Start of recording ¶
00:02:00 Councillor Wilkie: Welcome everybody to the last General Committee meeting of 2020, which has been quite an extraordinary year. Congratulations on making it. Begin with by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet, the Gubbi Gubbi or Kabi Kabi people. They respect the elders past, present and emerging. Just a gentle reminder, please turn your phones off or on silent, or if that's not possible, can they be out of the room, please? We have first up item is the confirmation of the minutes from the meeting held on the 16th of November. Moved by Councillor Finzel, seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Any discussion? All in favour? That's carried. We have no presentations, no deputations. The first item is referred from the Environment and Planning Committee. Development application for material change of use for commercial business type 1 office, multiple housing type 4, conventional and retail business type 2, shop and salon at 6 to 10 Diamond Street, Cooroy. Referred due to the significance of the issue. Welcome Glenn and Kerry, thanks for being here.
00:03:00 Mayor Stewart: I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as Peter Ziff, Director of Crete Gold, PTY LTD, who donated to my election campaign in March 2020, has an interest in this application. Mr Ziff attended the pre-lodgement meeting on behalf of the applicant. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Welcome Glenn and Kerry. Here to answer any questions, Councillor Starr. Councillor Jurisevic: First one, Glenn. I notice in the report there's a number of conditions recommended, but are all of those conditions, do all of those conditions appear in the conditions for development?
00:04:00 Speaker 6: It's been brought to my attention that the end of trip facilities that was mentioned in the body of the report had been overlooked in the condition. So there is, I sent an amended condition around this morning that included the end of trip facilities as well as the required number of bicycle spaces as well. Councillor Jurisevic: So the recommendations with regard to wastewater treatment or storm water treatment is there under storm drainage. The height being recommended at eight metres when this one is over eight point, is over eight metres. But as a result of that, the plans have to be redrawn by the applicant and amended to, until they're approved? Speaker 6: As part of the operational, prior to the issue, the operational works and plans will be submitted and they will need to comply with that condition of eight metres above the natural ground level.
00:05:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So the things like the waste management plan and needing to, I haven't asked this before, but it just came to my attention, I haven't asked it. It talks about segregated wastes attracting significantly reduced disposal fees at the landfill and higher gate fees for mixed waste and the like. But is that actually enforced? Do we ensure that they do have an element of recycling within their waste plan or if they decide not to do that and they're prepared to pay the fees, do we accept that? Speaker 6: Our environment department, the applicant provides that waste segregation table to our environment department downstairs. So it's to the applicant's advantage is to separate the waste. Councillor Jurisevic: But the question is, do we have the capacity to enforce that the recycling is undertaken or do we just accept whatever they put in there if they're prepared to pay the fee?
00:06:00 That's it. They... Speaker 1: So we do require that with the design that the waste storage areas for the different components... Councillor Jurisevic: I'm talking about the storage areas. I'm talking about the removal and demolition. The demolition. Elements. Councillor Wilkie: These ones here. Councillor Jurisevic: They have to have the materials on site, expected removal of those items and a breakdown, reuse and recycling of disposal. But if they don't reuse, if they don't have a commitment to reuse or recycle, do we have the ability to condition that they must? Sorry, it's a question without notice, but it's something that came to my attention this morning as I was reading through it again. Good question, by the way. Speaker 1: Yeah. We may need to come back to you on this. Councillor Jurisevic: That's fine. I'd appreciate some sort of response to that. I've got no idea. I know that within the report, we get this form.
00:07:00 Yeah. But I'm going to... Beyond that, I'm unaware whether it actually... What level of recycling is undertaken when demolitions are in process and whether people are seeking to save these... Sorry? That was me. Speaker 6: Oh. Councillor Jurisevic: Whether people are seeking to save the fees or are just paying the fees and dumping it regardless. Yeah. We'll talk to our... Whether we're having an impact on the recycling of recycled materials in that situation. Speaker 1: We'll come back to you on that one after we've talked to our waste area. Thank you. I think I had one more question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I just double check on that one? Can we include just the ability under a planning approval to condition mandatory recycling, or can we only just require them to include the facility? That'd be something I'd be interested in. Because we know that business recycling is a low... There's an area that we're trying to increase significantly and it might fit into that.
