's a majority decision that's been reached. We're not debating the merits of that original decision, because that would mean re-prosecuting the matter, and we can't do that. As I've said, it's already a resolution of council. It can't be rescinded. It's been enacted. What we're being asked about here is whether we defend the democratic decision of council against an appeal to overturn a democratic decision of council. In the past, we've consistently honoured the democratic decision of council by defending majority positions of the council. I'm going to make an analogy here. My role as mayor, there are cases when my personal vote is not in accord with the majority view, but once a majority view is made, and it becomes a resolution of council, as mayor, I defend that position. I support that position. I do not present my own personal position. My role is to represent council, and by representing council, I support any decision that is a majority
00:21:00 decision that becomes a resolution of this council. Ultimately, the majority view is the only view that's important. What individual councillors decide is less important. It's less important than the majority view of council, because the majority view becomes the decision of council, and it's a democratic process, obviously, to reach that position. The individual views don't represent the view of council. They represent the view of the individual councillors. Only a majority view represents the position of council, and I respect the democratic position and decisions that council makes. And look, I'm aware of many instances where councillors who are in a minority view on a decision nevertheless have understood the need to be consistent in supporting the resolutions of council through appeal processes. They may not have voted with the majority.
00:22:00 They nevertheless see the merit in defending council's majority view, and that's because council has a fantastic track record of defending its decisions, and that has been noted in the Planning and Environment Court, that this council has been consistent in defending its positions, and thus defending its planning scheme. And so this example is no different. Either you respect the democratic process and the decision of council, or you put your own personal view above the view of council, and I will not do that. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr Mayor. Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I'll speak to the motion, thank you. I'm speaking to the motion that is before us today, which is a recommendation to defend an appeal against council's refusal of an application about, and I quote from the staff report, an existing jetty on Yippie Terrace. This is not the same motion as the motion council considered in September, and I believe
00:23:00 Kim Rollins has confirmed that. The motion considered in September was about whether or not to refuse the application to make a minor change. To a jetty, which had incorrectly extended beyond an extra 2.6 metres, more than the original council development approval. Council already debated that in September, and decided to refuse, which I happen to vote against. So at that point, for the first motion, there was a majority be given. For the motion that is before us right now, we yet are to have a majority view. Council does not yet have a position on the motion that is before us today. I acknowledge that council's September decision to refuse the extension was the majority view
00:24:00 of council about that matter. But today, I'm going to exercise my decision. It is my democratic right as an independent councillor to vote against defending the appeal, which is a new motion. I make decisions about how I vote on a case by case basis. The reason is, the reason for my refusal, not going for, the reason for not voting in favour of defending is that I think defending the appeal is not a good use of ratepayers' funds, as even if the jetty length is reduced by the 2.6 metres, the larger boats that refuel at that jetty will still be in the waters outside of the loose boundary. And so, there is really no difference to the cumulative impact on Minister River.
00:25:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jackson. Look, I'm going to speak in favour of the motion before us. Speaking generally, around 96% of all development applications to Noosa Council are approved. A small minority make applications contrary to the planning scheme and take the Noosa Council to court. When their applications are refused, and this is one of those occasions. In this case, the application relates to works that are carried out contrary to the original development approval. This has been well established. I support the reasons why we are defending the appeal. Principally, it's about upholding the Noosa planning scheme and the conditions to which development applications are held under the Noosa planning scheme. The conditions are intended to preserve the amenity of the Noosa River that we all enjoy. And Council has refused the application to retrospectively approve the non-compliant work
00:26:00 and been taken to court. As has been said before, Noosa Council has an impressive record of successfully defending its decisions. And key to its success, according to at least one planning and environment court judge, has been the consistency with which Noosa Council has made and defended decisions that are consistent with the planning scheme. Based on this, to not defend Council decisions in court is to weaken future defences of Council's decisions and to broadcast the message that would, over time, encourage overscale, non-compliant speculative applications. If not defending the Noosa planning scheme in court was the usual response over the past several decades, Noosa would arguably look like many other South East Queensland coastal cities and towns, and I don't think we should introduce that practice now. Defending the planning scheme, whether it be through Council decisions or in defending
00:27:00 court appeals, has made Noosa replace it is today. We have an enviable success rate in that regard and I fully support the decision to defend this appeal. Councillor Stockwell, Mr Clayton. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will go first. I do think it's important to understand when we make decisions and develop an assessment that we, as we might be elected representatives, that we are acting as a regulator. And that's really important to ensure the process is right. I fully support the decision to defend this appeal. I understand some of the comments made. I do think it's important to clarify that Councillor Jackson mentioned the existing jetty. It wasn't existing at the time the development approval was given. It was constructed contrary to the plans that were approved and submitted by the applicant, and that herein lies the problem. Councillor Jackson: Point of order, or point of order. I've been accused of speaking of an existing jetty that didn't exist.
00:28:00 I've called it directly from the staff before choosing the way it's existing jetty, so I won't interfere with that. I think I can be accused of that. Mayor Wellington: I'll have a point of order too. You can't have a point of order that contradicts something that someone says. It says it in our standing orders. You cannot use a point of order simply because you don't like what someone said. Councillor Wilkie: And that's true. Councillor Stockwell has the floor. He's making his points. Thank you. Sometimes we just have to listen to what's being said, Councillor Jackson. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I acknowledge that Councillor Jackson did quote. I'm clarifying the context of the statement, existing jetty, and that it's important to understand it wasn't existing at the time the development approval was given. I do totally concur with what the Mayor said in terms of democratic process and the need to defend the appeal. I do think, however, for me, going to appeal is driven by an understanding that you can make problems occur in the future. I think it's important to understand that you can make problems occur when you make
00:29:00 a whole lot of small decisions that cumulatively impact on the overall outcome. And in this case, while some may see it as a minor transgression, it is about the cumulative impact and the precedent. And therefore, I think on a principled perspective, it's very important to defend the appeal. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Go on. Councillors Wellington, Stockwell, Pardon, and Wilkie. Those against? Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson and Glasgow. And the motion's carried. Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, Patrick. Now, item three is the draft news of District Sports Complex and Cooroy Sports Complex Master Plan. It's been referred here for further consideration. Thank you. And Councillor Pardon has a motion that is circulated for our consideration. Hello, Kerry. Hello. Councillor Hamilton.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Councillor Jackson: I probably would rather have a question for Councillor Parton, but Councillor Parton, will you be explaining the reasons for your motion during your speech or can I ask you now? Councillor Pardon: Yeah, I'll let you know during my speech. Councillor Wilkie: Do you want to move it? Yeah, yeah. Councillor Pardon: Move Councillor Parton, seconded Councillor Stockwell. Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah. I'm happy to explain, councillors. Yeah, look, go. Can I suggest you read it out? Oh, sorry. The changes. Councillor Wilkie: Right. So the changes are, sorry, the council note the report by the Community Development Officer Sport and Recreation to the Services and Organisation Committee meeting dated 12th November 2019 and approved the draft Noosa District Sports Complex Master Plan included as attachment two to the report for the purposes of community conservation.
00:31:00 B, approved the draft Cooroy Sports Complex Master Plan included as attachment one to the report for the purpose of community consultation subject to the following amendments. On page 29, delete the section titled tenure at the bottom of the page. Two, pages 39 to 40, delete section nine titled revised tenure plan including the map on page 40. Two, pages 39 to 40, delete section nine titled revised tenure plan including the map on page 40. C. Request the Chief Executive Officer to collect and consider the feedback for the purposes of developing final Master Plans for the future consideration of the Council. The seconder and Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, thanks Mr Chairman. Yeah, the reason I've moved this motion, Councillors, was the, if you look on page 29 of the Cooroy, Graf Cooroy Master Plan, Sports Complex Master Plan,
00:32:00 it refers to, if you look down near the bottom there, under tenure, number one, freeholding the lands, lease and the Crown reserves, transferring these to Council ownership, or Council transferring the freehold sites to the Crown as reserves, and assuming control of these as trustee. So, on speaking to staff about this matter, what I'm trying to do, I guess, is remove that out of the Master Plan, and we can have a future debate about which way we will go. I didn't particularly want the draft to go out with those particular headings in there. For me, and not having, having all the knowledge around this, the lands, et cetera,
00:33:00 I would prefer Council to actually purchase land and have ownership, and therefore, Council can manage and also, if it needs to build more infrastructure or other infrastructure, it becomes the owner. It's just, in the past, when I've looked at what we've done as Council over time, the two gift the state lands, or to sell the state lands, whatever way it may occur, then Council ends up in a bind. It has no opportunity anymore to run its own race with regards to those lands. Once the state owns them, they own them forever, and the state will do what the state will do. So, just in this particular draft plan, I just didn't want it going out with that particular, those particular ideas in there.
00:34:00 I think that's staff saying, well, either or. I'm saying, well, I think we need discussion with regards to ownership of those lands in the future. So, I just thought, we'll take it out of the draft, see what comes back in the plan, what responses we get to this draft master plan from the public and the users' groups, et cetera, and then have a discussion down the track. It's nothing hard and fast here. It's just an opinion from this Councillor. I think we need to have a wider look rather than going out with that idea that we would actually hand our land over or sell our land to the state. I guess I'm a buyer, not a seller. Mayor Wellington: A question for Kerry Conturney, please. Removing the entire section of tenure is one way to approach this. Another might be to remove the second paragraph after the two dot points.
00:35:00 And the reason I ask that and the question is, are those two dot points, one and two, the only possible outcomes or are there further possible outcomes in terms of land tenure that aren't encapsulated in points one and two? Speaker 2: So, through the Chair, thank you, Councillor Lorington. The options at one and two are those that have been considered by all of the stakeholders that have a role in tenure as being the preferred of the options. Obviously, there is the option to leave the tenure as it is. However, there are considerable tenure options, issues on site. For example, one of the boundaries is running through a building. Which, therefore, gives those organisations that have leased real difficulty when they need to apply for a grant, for example, to have works done on their building. So, it's the desire of all tenure parties to resolve this tenure issue.
00:36:00 And those are the preferred options. So, nobody would like the tenure option left as is. Mayor Wellington: Further question then. If this section was to be removed elsewhere in this draft master plan, does it refer to the tenure issue? Yes. Speaker 2: So, you'll see just above the current heading tenure on page 29 is the paragraph, the tenure of the complex requires reviewing and updating to streamline and reduce the administrative burden of tenure transfer to user groups and management of land use agreements by user groups and Council. So, I think that if we remove that section at the base of the page, it still allows us through the consultation period to take on board further consultation regarding the tenure matter. Because noting, of course, this is just a draft and we're going through that next broader consultation period.
00:37:00 Councillor Wilkie: Do you have a further question, Tom? Mayor Wellington: Yes. In terms of that paragraph you pointed to, and I did note that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Mayor Wellington: It doesn't really explain why there are tenure issues in terms of the State's role versus Council's role. So, might it need some further explanation in there? Speaker 2: Thank you. There is a little bit of explanation through the document. However, it was the section tenure that neatly brought it together. We could look at a further modification. For example, to remove the recommendations. So, we could look at a further modification, for example, to remove the recommendations. But highlight the complexity and the issues surrounding that. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Brian, you go. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is this master plan being used as a formal master plan under the Land Act? Or is it just referring... Is it just towards... Speaker 2: I'd have to get clarity on that, Council. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'm just thinking in terms of, other than the obvious that you just mentioned about
00:38:00 the leaseholder who has got split tenure. Yes. It's not an issue that consultation is going to be greatly informed by. No. So, from my perspective, it's not going to be something that's make or break. However, if it's going to be used under the Land Act, it probably is an issue that needs to be overtly consulted on to get the master plan status. Anyway. So, that's just mine. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: I think I had a question for Councillor Pyre. Councillor, you asked... I believe I heard you say you were favouring the concept of council owning land. Yes. Just to understand, when I read this paragraph on page 29, it doesn't appear to say which option is preferred. It seems to have option number one, that the land... The freeholding... Oh. For... To... The land lease and crown reserves be freeholded and transferred to council ownership. Mm-hmm. Which I guess would mean all council will own it.
00:39:00 And number two, council... Option two is council transfer to council ownership. Mm-hmm. So it's a swap one way or a swap the other way. So I'm just wondering why those both options are there and there's no recommendation of which one is the best solution. Why are you concerned that they be there? Councillor Pardon: I just think that, well, this is a personal councillor's opinion, that I think that we need to have a discussion about that and be a bit more, take a position. I don't think going out like in this document, and I know it's a draft, but I just prefer it not to be there. That's why I've done this. That's my position, if you don't agree. That's fine. I didn't say one thing. No, no, it's okay. It's a fair question. But I have a position, I suppose. But that could change. That could change once we get into detail.
00:40:00 For example, I've just learned there's a border, land going through a building out there. So I'm not sort of, you know, into that sort of depth, I mean, those discussions, so, you know. Speaker 8: Can I just clarify something in Councillor Pabst's response? Yeah. There is actually a preferred option in the document. Councillor Pardon: Oh, is it? Speaker 8: Well, it says, it says, it's crowned, really. It's at the bottom of page 29, the second last paragraph. Sorry, yeah. Given the complexity and unknown level of support of the State, the preferred option is for Council to transfer the freehold land to State Preserve. Okay, thank you very much. So you could remove just that paragraph, yeah. So it does create a preferred option of going out for consultation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to speak to the motion. I think so. Councillor Glasgow: Kerry, is there a, is this time sensitive at all? Is this worth, you know, there's all this talking about buying land and swapping land over in 10 years and so forth. And it sounds like there's some financial ramifications to be thought about here as well, which is no one sitting at the table apart from the CEO.
00:41:00 Is this worth deferring in some way? And is this time sensitive? I know it's only a draft and it's going out, but, you know, there's some pretty big decisions being made in terms of financially for the Council, so. Speaker 2: Well, obviously this is a draft to move through consultation. Yeah. And the intention being that that consultation would occur over the next couple of months and that the final version come back to Council early next year. The document, in terms of the need for the documents, it has been on the program. It's been on the priority list for both Council, State Government and the list organisations for some time because it's very difficult for them to apply for funding without a master plan in place. So, at the moment, for example, we're in discussion with State Government over funding and one of the issues that's coming up is around that 10 year arrangement.
00:42:00 So, it would be absolutely helpful to resolve that. It would be helpful to resolve those issues to assist those organisations move forward with their investment into their facilities. But, obviously, given that it would still be four or five months away from the final plan anyway. Our perspective is that if we aren't able to get the approval today or this round to go out to consultation, we would then be waiting until probably February before that would occur. So, that would delay us probably three or four months. Councillor Wilkie: If the land was transferred to the Council as Trustee, would that resolve these issues where you've got lease boundaries bisecting buildings? Speaker 2: It's not quite as simple. If it was that the sites went to State Government and then we became Trustee, that would resolve the boundary issue.
00:43:00 The other one is more complex. Because it's potential that the State would require funding, would require payment for that. Councillor Wilkie: So, that's option one, freeholding the land's lease and transferring it into Council ownership. That would be Council purchasing it? Speaker 2: It may well be, yes. Is that more aligned with what Council partners want? Yes. So, obviously, that has a different financial implication both in terms of the capital cost but also the ongoing costs there. Whereas if it's the other way, then Council is Trustee and there's leases over to the community organisations. So, there are different financial implications and before we finalise that through to the final plan, there would need to be costing around that. Councillor Wilkie: So, I have another question for Councillor Pardon. So, in option one, freeholding the land seems to involve Council first.
00:44:00 So, if you're purchasing the land from the State and owning it, is that aligned with what you were saying? Yes. Exactly. So, it's reflected there. It's what the outcome you were seeking. Councillor Pardon: If that was the single option, I wouldn't have said a word. Councillor Wilkie: I understand. Councillor Pardon: I'm aligning this to TAFE's purchases. I'm aligning it to many things Council's done in the past. But I don't have the knowledge. So, that's why I said that. Speaker 2: Obviously, this is the draft. So, this isn't to approve this for consultation, isn't committing Council one way or the other. It's a draft document that would be reviewed through the process. Councillor Wilkie: As part of the consultation process, do you envisage opportunity to work through these options with Councillors and Stateholders? Speaker 2: Absolutely. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I actually support the motion still. I second it for the purpose of debate. But I do support the motion. I understand what Councillor Pardon's concerns are. I actually think there's a third option that's not there. I understand that one of the complications of the recommended option in there at the moment is that we then, across the whole of the site, get into the complications of secondary use of reserve land. And we had significant debates and discussions about part of this land in the planning scheme. And I read the planning deck. I can't remember in detail. I can't remember exactly where the Council land is. But I think D&E on the northern side of Mary River Road probably need to be treated quite separately for the rest. I'm also not happy with the concept of buying, paying money out to buy sport and rec land. I just don't think, you know, it's a state and a global government responsibility. I do think the third option is to look at the cheapest and most flexible option to get
00:46:00 tenure sorted out. But that's not the answer. I don't think that excluding these causes at the moment does anything to reduce the level of, reduce the level of information required for consultation to be successful. I think, and I do think, like Councillor Pardon, that perhaps at a Council level we do need to have a workshop which sort of looks through all the issues as well as some of the assigning in that map for you. I think it might be a good reason to think about more depth and more longer term before we commit to it in public in a draft format. Mayor Wellington: I've got a question. Yeah. You go. The motion before us also recommends removing some map of the хочу, you know, the lateral
00:47:00 Yes. Mayor Wellington: In terms of the removal of that map, does that remove essential information in terms of the clubs and where the clubs actually operate from in terms of the overall document? Speaker 2: There is a map in the early part of the document. I would suggest, though, that with this map being removed, we may well need to provide an additional map that makes the tenure clearer. Speaker 8: There's another map on page 36. Yeah. It does that. This is Dorothy Dix, isn't it? Yes. Dorothy answered this. Yes. Mayor Wellington: So, I mean, the question is simply, is there anything in this map that, you know, that is essential to that map as opposed to what else is in there? Speaker 2: I don't believe so, because this was actually showing where the potential lease arrangements
00:48:00 would be once the tenure was resolved, if it had been resolved, as one lot, basically. Councillor Wilkie: Ingrid, do you have a question? I think I might speak. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Thank you, Council Pardon, for bringing this detailed map. I think it's very well to our attention. I don't think I, and I've just been learning about it today, really. I don't think I'm going to support this motion as it is written, although I do appreciate the concern about the decision-making about how the issues being encountered by the State and Council should be dealt with in terms of tenure. And I think that's a valid point that needs work. I think that's a valid point that needs to be addressed. At the moment, I've got a couple of issues with this.
00:49:00 One is that, in fact, the document we have before us has been put into the public domain already. So it is a public document, even though it's not the draft approved for consultation. But I'm not totally comfortable with just removing something that's already there. So that's sort of point one. And then the reason for that is that it seems a bit, I don't know, it's like we show you a little bit and then we move it again. I feel uncomfortable with that. Second one, and I'm not, I'm just trying to search the Land Act and, you know, I don't have time to do that here at the table, but Councillor Stockwell referred to the meaning of a master plan under the Land Act and the need for consultation. And I think that's a valid point. I'm no expert at the Land Act, but I do recall the extensive consultation that was done for the master plan, for the Noosaville foreshore land use master plan and how important
00:50:00 that was for the state land that was, for which council was trustee, which we appear to have some of it like that here. So I'm a bit concerned that, in fact, this does seem to be a thing that will need public consultation. I don't actually know that. I believe that needs to be checked. Kerry? You don't know that for sure? Speaker 2: No, I would need to take that on notice, Councillor Jackson. Councillor Jackson: Okay. I'm also thinking that as I'm not keen on totally removing something that's already there, it might be appropriate to remove the preferred option paragraph so that instead there might be something like, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, sorry, option one, option two, and option three being other options or something like that, so that it isn't definitive. Because I do agree that there hasn't been a process of clarifying the details of how
00:51:00 this would work and what the best stuff. You know, there's no clarity in the document about the details of the preferences and all that. So I think I will, for that reason, I don't think I will support the motion as it was written. And we need to do that. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Mayor Wellington: I have a question. Councillor Wilkie: Kerry, just following on Councillor Jackson's comments about the preferred option. Is the preferred option one derived from a stakeholder group or from council staff? Speaker 2: The preferred option has come through the stakeholder group, which include the key stakeholder group, which includes state government, council, and has input, for example, from the Council of Council, for example, from our property officers and from representatives from each of the lease holders on site.