00:08:00 So, if we can just have a permissible condition to actually have the behaviour conditioned, then that might start the process. Speaker 1: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: And so, yeah, I guess the final question was what I... So, all the recommendations in the report apart from one that we've picked up are... Correct. ...somewhere within the conditions of the report. Yes. So, and yes, they will have to revise their drawings to reduce the height to below eight metres. Correct. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Can we see the amendment that you've circulated this morning, where it sits in this recommendation, please? Or... I think Brian's going to... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's what I did. Your one? Yeah. Yeah. That was from Glenn. Speaker 1: It fits in there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It was my request. Councillor Wilkie: So, I don't recall receiving that. Councillor Jurisevic: It came out very early. Just this morning, because... A pathway connection? Yes. Yes. I'll raise the question this morning as well.
00:09:00 Speaker 3: It's on the screen now, the changes. And I just... Oh, yeah. Thank you. Condition 42. It's going to be in paragraph... The introduction's the same. Condition 42. Paragraph 8. A minimum of 1.5 metre wide and some covered pathways within the development site, including a minimum of a two metre wide pathway connected to Diamond Lane, generally in accordance with the approved plans. Then B and C, it goes per the agenda. And then D, read a total of 11 bicycle parking spaces slash racks and end-of-trip facilities compliant with the applicable standards in the NUSA Plan 2016. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And if I could just put up the image from the NUSA Plan 2020, just to give you the basis of requiring that slightly wider pathway. You'll see there on the... That's from the 2020 NUSA-Cooroy Framework and Character Plan in the NUSA Plan.
00:10:00 And the sort of vertical dashed green line shows that between this side and the other commercial site, there is a desire to have a key pedestrian and cycle link. And so in the other development, number three on that map, we did require a two metre path linking to Diamond Lane, and this would just make it easier for the width, would it make it easier, say, for a pedestrian and a bike to pass on that lane, as we're going out of this development. Councillor Jurisevic: Apologies, Mr. Chair. There was one more question, if I may. Of course. Figure five on page 16 of the report. It identifies the subject site with the red perimeter over the three lot, but I noticed there's some red hashed sections as well. Can you clarify what the intent of those red hashed areas were? Were they pathways? Or linkages? Speaker 6: No, they're easements for, it could be sewerage.
00:11:00 Easements that they could use or will use? Speaker 1: They're not part of the application. No. The hatched areas. They're just easements showing up on our mapping system that exist today. Councillor Jurisevic: So what's the purpose of showing them in figure five with relation to this application? Speaker 6: I overlooked switching the easement overlay off, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: That's all right. I was sort of looking back and going, are they part of the application or, so that's what confused me. Thank you for clarifying that. That's why I was confused. Councillor Lorentson: Just a question, mainly for the benefit of the viewers. Is the development built for climate change impacts and do we have the authority to condition development to incorporate sustainability principles, including energy efficiencies and connectivity? Speaker 6: Under the superseded planning scheme, we have limited ability to what provisions there are in the planning scheme. The current design does provide for flow through ventilation, a certain amount of openings
00:12:00 in each bedroom, north-south alignment. They've got the northern veranda out the front and the windows and a door to the south. In terms of lighting, internal lighting and that sort of thing, there's no provision in the superseded planning scheme. Noting that the current scheme does have some more provisions in there, but it's still very limited because of the provisions that the state government put on the planning scheme at the time. So we're limited in the ability because they're building assessment provision, which our planning scheme cannot override. Speaker 3: I'll just add to that. You might recall that when the council was going through the planning scheme process for our new planning scheme, in our first iteration of that, which we sent to the state
00:13:00 government, we included a range of, I'll call them sustainability measures in terms of building design, which was the solar, the water, retention, things like that. The state government said that they would not approve any of that. They said that they would not approve a scheme with those in there because they believe that that should be a uniform approach to all building codes across the whole of Queensland. And if there is ever going to be that requirement, that should be standardised across the whole of the state through the building provisions, not through individual council planning schemes. It's unfortunate that that's the way it is. Sorry. I think everyone would have liked to have seen something like that. Councillor Lorentson: So is there an opportunity for us then to lobby local government association? Yeah. Sure. Absolutely. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: But there are elements that we include in our planning scheme, such as the need for eaves and things like that, that ensure shading and lessening the need for air conditioning and the like. Speaker 6: In regard to this development, they are providing, there's two conditions to require them to provide rainwater harvesting. Yep. So that would be also in accordance with their stormwater management plan.