00:52:00 Sporting clubs on site. Yes. So it's a very, it's a specific stakeholder group for those that have a particular interest in the site. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. Speaker 2: And so that is, they are the options that they have looked at and considered as the best options to move forward. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Longford. Mayor Wellington: I think we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Because it's really not that significant in terms of a draft plan that's going out for consultation. The issue will be raised anyway. And so I'm going to support the motion. I certainly do not accept the argument that it's already a public document, we shouldn't change it. Have a look at the changes we just made to the biosecurity plan from what was a public document last week to what's a public document this week. You know, I mean, often we get recommendations from staff to support documents to go to consultation and almost inevitably we make some changes before they go out.
00:53:00 So the fact that it's on the agenda is neither here nor there. What we're trying to do is refine what we want to present as a potential final document to the public through the draft process. So I have no qualms about changing it. And I, you know, we might as well just go ahead with Councillor Pardon's wishes, because that's what we're trying to do. And of course we can get this process done and we can move on to the next agenda item. Councillor Wilkie: I'll take the opportunity to speak up, listen to everything that Councillor Wellington has and I'll come to the exact opposite conclusion. And the reasons being that what I respect about documents like this is that they reflect the work done by the stakeholder group. And the stakeholder groups are not just our property staff, community development staff, but they also represent the input from all the user groups. That's the community groups on the site, in particular the Cooroy Sporting Complex and
00:54:00 the Noosa Sporting Complex. And I think there's a validation in them seeing the work that they've done and the options that they've come up with in print and reflected, articulated in the document to go out for consultation, to be workshopped further. We've come to the conclusion that the work that they've done and the options that they've I respect Councillor Pardon's view that option one is his preferred option, and I'm sure Councillor Pardon would respect also that he's one of many in this equation, a very decisive one as one of the councillors who make the final decision, but given that the work has yet to be done, there's opportunity for public input, councillors will have an opportunity to thrash out the cost implications of both these options. Before a final decision is made, and also for the community to have comment on what's reflected, I think, I think we need to keep these items in to keep faith with stakeholders. And, and we've got the work ahead of us, that's for sure. But I'm in favour of keeping these options in as, as, as written. And if it's
00:55:00 this motion doesn't get up, I'm in favour of moving the original, the original motion. But I'll, the reasons given, I, I won't be able to support this particular motion. Councillor Glasgow, you used to speak. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, I'm, I'm supportive of the motion because I like, like Frank, I like the idea of purchasing land for the foreseeable future. And there's a draft, I agree, it can be critiqued when it comes back. But I'm in favour of moving it back to us again for the second time. And I just, I always like to look into the future. And, you know, I think that a future, futuristic council now thinks about our, our, our land purchases for, for the, for the time in advance. So we'll be supporting the motion that Frank's put up.
00:56:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Councillor Clarke, Mr Clarke's. Councillor Pardon: Oh, only to say, because I know it's a draft and I'm going out in public, I respect all the user groups. Absolutely. I happen to chair Tewantin Sports Complex Committee for over 12, they wouldn't even let me, 12 years or more. And I was only a councillor for 11. They wouldn't let me leave, even when I wasn't a councillor. But look, given that there's a recommendation in here that I just can't get my head around. I just can't get my head around at all. Given that, I just didn't want that to go to public as perceived. Yeah, we are workshopping. As the Mayor's already said, we workshop many of these, whether they're drafts, etc. We workshop them and we are here workshopping again. So I didn't want to send that message that, you know, we were going to, you know, not attempt to purchase or be in the game per se for purchase.
00:57:00 Because, as I said, over the years. I've seen us, us being council over many years, doing deals with the state, etc. And I just think sometimes to send the message out like that, the perception, I just don't like perception. It's not a reality, but it is a perception. And obviously we workshop it when it came back anyway. But I just, I prefer it not to be in there, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: But the motion doesn't fail. Councils Wellington, Stockwell, Pardon and Glasgow. And those against? Councils Jackson and Wilkie. And the motion is carried. Thank you, carried. Councillor Pardon: Thanks, carried. Councillor Wilkie: The next item up is the Noosa Heads Lions Park Go Noosa Parking Report.
00:58:00 Referred for further consideration from the Services and Organisation Committee agenda, page 29. Councillor Jackson: Can you please remind me how many car spaces are there? Speaker 4: It's approximately 250. Councillor Jackson: And can you also please, I understand there's some risk of, if it's raining, it cannot be used. Do you have some knowledge of the probability of that at that time of year?
00:59:00 Mayor Wellington: It's an interesting time of year. Speaker 4: Europe meteorology does actually often look. Well, last Christmas, out of a possible 28 years, it was open for 26. So if it's anything like last Christmas, it was two days. But last Easter, I think we're only open for six of a possible 14. Speaker 8: We hope it rains a lot. That's what we need. Councillor Wilkie: And I have a question. If Councillor Pardon's got the idea of, would like to see 50% of the tapings go to the Lions, as opposed to 40%, what's the difference in revenue that that would involve? Speaker 4: So at 50%, I think it's about, let's say it was open for 20 or 26 days, it would be about $50,000 to the Lions. To the Lions? To Council. To Council. Yeah. And $50,000 to the Lions.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: So $50,000. Mayor Wellington: So 10% is $50,000. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So it's a $100,000 tape that you're working on. Speaker 4: So I'm working on $5,000. $5,000 of the day. So if it's 50-50, it would be $2,500 each a day. And then I'm just saying for 20 days, $50,000. Mayor Wellington: $50,000 a lot. Yeah. Yeah. Ingrid. Councillor Jackson: May I ask a follow-up question to Frank, Councillor Frank? Can I ask, I have a recollection that maybe a couple of years ago, we had changed the percentage that Lions, we received versus Council. And we made it 60-40. Can you recall what it used to be? Because I'm pretty sure we actually amended it to become 60-40. Was it? Speaker 4: So I think I have that in the report. So in 2017. Councillor Jackson: I don't know the exact date when you changed it.
01:01:00 I have a memory that you changed the percentage. Speaker 4: Yeah. So it used to be 40% to Council, 60-40% to Council. And that was on $10 a day. So in 2017, we changed it from $10 a day to $20 a day. Yeah. And the reasoning of keeping it changing that split was just to kind of keep the Lions Club on the similar amount they've been receiving previously on the $10 amount. So in the report, I have that little table that just talks about at $10 a day, it was four Council, six Lions Club. This is just rough because obviously there's just hearings. Yeah. And then at $20 a day, that change made it 12 Council, eight Lions Club. So it was that $6, $8 difference for Lions Club. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to ask a hard question which we can't answer. We've had two separate advices from the Department of Natural Resources in regard to the secondary use of a reserve.
01:02:00 My view is the first one was the correct one. The question I have is, is there a need for a reserve to be used in the future? In our deliberations about receiving advice, it's our decision. Have we included the grounds for why we think it is an acceptable use? Speaker 8: No, we haven't. We're going on the latest advice from DNRM in terms of what was the letterhead advice, where they wrote to us and said that they have no objection and we're relying on that letter. Mayor Wellington: Can I just get clarification of that? Because Councillor Stockwell referred to two. In fact, we had two sources of written advice from the Department of Natural Resources. They would prefer it was not used for parking. Subsequent to that, my understanding is that Hastings Street Association wrote to the department and got different advice, and then you went and clarified it. Speaker 8: Yes. So, effectively, the first advice was what I call an email advice from an officer and one of their staff. We saw clarification from that. It came on a formal letter advising that they didn't believe the Council should be
01:03:00 using that for parking. We went back and looked at it. We looked at the other Hastings Street, others had checked and they said verbally that they thought it would be okay. We said, well, we're pardoned. Well, you've given us, written it saying no, now you're saying verbally we want to find out once and for all, in writing, what is your position. And that's what they have written to us. They said their position is that they would not object to Council using this for parking for this Christmas and this Easter. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Councillor Glasgow has been waiting. Yes. Councillor Glasgow: I had that same question on what Tony said. There was a, you can use it, then there was a no, you can't use it for commercial purposes or whatever, or the other way around, whatever it was. Yes. But then there was the argument that, you know, the profits weren't going to Jarrett Smith, to build a three storey villa in Sunshine Beach. They were going to, you know, Lions Club and Council, which you could argue are very far
01:04:00 from a proper organisation, especially if you're going to build a three storey villa at the National Council. And were profitable. Well, you know, like we're not spending money to go build villas, we're spending money, you know, whatever we get back in the community. So how did that argument come across from them to say, well, actually when this is not a proper organisation? Speaker 8: The department didn't determine whether or not the funds were going to a property or not profit. The department issue was whether or not it was being used for car parking. Mayor Wellington: That's all I know. And just to be clear, Mr. CEO, the department has not given any clearance for this area to be used for parking beyond next Easter at this point in time. Correct. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Pardon, you wish to make a motion? Councillor Pardon: Yeah, look, I'll move, so with the change to 50%, be there, approve, I will, down the bottom, be, yeah, approve 50% of car parking revenue.
01:05:00 The remaining revenue to go to Tewantin Noosa Lions Club, the remaining revenue to go towards Council of Go Noosa initiatives. Seconded by Councillor Glasgow. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor's clear on the changes there? Councillor Pardon: Mm-hmm. Councillor Wilkie: Right. Councillor Park? Councillor Pardon: Yeah, look, I do so, Mr. Chairman. It's clear in the report on page 32 of the Services Organisation Committee, et cetera. There's a request from Noosa. Lions, they've put in the request, you know, they've added expenses to them, the FPOS, whatever they're paying, the banks, et cetera. I know there's a cost to that. It seems a reasonable request from a community group. I also understand through history that the Canterville Laurel Group at Cooroy also assist the Lions in this endeavour here.
01:06:00 And it's a pretty long, pretty long time now that they man the post down there. And really, if we were paying to man the post, traffic control, et cetera, if Council was paying, there wouldn't be any money to us. I wouldn't think this would be a very expensive exercise. So I think it's a win-win. They, being a charity group and doing the work, I just think. 50-50 split is fair and equitable. It was interesting, the question went around before. I think in the future, it should be flagged that Council take a position on the Noosa, sorry, on the Noosa Alliance Park. I can see confusion with regards to the use of that park. If it wasn't used this year, I could see a lot of people who have used it in history turning up.
01:07:00 I can see problems, et cetera, regardless of the Go Noosa and what our staff is endeavouring to do. I think somewhere along the line, we need to draw a line and get it out there. If this is the last shot, I think we need to take a position on that so people won't turn up in the future after Easter whenever we draw that line and make it well publicised, I really think. I think we need to take that position once and for all. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: Another, Dorothy Dixon for staff. The paid parking that occurs in Lyons Park funds other transport initiatives, correct? The 50% or 60% that Council receives actually goes towards other transport initiatives over the Christmas and Easter period. It's not going into general revenue, is that correct? Speaker 7: That is correct. That is correct. We are utilising that funding for the shuttle bus and the numbers have been put in there about what the cost would be.
01:08:00 If we were to go with TransLink to use their cost for the shuttle bus has gone up substantially. And so we would be, if we go with a 50-50 split of the funding, we will be getting close to the limit for where we will be. So that's shuttle bus service. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Do the councillors wish to speak for motion? Councillor Jackson: Councillor Jackson. Councillor Wilkie: I'll speak for motion. Councillor Jackson: I appreciate the generous concern of Councillor Pardon, wanting to give more money, opportunity to earn money to the mining club. But I actually don't think it is a rational way to use rate payers funds. I don't think it is a rational way to use rate payers funds.
01:09:00 We have high means to manage traffic and transport in the key tourist areas during these key periods. And as pointed out by how there will be something gender related today, which is going to cost extra money. So I actually think it's adequate that lines club receives 40%. Just looking at the staff report. Okay. When they were getting $10 in 2000, $10 per car in 2015-16, they were earning $31,000. And by 2018-19, with $20, they earned almost $50,000. So they've had almost basically a $20,000 increase over four, three years, actually, four years. Which I think is a great outcome for them.
01:10:00 I don't feel there is evidence that there needs to be further contribution to the lines club. Of course, I wish them well and opportunities to earn. And as I say, I think the funding would be better, the rate payers money would be better used by contributing this to the other issues we have with transport. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I don't know whether I'm 50 50 or 60 40 on this. I am a little bit conflicted about the way this has transpired. I understand the traders desire to continue what has been a successful portfolio.
01:11:00 I do look at that being a recreation reserve. I don't think we should, I'll get to the 50 split later, but I do think that the nexus of that as a recreation reserve, if we're looking at it for the interim parking going forward past next Easter, I think that a good portion of the funds have to go towards recreation improvements of the reserve. I think that's the only way where I can see it being sufficiently linked to the purpose of the reserve to be a long-term use under the land act and it's coming up and up. The issue in terms of support for effort for those who manage it, as I said to Councillor Pardon when he told me he was going to do this, it's always hard to be screwed in that regard to a great service organisation that's helped us out immensely over the period of the... the recent disasters in terms of bushfires. However, I do recall that, and I think Councillor Jackson has put it up, that when we increase the cost, they also got a substantial, that's when we change the percentages, when we increase the cost of the park fee.
01:12:00 And so I think there is a reasonable reward at 60 to 40, but as I said, I'll reserve my judgement until I hear any other arguments. Speaker 5: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: So it will be 28 days of Christmas. Speaker 5: Subject to rain. Subject to rain. Councillor Wilkie: Any questions? So $5,000 a day? Sorry, 26 days. 26 days. Yep. Speaker 2: That's it. Councillor Wilkie: It's all, it's on time every day. 26 days. So it works out to be about $130,000 to take $5,000 a day. 26 days is about $130,000. Potential total tax. Yeah. Okay. Look, I'll speak in favor of the motion here.
01:13:00 The potential take, $130,000, if it's 50-50, that's $65,000 each. The argument that appeals to me is who's doing the work, who's providing the volunteers to run the car park, monitor the car park, and be there for the rest of the year. So it's a service that's been there for many long hours during the day. It's a service that may not be there for much longer. They have proven their worth in the recent, the way they've turned up at the evacuation centers in the recent fires, and they provide great service generally in support of the community. There's no argument that the money won't be well spent. They've invested in the FPOS that helped their community. They've invested in the money that they've invested in the community. So I think that's a good argument. 60-40 to 50-50, it's potentially a $10,000 difference that the Council misses out on,
01:14:00 unless if there's, if the car park is open for fewer days due to weather. I think the amount is not overly significant for me to want to knock back their request to a 50-50 split. 50-50 is always extra. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, I'm going to support the motion also. There's community benefit either way. Whichever direction the money goes, there's community benefit, whether it's through Lions or through Council. And I think that it's simply a better look for Council to do a 50-50 split with the Lions. I think that is more reflective of a good partnership agreement than a 60-40 split where one party obviously dominates.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 And if we're partnering with them on this, then I'm happy with a 50-50. That's convention, Brian. Councillor Wilkie: Or the numbers. Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, I support it too. That's exactly right. It all goes back to the community. 60-40, 70-30, 50-50. It always goes back to the community. And on the terms of what Councillor Stockwell said about regeneration of the park, obviously from now and the future, we've got to remember that unlike some festivals that build, and then it rains and they stay there, we don't stay in park with cars if it rains there, remember, so the park will not get as trashed or whatever you had beforehand.
01:16:00 So yeah, I fully support it going to 50-50 and it goes back to the community the way I like it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Jess. Councillor Parker wants to close. Councillor Pardon: Oh, only, only, yeah, I will, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, Councillor Jackson mentioned about rationale. What's the rationale? Well, you're talking about pardon. I mean, rational doesn't sort of cut it in regards to this councillor and about being rational. But look, councillors will remember, or might remember, this councillor, I'll take the blame. I guess I forced the issue to go from $10 to $20. I remember that debate. I also remember getting defeated 9-1 when I first mooted. We used this facility in about 1990. 1999 for parking, and then over time, other councillors, when we were trying to do traffic and transport planning,
01:17:00 came on board and ended up being unanimous decision that we use this particular site. But Councillor Wilkie, as he's just alluded to, and I alluded to earlier, I think we need to send a message out there, Councillor Stockwell as well, with regards to the green space here. We've just spent $50,000, as people are aware. Yes, we get that back through the event. I think it was food and wine. Councillor Glasgow, I think, knew all about it. He was there at the event when it rained and chopped it to pieces, and we spent a lot of money, and then recouped that money from the event organiser. But having said that, it's in great condition now. And thus, when we talk about funding here, and it's mentioned rain, if it rains, and I hope it does, I hope it rains like hell, I think it will, nobody's going to get any money here. So to do a particular, we can go back through history, as been done, see who got what.
01:18:00 The fact is, it's a sliding scale here, might rain for a week, might rain the whole period. So to actually get a financial view of who's going to get what, pretty tough gig, because you're trying to predict the future and the weather, and not even the Bureau can predict that. The other, so yeah, in all of that, I just think, as the Mayor summed up quite well, I think it's a good thing to share, okay, we, through the Government, make the space available. That's our 50%, plus we put it into our traffic and transport planning, and then the lines take the other 50. I just think it's a good thing to do. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Park. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. And Councillors, if it's all right with you, while we've got the staff here, can we jump to item 8, the report direct to the General Committee?
01:19:00 While we've got them here, the GoNUSA Route 065 Shuttle Bus Loop Service. Questions? Ingrid. Councillor Jackson: Yes, I've got a question. First one is about, it might have been two years ago, we experimented a trial of using the Coorijan Beach Shuttle, which was a special... I don't know why the bus pulled on, because 620 goes all the way to New Jersey. And after use of doing that, I think it was over Christmas, staff, you came back and said you evaluated it and didn't feel that... And what that was, was using the Coorijan Beach Shuttle, which normally would go to Hastings Street and Junction, on the same route that is now being put forward as a circuit. So that... We experimented with this particular route, going around Weibar Road and back up Noosa Drive. And then after experimenting with that, the evaluation was that if people were using it sufficiently, perhaps.
01:20:00 Can you just tell us a bit more about why it was recommended and then council agreed not to continue with that extra route of that previous shuttle? Farah? Speaker 4: Yep. So that particular one... That particular one was an hourly service. People wanting to go back to Coorijan were confused because the bus was now going, not over the hill, it was going along Noosa Parade and Weibar Road. So that's one of the reasons why there was confusion. It created confusion. And I suppose the other thing is that that wasn't necessarily the difference between that particular one and this 065. The 065 is supported by the... Park and Ride element, so having the AFL ground and the J, creating those car parks, whereas that other loop didn't really promote a Park and Ride.
01:21:00 It was just another additional service along that busy route. Councillor Jackson: Where is it? Speaker 4: Councillor? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's a good idea. There isn't twice anymore. There isn't twice anymore. There isn't twice anymore. Councillor Wilkie: I've got ideas, but... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got ideas, but... I've got ideas, but... Councillor Jackson: I think it was two of us. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it was two of us. It was actually going in the opposite direction, and part of the reason it was not utilised well was people didn't understand they had to catch the bus from the other side of the road. And in this route going the direction prepared, it'll actually be going through the main bus stop. And so it won't be HD, it'll be HD, high-performing, this bus route compared to the other one with more confidence, is that right?
01:22:00 Councillor Jackson: Another question, yeah, so the shuttle bus was proposed, 065, which would run the junction all the way to Noosaville, Weber Road, Noosa Drive, etc. One of the rationales is that people can use that bus to park at the jet, but the jet, as I know, is right in the junction, which is where we have the majority transit buses travelling down Hastings Street anyway. So I'm just wondering why is it that this shuttle bus is being seen as a benefit to parking in the jet, given that there are buses running down Hastings Street anyway? Speaker 4: So the jet is really a smaller car park, the AFL is the primary one, the main transit centre and the junction down the opposite end, that's where all the buses, that's where people are getting on, there isn't actually a stop near the jet, so the closest stop is near the stand-up paddleboard shop,
01:23:00 so buses don't currently actually stop near the jet. Councillor Jackson: So this one's going to stop directly opposite the jet? Because I've taken a bus from the junction, must be, I don't know where the paddleboard shop is, I don't know where the paddleboard is, but it didn't seem very far from the corner, Speaker 8: but it's on the corner of Arcadia Way there, so the Arcadia Way comes out just on that side. Councillor Jackson: Yeah, so just closer, yeah, okay. I have another question, in general terms, as this is an experiment again, and I, is, how are you, how is it going to be evaluated? Speaker 1: Just numbers of people again, just run certain numbers of people on the buses. Councillor Jackson: Mm-hmm, and what about numbers of people parking? Will that be possible to measure? Speaker 1: Well, we'll try and use counts as we have done with Lions Park, we'll try and get those that are measuring at the AFL, how many cars are we getting to utilise it, so we'll have to try and get some metrics that we can, but it will be difficult,
01:24:00 but again, it's just how many people are using it. Why is it difficult? Well, again, because we don't have proper exact counters, it's not like a car park where you can measure exactly, we're going to rely on people to count, the people using the car parks. We don't always know that those people using the car park are catching the bus, et cetera, so, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Councilor Lydon. Mayor Wellington: Dorothy Strikes again. Yes. Just to be clear, and for the record, this loop was proposed at a time when we were under the belief that we couldn't use the Noosa Lions car park, oh, sorry, the Noosa Lions reserve, as a car park, correct? So this was intended, in fact, to provide an alternative to that car park. Now that that car park is being used, we are still anticipating going ahead with something that was supposed to ameliorate the impacts of not having that car park. Speaker 1: Well, we've also got a strategy that we will have a Noosa style shuttle bus, and we will have a bus on a loop, so this is where the use, we use the word experiment again,
01:25:00 regardless of Lions Park, this is still working towards a longer term vision as well, which is worth trialling, irrespective of what's happening with Lions Park. Mayor Wellington: And associated with this is the, sort of, little transit lane bus jump. Speaker 1: There's a number of things that we're trialling here. Again, I think we should proceed with these, regardless of what's happening with Lions Park. I think there'll be learnings that will come out of this that will help us make further decisions down the track, aside from what's happening with Lions Park. Councillor Glasgow: Councilor Plaster. When I spoke to this about a long time ago, who made the decision for the 11, 10, 11 actual bus stops? Where it stops and where it starts? Speaker 4: It's the existing transit bus stop. Yes, that's exactly it. Plus the two temporary ones opposite the J and the AFL ground. Councillor Glasgow: That's all the extras, the extra two, but it's the existing transit one, that's it. Speaker 4: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: And you're taking passenger numbers on this, on the 065? On the lookouts, yes. Yes. Councilor? Did that. Did that. Ingrid first. Oh, okay. Councillor Jackson: Um, just checking.