00:14:00 But it's also a harvesting provision as well. There is, as I said, there's a greater ability in the Noosa Plan 2000. Councillor Jurisevic: Was that something undertaken by the developer or something by council? Speaker 6: It's a condition for our stormwater, with our hydrologist, yes. Thank you. We have that ability. Councillor Wegener: Just a question about electric cars and the charging component. Is that something that the planners would have to look at, or is that just, you know, if somebody happens to have, or purchases a Tesla, and they want to charge it there, would they personally put into it, or does that have to be part of the overall planning scheme to have a charging unit? Speaker 6: Correct. It would need to be in our planning scheme to require that provision for the electric vehicles. We have some charging stations throughout the Shire that have just been put in on the back of the owner or the developer.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 I think there's a service station along the Mundy Noosa Road that's got a charge station. We did not require that, but that's what they wanted to do. I think there's one about 100 metres away from this site. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: There's one across the road. Yeah. It's actually very small. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It didn't originally. I've got a question in relation to, I think page 26 is probably the best to look at. I didn't tweak it in terms of Joe's question on the height, and this links once again to sustainable building design. It appears the only diagram we've got of building height which gives an indication of the area of non-compliance is those elevations on page 26, the east and west elevation. Yeah. Yeah. So from and the question is and it's marked there is 8.35 meters and my
00:16:00 question is is the only non-compliance a this much of the peak correct and to achieve that to achieve 8 meters they would reduce the the pitch of the roof and therefore reduce the actual ceiling space in terms of ventilation and all that sort of stuff but also the design to me if it that that I take it that runs for some it looks like from the other elevations it only runs for part of the north-south elevation to it's not a very long or is it a long section Councillor Jurisevic: that's above the air you pick on the residential section on that front from Deputy Mayor Stockwell: what I can gather the problem it's this week just that that's um I'm very partial to allowing increases in highly Bruce if it achieves a design objective which disappears to ungefähr datestar variation and reform but I'm just not
00:17:00 sure what because we haven't got that same view from the from the north or south that I can see I'm not sure how much would be non-compliant can you Speaker 6: explain there's not a great deal of non-compliance it is the the difference in ruch form between the two the different in ruch form but it's actually There's two components of the residential units, there's two units with one roof form and another two with a separate roof form, but you're correct, it's not clearly shown on the plans of how much of the roof exceeds the eight metres. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So is it something you could bring back to Thursday, a condition which would allow them that level of non-compliance, like if I just put 8.35 then the whole lot could be 8.35, but could you bring, potentially bring a condition to Thursday? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, I'd like that level of detail as well, because otherwise, normally it's, buildings don't exceed 8.35, we need to understand how much non-compliance there is.
00:18:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I mean from the, Brian's raised a good point, from the east and west elevation, I can't see it on the northern elevation, I can't see it on any other level. The point where the peak is, and it only seems to be a peak from the east and the west is visible, but you can't see it on a north-south trajectory, so it's a little difficult to tell. I agree. Councillor Wilkie: So in the meantime, do we have a movement for this recommendation and motion as it stands? Speaker 3: Do you want to do that, or do you want to defer the motion to Thursday to get that additional information? That would be better, I think that would be my suggestion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move that deferral, but do we want to do that? Do you want to have further questions? Yeah, thank you. Councillor Finzel: Going back to the reference to compliance to the Council's policy on emissions, reaching zero emission targets, and that State has put, you know, limits on our ability to be able to do that case by case,
00:19:00 is there any way we could condition the applicant to consider his behaviour moving towards the future in considering in ways that this development might provide zero emission carbon offsets back to either that development or our community? Just as a leading example to show a direction regarding our own policies and design principles in Noosa Shire, which leads the way, is there any opportunity we could possibly do that? Speaker 1: That's really what the new scheme tries to do. To try to introduce these sorts of requirements for development in the Shire. But that's what, as Brett explained, that's what the State has said no to. That we can't include it in our individual planning schemes. That this has to happen at a State level.