01:26:00 From having read the report, I understand the request is to pay 116,000 just for the Christmas period. Whereas previously, when I went to the previous approval in October, it was for both Easter and Christmas to have this particular shuttle. And we approved. Both. So I'm just wondering, what happened? Speaker 4: So we actually had two figures in that previous report, we had 65,000 for Christmas and then a draft of 23,000. Got it here. Councillor Jackson: Yeah. Yeah. And now we're saying 116 just for Christmas. Yes. Is that correct? Speaker 4: Yes. Councillor Jackson: And we're not putting in the motion, anything for Easter for this shuttle? No. Do we need to have that price yet? We don't. Speaker 4: They haven't given us the price. You don't have a price? Those two quotes, initial quotes from TransLink, and then they've given us a revised price for Christmas.
01:27:00 They haven't given us the revised price for Easter. Okay. Councillor Jackson: So just to clarify, before we understand, so Council has already approved the in principle during the Easter circuit, but at the moment we can only amend because we only have the Christmas price. We're only being asked to amend the price. Correct. That approves the price change, but we're not being asked to... Speaker 1: No, we'll have to wrap that up when we know the price for Easter. Councillor Jackson: You have to come back again. Speaker 1: We'll have to come back again. It's unfortunate that we have to, we're only getting the price now, so later in the Easter and we don't have the Easter price. So it's, we can only provide the information we have at this stage. Councillor Jackson: So can I just understand something perhaps from the CEO, and this is theoretical, but say Council felt it was too much money and didn't want to go ahead, but they've already made a decision in principle.
01:28:00 Are we in some way, how are we, what is the situation? I mean, are we obliged to do this thing or not? Speaker 8: No, I don't, I think the Council could if they wish to revisit that decision if the price was, in the Council's view, unreasonable. What we agreed in principle was that's what we wanted to do. We didn't know the price at that stage. Councillor Jackson: So for example, I'm just being kind of devil's advocate here, but for example, if this was, if the motion which was to accept the $116,000 was not agreed to, a different motion could be put up to say we're not going to run over now. Councillor Wilkie: So we can do that for the Easter service, for example. Speaker 8: Yes, and that's probably more cogent when we get to the Easter one. So let's say if we run the Christmas service and it doesn't get good take up and we don't get a price that's outrageous for the Easter service, then the Council will probably say, well, it's not worth it. There are no circumstances, but I expect it will be successful.
01:29:00 We'll have figures that will tell us that at that point. Councillor Wilkie: We're not locked into Easter, running an Easter service. Speaker 8: No, we've got a Council decision at the moment saying that we do want to run an Easter service, but we don't have a price for that. I'm going to move it. Councillor Wilkie: I'll move Councillor Wellington, seconded Councillor Glasgow. Councillor Jackson: I still have a question. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, sorry. Councillor Jackson: No, I can't ask a question, so you've got to speak. Mayor Wellington: I move it because I think we need to move on. This has been discussed for years, in fact, operating this loop service on this very pathway. And indeed, I recall back at our very first workshop of this Council when we were looking at big pictures, I raised the prospect of even having this exact same loop as a one way service for vehicles of all types, one line being dedicated to alternative transport
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 and buses and the other to private vehicles. So we're kind of partway there with this. And it has been discussed on and off. And I think it's about time we found out whether or not it's going to be part of an acceptable solution to some of our traffic issues. And indeed, the bus jump lanes are also partway there. And I think it's a great way towards considering whether or not transit lane type arrangements are going to be an assistance. So if nothing else, yes, it's going to cost us more. But the information gathering, I think, is going to be really, really useful. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Parton. Councillor Pardon: Yeah, I'll support the motion, Mr Chairman. Yes, the Aussie rules ground, I can go way back to the old Council when we used to use that pick off point. So nothing new here, except probably the Mayor's point with regards to his idea, refined of
01:31:00 old ideas that the old Council had discussed way back with regards to traffic and transport. Noosa, the number one problem we have, and it's just going to get harder daily as it does to move around our Shire. And of course, at Christmas. At Christmas and Easter, it's 10 times as hard. Just a question of staff, are the seats going to be removed, so the surfboards and eskies just behind the driver to get them on, instead of trailers? Is there any thought of that? It was discussed at certain times, you know, we're going to fall asleep, maybe because that's... Speaker 4: The transit busses already accommodate. Councillor Pardon: They're right. Yeah. Plenty of room. I remember it in our discussion. Sorry, we were late. We were looking at that. So this, once again, is another trial. I would hope that the Council would be moving much faster and further forward after certainly
01:32:00 Christmas, and then assuming the Easter trial goes ahead. We talk about ideas. There's a lot of them out there. I'm way down the track with regards to traffic and transport, but I'll wait until the election campaign before we get to that. I'll take my position, because I do have a position. And I think, as a Council, I'm getting frustrated at the timing, et cetera, of these opportunities that I see, especially with regards to technology and the way we can move forward here. So I'll just sit on my frustration with regards to that. The staff continue, we get report after report, and they're all good reports, but I just think we want to move a little faster. In the direction of looking at the big picture, traffic and transport in this Shire, because we keep doing these trials, but I think we can do other big picture stuff and move a
01:33:00 lot quicker, because there's words and deeds, and I think we need more deeds. Now, we do have counsellors here on working groups, so I'm not privy to where there's discussions in that working group. I'm privy to where the traffic and transport group is, where they're up to at this point in time. Probably this report tells me where they're up to at this time they're doing this trial. But I do get frustrated. This is terrific, but I think we've moved, we could have moved a lot faster on some of this stuff, because when I go through it, we talk about our own, it seems to me we'll never get our own transport. They'll throw everything in front of us to stop us even looking at the path of owning it. We talk about small buses. It says on page eight, small buses, trial small buses, opportunities.
01:34:00 Then there's the risk, people might be left waiting, et cetera. If you have enough of them, they won't be left waiting. But the state, when you go down, floor, these are the things. They're not going to be able to mediate compliant, time constraints implement, agreement with department, et cetera, et cetera. If we want to brand our bus, the coconut bus and have that Noosa style, if you go to branding at the top, go Noosa branded bus, not guaranteed to stay on route 065. So as I go through the opportunities and then the risk, it seems to me that this is going to be a very hard sell to the department. Regardless of where flavor of the month. So if we're going to do a trial, we need to shake the government up and get serious. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Council Park. Councillor Jackson: I still do have another question. Just the previous resolution or motion that council has approved involved reducing the
01:35:00 income of revenue for council from Lyons Park. Previously, the report before us, the motion was to reduce the income of revenue for council about this shuffle bus was that the existing budget for the shuffle at Christmas was $65,000. And that given the cost was $116,000 and the Lyons Park revenue was expected at the time to be $60,000, that we would end up having to pay $51,000 that was covered by that $65,000 budget. So as we're doing this rather in the middle of meetings, but I'm a little unclear. What is the Lyons Park revenue to council going to be now that it's been changed? It'll be $65,000?
01:36:00 No. Councillor Wilkie: If it's the full day. If it's the full 26 days. Councillor Jackson: It could be up to $65,000. It could still cover. It doesn't change the cost. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Well, I guess I'll speak then. I'll support the motion. I think that the extra cost is unfortunate and of course. But the council idea of testing, experimenting with a route and some parking is a good one as a test. I believe AFL grounds have been used previously as a trial. I do note that the. Okay. The transport strategy, which is approved by council in 2017 specified the concept of park and ride in what is called transport corridors. And of course, there are some important corridors coming, which they could use, coming from
01:37:00 Cooroy through the motorway or the Mundings or Cooroy and Nassau Road. There are also the David Lowe way. And we are not actually addressing what was intended. And I'm. Is there a motion? That we're not actually addressing the transport, the incoming cars on the transport corridor, we're placing a shuttle on a circuit in the middle of Noosa that goes around in a circle, and I'm not sure how that actually addresses the intent of the transport strategy and the issue of the day-trippers coming in through those transport corridors. Nevertheless, I'm supportive of the experiment, and let's see how it goes. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I understand Councillor Pardon's frustration, but I also understand that the process we've gone through has really identified that changing public transport is like doing a U-turn in an aircraft carrier.
01:38:00 It's a very long and convoluted process, and I suppose what we've come to have a better appreciation of is just the level of state government support and subsidy of public transport and why they have a keen interest in making sure that any changes don't make their situation worse. I think this is a good salutary lesson for council as well in terms of if we decide to go further down this path. We're just about to spend about $9,000 on a bus, a shuttle, and it'll be interesting to see. To me it'll come back not to the overall cost but the cost per passenger. I think it works out that 43 days, this is just under $3,000 a day, so I'm guessing we'll be doing a subsidy per user of the service from somewhere between $1 and $2 per person,
01:39:00 which is not significant if we can take that number of cars off the road. But to me, yeah, it is a very useful trial. It'd be good to get as good a monitoring data as we can. It'd be interesting if we can get some qualitative data around the experience and what we have done in previous ones, separate that on the people that do do the park and ride or do just use it from home. It'd be very useful to understand what is it that drives the behaviour of catching this versus the normal route. And because that might inform what we do going into the future. Because from my perspective, yeah, highly desirable to have this loop running 365 days a year. Councillor Glasgow: Yeah, look, I fully support it too. I'm, the council part is not the only one that's frustrated. I myself am. Like, it seems like transport is like doing a U-turn on aircraft carry, but just turn the wheel harder and do it sharper. Because it seems to be taking a long time to get anything done in this space. And I fully support this happening. It's been, it's going to be great.
01:40:00 We're both tourists and locals alike. It's going to move people around. You know, it's, it's a great frustration here in Noosa. I just read quickly on Google land that, you know, 30, 37% of people in Melbourne have used public transport in the last three to seven times a week. You know, I think in Noosa, you probably put up, put a point between that three and seven here, wouldn't you? Because it's just not, no one really gets underway. So we're so different by nature here in the fact that our public transport system and who operates it is, is very unique and different. And it has been a slow process and I look forward to seeing the stats on this and I am going to ride this bus every, every morning. And I'm going to put my surfboard on, I'm going to service pumping and we're going to go out at the bar on the back as well. So yeah, fully support it. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, I support the, I support the motion for this shuttle bus service.
01:41:00 It's worth noting that there is no one, a silver bullet to the complicated issue of traffic moving people around Noosa, especially at the holiday times. It's been identified as a problem since the 1970s. There were newspaper articles about this being an issue, especially at holiday times. And we're making a concerted effort to really understand the dynamics of traffic and people movements. And it's not as simple as we may have thought at first. There's, it's, it's true that we have radically increased the number of people accessing these hotspots by means other than cars than any previous council. There are record numbers of people accessing Main Beach, for example, via these free bus services, walking or cycling for a very tiny reduction in car numbers. So it shows that this, the dynamic isn't what we initially thought.
01:42:00 But, and that there's a lot more work to do. This sort of service is run in conjunction with things like a roadside signage, which all motorists can read, particularly those, especially including those coming from outside the Shire. It gives them real time information on parking availability in congested precincts, which allows them to make informed decisions about whether or not they continue on, take their chance getting a park, or jumping on a bus. A free service such as this one. It's worth also saying that the entire loop is, in effect, a place where motorists can park and access the loop from anywhere, any point on that loop. I'm particularly interested to see how the queue jumping lanes will work, will allow the bus to bypass. Councillor Jackson: It's quite a border, that's not the item that's in front of us. Councillor Wilkie: The shuttle bus service is running in conjunction with the...
01:43:00 The queue jump. The queue jump. Councillor Jackson: Well it is, but what's in front of us is simply the 160, approving the 160 financing. Councillor Wilkie: That's true. It's about the shuttle bus loop. It's about the model. Councillor Jackson: The loop's been decided. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. That's true. But I'm very curious to see how it will operate. And the question was raised about how it will be monitored. I too am very curious to see how it will be monitored. In particular, the part that the bus queue jumps will be. I'm very curious to see how that will play in the operation, the uptake of the service. I applaud the staff's efforts in this. There's been, of course, things we would like, we would like solutions to be found more readily. But moving TransLink towards a shift in thinking takes time. And I appreciate the work the staff have done to getting TransLink to this point in trialling services such as this. And it does take time.
01:44:00 But I'm very interested to see how it goes. And thanks for your work. Councillor Lange from Worcester Close. Mayor Wellington: Yeah, look, I appreciate everyone's frustration and the staff are frustrated also. You know, I would refer anyone who happens to be watching this on our website to go back and look at the reports that came to the last round of meetings, which very superbly detailed the frustrations that we have in dealing with public transport because the state has been a monopolistic death grip on transport here. And we simply can't interpolate our own desires into that public transport system without their approval. And in that regard, I do want to congratulate staff who've been successfully so far working with TransLink and the state government to introduce initiatives that they would much prefer ignore. Yes, it's frustrating that we can't work faster, but we do not control public transport.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 We have to. We have zero control over public transport. All we can do is try and influence it. And staff in creating this link and convincing TransLink to come along for the ride, excuse the pun, have done us proud in many ways because it wasn't an easy negotiation. TransLink were resistant. And instead, we've come up with at least a part of a solution which is moving us towards what we all idealise. And what we idealise can only be achieved. By maintaining good relations with the department and with TransLink, not by badgering them and being largely judgemental. So it is a slow process. It is a frustrating process for everyone. But it's a process there is no real alternative to if we're going to improve public transport in the Shire. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion notes in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Karl, Joe and Andy.
01:46:00 Well done, Joe. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Jess. Thanks. Okay. Next item 5, construction of Hilton Terrace and Ernest Street, Tewantin intersection corridor upgrade from service to organisation committee agenda. It is a big project. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mr Chairman? Yes. I have declared a perceived conflict of interest in this matter. Yes. As I am an owner of the property at Noosa Lake Resort and I'm the chairman of the Noosa Lake Resort Body Corporate. And the intersection works extend, road works extend across the frontage of the Noosa Lake Resort site. I believe, I do not have a, believe I'd have a direct benefit, however, that I do believe it raises perceptions of a conflict of interest and I will elect to leave the room for the purpose of debate and decision on this matter. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. And it's time for coffee. Yes.
01:47:00 Councillor Pardon: That'd be the reason. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Thank you. Hello, Craig. Hello, Carl. Can you, given that this is a, it's a major project, can you just give us some idea on the steps that the contractor will be taking to, to deal with the delays in traffic involving any, any night works? Speaker 9: Okay. We've engaged road program assistance with that. We've done, to date, we've done some information in the papers. We've done some, we've done some, we've done some, we've done some, we've done some, we've done some information over the course of the 18 months, we've led a box drop. Residents affected. So we've tried to give people plenty of codes. There'll be night works involved. So our road works will be at night and also the intent is to keep one lane open at all times, so there'll be traffic control but traffic will still be flowing. There'll be delays but it will be flowing in both directions. Speaker 8: So there's not, there's no going around. Mayor Wellington: It's going to be a difficult project for the traffic department.
01:48:00 Yes. Speaker 9: I think it was just after the 28th of January or just after the peak holiday period, so we want to get in as soon as possible. Councillor Wilkie: And it is currently a TM section, suggesting a roundabout. I couldn't see in the map of the design, it's small for my eyes, how many lanes will there be around the roundabout? Speaker 9: My understanding is that they alternate, so it's coming along Hilton Terrace heading west, it would break out into two lanes, so there'd be a slip to the left, straight through. Similarly, coming from along Ernest Street heading north, it'll break out into two lanes, there'll be a left turn and a right turn there. And then similarly coming from the west, heading along Hilton Terrace, heading north. Similarly, it'll break out into two lanes, there'll be a straight through on the left and then a right turn.
01:49:00 Councillor Wilkie: And will there be a cycle lane with all those approaches as well? Speaker 9: Correct. Councillor Wilkie: And currently an intersection going to a roundabout, can you speak, you're knowledgeable in these areas, speak why, just tell us why a roundabout means better traffic flow at this intersection as a result? Speaker 9: So this intersection has been identified in our traffic study as our number one congestion spot. We've also had a motorcyclist killed there a few years back. There's long delays for people heading east on Hilton Terrace turning right into Ernest Street. There's long delays for people turning right out of Ernest Street into Hilton Terrace. Also, we've had two deaths in that corridor, three deaths in crossings, and as part of this roundabout, there's a slowing point within that corridor. We've also dropped the speed limit. We've dropped the speed limit down to 50 kilometres an hour. So it'll almost act as a traffic calming or a traffic regulating measure within that corridor.
01:50:00 Councillor Jackson: I might ask, just because you have mentioned the recent deaths and they're quite recent, given that we are well aware that roundabouts are actually not good for bike rides or pedestrians, can you explain where the pedestrian crossings will be? Especially over the larger roads being Hilton Terrace, yeah. Speaker 9: So there's two existing pedestrian crossings. One near the Lakes Resort and another one further up near Ripass. Towards Duval. So they're existing. As part of this upgrade, there'll be pedestrian refuges on all lakes. So on Hilton Terrace West, Hilton Terrace East, and Ernest Street South. Councillor Jackson: So in the vicinity of roundabouts. Yes. Speaker 7: I should probably also just mention that the bridge across Dunellup Creek will still be open.
01:51:00 So active transport during construction phase will still be able to go across that bridge. So if people choose not to drive through there in their car, they will still be able to walk across or go on their bikes. Councillor Wilkie: On the earth. Just one. Move Councillor Glastonbury. But one more question. And again, January 26 is the start date. What's your commute? Speaker 9: Sorry. I'll correct that. Apologies if I have it wrong. It'll be soon after 28th of January. Soon after 28th of January. So it'll be the Australia Day weekend, which is the peak time for us. Yes. So it'll be as soon as possible in February, early February. Councillor Wilkie: And what's your communication plan around that? Yes. In the lead up to work start? How do you plan to inform the community? Yes. Speaker 9: So as mentioned previously, we've engaged Road Road to come up with a communication plan and assist us with that. There'll be information in the papers. There'll be VMS boards. There'll be information provided to people directly impacted.
01:52:00 And we'll get information out to the hospital, the fire, and any emergency vehicles. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Move Councillor Glasgow. Seconded by Councillor Parting to speak to it, Jess. Councillor Glasgow: I'll just say, oh, not much more than just it's a much-needed roundabout. I'm grateful for seeing it for now and for the future. As you said, there's been a lot of fatalities there in the last wee while, and it's just a great project. So thank you both of you. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor, would you speak to it? Councillor Parting? Councillor Pardon: Yes. Look, I will, Mr Chairman. The cost of this, where we started, where it is today, it's enormous cost to this roundabout. But there's more to it than just a roundabout. It's about car parking at Tate Duke House. It's about finishing off the good chap end, pedestrianising, et cetera. And as mentioned by staff, there's been two deaths. And the roundabout does act as a shock absorber, per se, if you like, there.
01:53:00 And the reduction in the speed limit. So safety is paramount, of course. The costs are enormous, and I've said it before, and I've flagged it before, that when we go into these particular jobs now, we have, with regards to infrastructure that's underground, et cetera, the unknown costs. We're talking about NBN, Telstra, Unity Water, et cetera. And obviously, I keep saying that. We've run out of water. We've run into a new business model where you can't go anywhere else. You have to deal with Telstra or NBN, et cetera. They own that infrastructure. And it costs a fortune, over a million dollars before you start just moving or getting them to move their gear around. So as we work along around the Shire, we're going to have to start to work back to those things into our costs going forward. Because you learn as you go.
01:54:00 And this one's a beauty. Also, starting in work virtually February, the dangers here are obvious. Middle of the wet season, beginning, end, who knows? So timelines are paramount in the fact that that road, the major arterial road through there, we don't have many roads coming into Noosa. And there will be disruption. There absolutely will. And if we get into rain as well, I saw that road constructed by Main Roads. They dug down. And they were pumping out of the water. Once you go down a bit anywhere in there, you strike water. The water table in Noosa River is just there. And just tidal, big tides through those months will be enough to deal with because we have drainage issues as well. So really, I thank my staff.
01:55:00 But there's been a multitude, if the public are wondering, there's been a multitude of problems in regards to this particularly. This is a very complicated work at this intersection. And dealing with the various, you know, telsters, et cetera. It's been expensive and a very hard job. And once again, I'd just like to thank my staff. But we can't colour this one. It's a toughie for all those reasons. But we can just ask our people for patience and see how we go. We'll do our best. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Do you wish to close, Chair? No. It's all been said. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Thank you. Councillor Siffitz. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks. It's all right. No problem. Can we take a five minute... A mid duration break, could we? So we'll...
120 minutes in ¶
02:02:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Well, my Councillors, we're back. The meeting's open again. We're up to item six, which is the Nursing Council Annual Report. We're here for the significance of the issue and welcome. Yes. Hello. Councillor Jackson: I don't know, Trent was a hammer. However, that's fine. Councillor Wilkie: Right. Any questions for Debra, for the CEO, about the annual report, councillors? I didn't like reading. Otherwise we can move to the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, I did have a question, sorry. And it's one of clarification. And I'm sure the CEO will know I answered this, but I did prep our director on this one.
02:03:00 In the financial criteria of the annual plan, there's two that are down as being moderate results, which appear to have been actually over performance. So in the operating surplus, we made a 11.6% surplus. Which is reported as a moderate, whereas then you look down and same with the asset sustainability ratio, we actually were 132% as moderate result. Whereas they look like, in fact, they're moderate because they're exceeding the range. Too good. They're too good. Are there any real concerns at the level of actually achieving 11.6%? 11.6% surplus or 132% asset sustainability ratio?
02:04:00 Is there any significant concerns that would really, I know that, other than having an orange being moderate, isn't it really a good result? Speaker 5: Councillor? Yes, obviously a operating surplus is a good result, as is obviously exceeding asset sustainability ratio. The QIO set guidelines in terms of an upper and lower limit on a lot of our sustainability indicators. And the idea is, it obviously gives the readers an opportunity to understand that, whilst from a long term perspective we try to stay within that range, there's always years there'll be peaks and troughs. Sustainability ratio, it might be a year that we have a large spend on bridge renewals or something like that with an operating surplus. The key drivers, and you'll see that come through in the December report the Director of Corporate Services will do, is one of the key things is that with our levies, our charges, any unspent monies are constrained and put aside in restricted cash
02:05:00 and you won't even find it until a year. So whilst that will be built into the operating surplus, that unspent money is, if you like, set aside for capital purposes. So we will have years where one of the key drivers for that surplus being high and expected is we actually haven't spent our entire levy, a good example being the environment levy, where we would put that funds aside for future capital expenditure. So it's not a bad outcome in this case, but we need to make sure that we're clear that it is obviously above the threshold and shows as an orange traffic light. Speaker 8: I'll just add to that. I had calls last week to read the report by the consultants in the Moreton Bay Regional Council, which is really interesting because they've had some real problems down there and a range of issues. And one of the things, if you have a look on the surplus, a lot of their ratios look very good. In fact, they were way above this. Their operating surplus was around about 25%. So what that tells you is that they were probably financially saving a lot of money but skimping on the services. And that then flowed through a lot of their maintenance of their assets and so on
02:06:00 and other issues. So financial indicators are one indicator. And they're a very good set of numbers. But if you have, for example, in my case, if that operational surplus was 20% or 30% or something, it probably means you're either overrating or not delivering. You're getting a financial result. So you do need to look at the context of it. And that report that's sent in to Moreton Bay Regional Council was an interesting read about how they put too much emphasis on that and not enough on the service for them. Ingrid. Councillor Wilkie: No, I won't go there. You won't? OK. Mayor Wellington: I'll move. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second. Moved by Councillor Wellington, seconded by Councillor Parr. Councillor Wellington. Mayor Wellington: No, nothing to say. It's all in the report. Councillor Pardon: Councillor Parr. Yeah, just from me, thank you to the CEO for his guidance on the staff and the work that they put into this year.
02:07:00 It's, to me, reading through, a terrific result. And annually, when we get these reports and you have a look through, you think, how did they achieve that many things? And I guess for us, it's easy for us. I say it's easy. Sometimes decision making isn't easy. But we sit here and make these decisions. You know, go and build a $6 million boardwalk. You know, go and build a bridge. Do this, do that. And we tick off on the funding and the way they go. But someone has to deliver it and do all the work behind the scenes and the details. So at my end, I find, you know, easy to say, in most instances, and I've said this before, it's not all. Go and do the work. And then the work happens. And at the end of the year, we get together and the staff pulls, the CEO and staff, Deb,
02:08:00 pull it all together. And when you run through it, it's terrific result and terrific effort. And I take the CEO's remarks before with regards to councils. There was a council not far north of us. There was a council not far north of us. And it always, financially, looked so strong when we compared. And yes, well, meanwhile, the roads are starting to break up and things are going wrong. So you can look a million dollars if you don't spend it, or you can have a million dollars if you don't spend it. But the point is, you know, once again, $30 million capital works, or I forget what we delivered, 28 or something, near enough last year, et cetera, et cetera. So you have to deliver on all fronts. We have our social team downstairs working with the community. We have an environment team working across the Shire.
02:09:00 And thus, the balance, and then our business units, et cetera, staff in finance, keeping the tight rein on councillors like me who might want to spend more money than we have, for good things, I would add. But yeah. So yeah, look in the big picture. You read through this document. And it's a good read. I'd recommend people that are bored out there, citizens with nothing to do, over the Christmas holidays, look it up online and have a read. Because we get picked off a lot in the community, and we're an easy mark, you know. Who likes politicians or governments? Anybody. Anyway, nobody does. We understand that. I've understood since I was elected. We rate somewhere below secondhand car salesmen in the big picture out there. But it's a good read. And you can see that at least your elected members and the staff that are employed here,
02:10:00 the CEO, et cetera, have a real crack. So thank you. Thank you so much. Speaker 6: Thank you, sir. Any other councillors? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak to that. I think what it does show is that 2018-19 was another stellar year. And from a perspective of an elected representative, the annual report tells me that this organisation has hit its traps once again this year. I remember that this time last year, the CEO suggested that we were unlikely to get another report card this good for a while. Whereas I think this is equal to the previous year. I think the key for the community is your top 10 highlights. And it's all about delivery. Delivery of the ringtail you're on. Delivery of the draft planning scheme and consultation process.
02:11:00 A 40% increase in free bus service use. The new boardwalk. The environment strategy. That's the first five. There's so many things that have been achieved that sets this community up in a really good way for the future. And I think that's the key. And to me, when you look at the other indicators within the plan and how it's been reported, you can see that it's done in a way that managed to also be fiscally responsible and we paid back $10 million. So there's all these really big highlights in the last financial year. And it is one that I suppose we can be proud of. But more importantly, that the staff who get to deliver our lofty decisions and implement it and come up to us with the well-researched and professional recommendations that they have in their proposals and reports, that really it is their effort and their professionalism and their commitment to doing the right thing for this community and keeping the long-term in their sights, which I think this report well and truly exemplifies.
02:12:00 So well done. Councillor Wilkie: Council, would you speak? I'd like to say, for any interested community member out there, any resident or a rate payer who wants to know how their rates money is being spent or what they can do to help the Noosa Council actually does during the year, I recommend, and even if you're bored, the annual report is very, it's worth reading. And you read a document like that, it's worth reminding yourself that we are only a small council. The limited budget, but one due to its financially responsible practices is effectively delivering multiple services on a daily basis. On the page 29, it outlines how many transactions it conducts on a yearly basis. There are millions of them. As well as delivering major projects like the Bridging Digital Hub, where on a weekly basis you can see school students, that's the next generation, learning how to use IT
02:13:00 to shape their futures, design their own future. The Noosaville Library refurbishment, which is beautiful work. The beautiful boardwalk to the National Park. The creation of the Environment Strategy and Action Plan, which was created by the National We will provide the framework for more of that good work into the future. The transport strategy initiatives that have seen record numbers of people choose to get to main beach by bus, walking or cycling for the first time, record numbers rather than using the car. And as mentioned previously only a small reduction in car numbers so we've obviously got more work to do there. And also as a demonstration that rates are collected not just for growing the bureaucracy but for injecting funds back out into the community. About $900,000 worth of that money went out back into the community in the form of community grants. Close to $30 million back out into the community in the form of capital works which is about
02:14:00 maintaining the assets, improving the assets, upgrading the assets and building new assets for residents to enjoy. Not to mention paying off $10 million worth of debt which was inherited at de-amalgamation while still returning operating surplus. And all the while limiting rates rises to CPI. And that is a discipline that this council has imposed on itself and is still able to deliver all these other services and projects for the community. And it does make it a pleasure and a privilege to be part of a council like this. But as said previously it's one thing for councillors to make decisions but someone has to do the hard work. And the annual report, if anything, is very important. It's a credit and a testament to the Noosa Council staff's hard work. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Jackson: I'm just going to add a tiny little thing.
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 So thank you for various things people have pointed to in the annual report. But I'd also like to thank the people who have put together this report. A huge amount of work and a very attractive and well put together document. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wellington: I'm very fortunate in my position that I often get to sing the praises of council so no I won't speak to it at any length and I get to write the introduction of course to the document but you know I will say that this is a remarkably successful council that does punch above its weight, that does deliver for the community in so many ways and it is a great honour to serve this community. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the motion. Those in favour? That's Wellington. I'll just say it's unanimous. A crazy bit of suspense there.
02:16:00 That's unanimous. Councillor Jackson: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks a lot Danny. Thank you Danny. Okay we now move on to the budget review two. The 2019-20 financial year on page nine of the general committee agenda. Any questions? No. Councillor Pardon: Mr Chair, just one, on page forward in, buildings and facilities there down the bottom of forward in there, you've got recovery of unity water charges for Noosa, is that surf life saving club or something, SLS? Speaker 5: Correct Councillor, so it's been ongoing, it's not a change in service level or any change in process, it's purely a recovery line that we've omitted or missed if you like from our original budget, fortunate finding obviously for us to recognise that we had
02:17:00 missed it, so I've funded some of our emerging items for this year. Councillor Pardon: That's okay, just an add on question to that, a supplementary if you like. So, just explain how that works, because I would have thought they paid the water bill, the club, so they pay it I'm assuming, how does it work? Speaker 5: I'll correct your notice if I'm wrong Councillor, but it's my understanding that the water meter being on Council land parcel, it was paid by us in the first instance. Oh I see. Speaker 8: We recover it. Councillor Pardon: Oh yeah, we recover it. That's okay. Speaker 8: I'm just trying to work out how they would pay. That's why it's got a negative, that means they're going to pay us. Yeah, okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And they're trying to reduce it by putting less water with the scotch. Councillor Wilkie: So, question on page 14, just so I understand what we're looking at, the environmental services,
02:18:00 additional flying pots, an extended sprinkler system in Wallace Park, that's an expense that we've incurred and hadn't budgeted for, is that correct? Speaker 5: Correct, that's an emergent item that was put through executive team consideration for additional flying pots work to manage the flying pots. Councillor Wilkie: So, the monitoring, is that basically paying for staff time, is that what it means? Speaker 5: It's a combination, so that cost is there's a combination of sprinkler system. So, switching it on or installing more? It's my understanding installing more. Speaker 8: Yeah, just that. I can't remember which end it was. It's just a minor extension to where it is, because that would actually make a big difference. Okay, good. Speaker 5: And staff time for monitoring. Yes. Speaker 8: Doing more regular monitoring of the numbers. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. So, that's a question I can ask the environmental staff to suggest there's more numbers there. Councillor Pardon: I think they'll move them further down to the hospital and houses, and again, they lasted
02:19:00 them out of there with water. Yeah. Thank you. Encouraging. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other questions for staff, or otherwise we have a motion there? I'll move it. Moved by Councillor Pardon, seconded by Councillor Jackson. Councillor Pardon, would you speak to it? Councillor Pardon: No, just to thank Trent for all his work and his staff, of course. Once again, we're in a good position. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: No. We'll put the motion those in favour. Carried unanimously. And the last item is the financial performance report for October on page 27. I've got a couple of questions. Oh, sorry. You can go. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: All right. Okay. I'm actually looking at creating revenue on page 28, and that's about local laws fees,
02:20:00 23,000 above year-to-date budget. Is that correct? Yeah. And in one quarter, we've already achieved, we've received 58% of the amount expected to get for the year. Do we have an indication of why that is? Speaker 5: Local laws, as a branch or service department council, includes a range of things. What primarily comes through in the first quarter of the year are a lot of the licences. So... Dog registration. Dog registration. Food licences. Food licences. Food licences. Food licences. What this means is that the remainder of the revenue obviously relates to any biannual charges or infringements, which is we profile that budget during the year. Councillor Jackson: But there's a particularly large number coming in the first quarter of the year for the leasing. Okay. Thank you for saying that. Speaker 5: And so any variation... ...we have year-to-date is purely about more dogs than we expected... Yeah. ...and permits than we expected... Right. ...are just that slight increase. Yeah. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. I do have another one. For the CEO, I seem to be starting to channel councillors.
02:21:00 Actually it's not the training one. Last time I asked about the expenditure on permanent staff salaries and how that was lower than expected and then the overtime being higher than expected. And I notice it's the same again this time. So I'm wondering, is this just, is this a two month blip? Are we having less staff, permanent staff at the moment with needing more overtime or is this actually something we will see every month anyway? I'll dig into that a bit more for you Speaker 8: offline and check that out. But the refund in the budget, all the staff that don't have standard accounts have approved. So if there's people who have left and haven't been appointed or we've had new positions, haven't been filled, that's why you always see, I call it the unders, that you, those positions wouldn't have been filled yet. I'll need to check some more detail
02:22:00 on that employee overtime or is there something else you can add to it? By understanding there's Speaker 5: a proportion of that is the fives, which would have been showing in the figures for the last months worth of figures. That's right. Any overtime associated with the latest round of disaster events would not be showing in these numbers. So you will likely see for next month, you'll see another. Flipping the numbers. Okay. And obviously as Brett stated, a lot of the underspend and permanence is the vacancies or the transition time for those new positions we agreed in the budget Councillor Jackson: to come on board. So it's just take, so again, that's more of a peer, it's not an ongoing, obviously people leave and you need to hire new people throughout the year. And I would have thought that was just business as usual and the budget would somehow still be stable, but. Yeah. Speaker 8: So there's two elements to it. One is if we create a new position in the budget and that position is funded from 1 July to the 1st and by the time we advertise, recruit and might
02:23:00 have to resign or whatever, it might not start for two or three months and that funding is not spent. And that's why you'd be under. The other scenario that would arise would be Fred Bloggs or Sally Smith resigns on the 1st of November, will then have to go through an advertising period and that position might be great. But that would be a normal, well Councillor Jackson: both of those in some ways are normal. Yeah. But the budget is always been above the actual staffing levels. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Well, we have a motion there and. Councillor Wilkie: I'm happy to move. Oh, second. Ingrid seconded Jess. Do you wish to speak to it Ingrid? Councillor Jackson: I don't really wish to speak to it. I think it's so structurally important and again, I appreciate you having this team and having the work that's going to influence. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. Just just I note on page 34 and well, I'll start with a question.
02:24:00 Where the Queensland government has lost an A rating and when we've met with QDC people, advisors and that. So that cost the question. So that cost in my opinion, but you can answer that question. So it's passed on to all local councils in Queensland, the increase rate that they have to borrow at. Is that correct? The Queensland Treasury have to borrow an increased rate. Speaker 5: Correct. Any change in the credit rating and the state level will obviously in turn affect the rates that we can borrow and invest in with QDC. Councillor Pardon: Yeah. So conversely, if you cashed up, I would think that puts you in a better position. Yeah. So conversely, if you cashed up, I would think that puts you in a better position. Yeah because interest rates, if they've got to borrow higher on and this question comes out of the graph where we are investing heavily now with Queensland Treasury Corporation, because of return, I imagine
02:25:00 better than the bank so is that a fair estimation of things. Speaker 8: As always Frank, it's the different between what you borrow and what you invest at the pain factor or the benefit factor depending whether you cashed up or cashed down. So if I just thought given they've got to pull a lot of money and they borrow international Councillor Pardon: wherever they can get money at the best rate, that's a QTC. So I wondered if they have to offer more to attract that money if they've lost an A. If they lose another A, I imagine it costs them more. Otherwise, how do you attract funds?
02:26:00 I guess I was looking at our analogy. Thus, we benefit if we've got cash, I would think, to put in because they want to attract our investment funds back to them. Speaker 5: Councillor, you'll find that if you just consider it from a commercial bank's perspective, you'll find that in many cases, your lower rate of banks and institutions will offer a marginally higher rate. And the reason is the larger banks don't need the money because more people are investing with them and they've still got liquidity to offer that in turn as investments if they need to. And obviously, there's a high risk associated with those smaller institutions. And with QTC, one of the key pressures is availability of cash to then reinvest in other activities. So their demand for cash is higher. So that's what we're finding at the moment is the larger institutions are offering us a lower rate and the smaller ones in QTC are offering us a higher rate.
02:27:00 WirePresent then goes to the only non-QTC investment we have, but we've seen the last few weeks a trend where heritage funds have gone up. Some of those smaller A2 and A3 institutions are offering a marginal rate. So that's where we're getting the better return at the moment. In terms of what we do with our debt, as Michael alluded to last month, we'll reassess the position for our debt borrowings and the appropriate utilisation of our surplus cash in the coming months again and do so each year. So just a question on that. Councillor Pardon: So question. I know we at least owe another $10 million at 6.2, what's the total? I don't really know that. It's got to be somewhere around that. So what's the total at 6.2 that we're locked into that we still owe the Queensland Treasury? Approximately? Yes. $13 million I believe.
02:28:00 How much? Thirteen. Thirteen. One three, not thirty. Yeah, yeah, yeah. One three. Thirteen. Yeah, I was just... Speaker 8: You know what I'm doing. Brett knows what I'm doing. And I think at some stage in the next financial year, or probably next calendar year, we'll have a look at that position and see whether the numbers stack up to do another early repayment if it makes sense or not. Just a financial question. 6.2, given we can borrow at a much higher rate. Councillor Jackson: So just on that, in terms of borrowing, as I recall previously the explanation of why we didn't use that loan more than what we did, I think we used it by $10 million but we couldn't use all of it because we couldn't afford it to do that. But the argument was that we need to hold some of that money in case of emergent issues. Has that maturated in any way?
02:29:00 Speaker 5: What we... What the... The key outcome of the assessment that we did last year was that whilst we have $20 million of surplus cash now, or as of last year, above our minimum requirements, over a 10-year forecast from our long-term financial plan, that would reduce below the $10 million mark. So it meant that whilst we had $20 million now, we may not have that full availability in 10 years' time, and that was before allowing for any emergent new infrastructure projects that may not be captured in our 10-year plan. So the conservative proposed approach was, let's take $10 million now, we'll pay off a portion of that loan, and we'll reassess how our 10-year plan looks every year as we get better with our 10-year planning for our capital works program, we get a better forecast of what our revenue and expenditure growth looks like. So we'll be... Again, this year we'll be in a better position, as Brett says. It might change, hopefully for our... In our benefit, given the operating surplus that we talked through with the annual report.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 And it might give us a position to reassess whether we do take some more of that remaining 10-year surplus. Speaker 8: But in a nutshell, stay conservative early, and see where it goes, and revisit it on the... Buffer zone. Buffer. Which is what we did. Councillor Pardon: Flood and fire. Speaker 8: We don't know. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Would anybody else care to speak to the motion? Okay. Ingrid, would you wish to close? No. Put the motion as in favour? Unanimous? Yes. Thank you. And that's the last item on the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jackson: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.