00:20:00 Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I understand that. But is there like a, I don't know, sort of like a goodwill gesture from the applicant to consider that in the, like a costing thing? Speaker 3: I think if your question is, you know, what could we condition? We can only condition what the planning scheme allows us to condition. So we can't enforce something that is not covered by the planning scheme. We just can't introduce other issues above that. Councillor Jurisevic: I would suggest nothing's preventing an applicant from putting in one of the topics. Speaker 3: Whether the applicant then chooses for good business practices or their brand management, whatever it might be, to go over and above that and to introduce design characteristics that, you know, create a better environmental footprint, that would be great. But the question is what we can and can't condition really depends on what the planning scheme allows us to do so. Councillor Finzel: Okay, thank you. And Kerry, so when you talk to applicants that are putting forward these design things in our Shire, do you have these discussions with them regarding that, even though we can't condition it in that conversation? Speaker 1: Yeah, and some applicants are quite open to exploring that.
00:21:00 But others needily ask us where it is in the planning scheme. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, okay. Councillor Lorentson: All right, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: A question in regard to environmental guidelines and in regards to construction activities. There's a risk that the construction activities are going to adversely impact on the residences. I had a drive-through, gone and looked at the site quite a few times, and there's a beautiful pocket down Diamond Lane residential properties. So my question is, potentially, these residents are going to be adversely affected by construction activities. What complaint processes or communication processes are in place by the developer where these residents have an opportunity to process a complaint or at least have some idea of who to complain to? Speaker 1: Yeah, so the developer is required to have a construction management plan.
00:22:00 Yes. So that details how they're really going to, address complaints received, dealing with residents, how they're going to manage from where their workers are parking on site or where they parked during construction, sediment erosion. So that plan really deals with those issues. Councillor Lorentson: Are there penalties imposed on developers who don't follow through on that, Kerry? Speaker 1: They must have a construction management plan before we will issue their operational works and do their pre-starts. They must have that in place. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Does that include notifying the residents in advance of any sort of nuisance or construction activities that they see as going to negatively impact them? Speaker 1: Yeah. There's a contact, but not typically notifying them in advance, I know. That would be something we'd have to specifically ask them to do. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe. My understanding is that the state will require some turning lanes and that
00:23:00 will be impacting on the changes to the traffic management of traffic flow on that street out front? Speaker 6: On Diamond Street, there are going to be some, a median. So the development will end up with a left in, left out situation, but there's not going to be any change in Diamond Lane because there's only pedestrian access to Diamond Lane from this development. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm assuming that's along the lines of what Councilor Orenston was talking about in reference to the sort of infrastructure. So how does something like that get notified to the community when there are changes coming to the traffic management or the street as a result of this development? Speaker 1: Well, I suggest that we look at a further amendment for Thursday night to specifically raise this issue and ask them to notify residents before they start construction. So we'll come back with an amendment for you. Councillor Jurisevic: So I'm assuming that wasn't part of the MCU or wouldn't have been part of any community
00:24:00 feedback potential? Speaker 6: The application was publicly notified, so the immediately adjoining neighbours get notified and then you've got the sign, the development sign goes up on each of the street frontages and it gets notified in the local paper. Councillor Jurisevic: But the traffic arrangements of the street, would they have been part of it? Speaker 6: Yes, they would have been, yes. But not specifically what the amendment may consider is to actually, in the construction management plan, is to notify residents. Yes. Of any changes that may occur due to this development. Councillor Jurisevic: A bit of a significant change in the street that will impact on all traffic using that street. Yes, totally. Two further questions. One with regard to waste that talks about not using Diamond Lane, but what are the current waste collection arrangements? Is Diamond Lane used as a waste collection point? Speaker 6: Yes, I spoke with Waste about this and they do go down Diamond Lane, but they don't,
00:25:00 they only take a certain number of bins at the back and others are accessed from the front. Councillor Jurisevic: Both are used, so if it was all Diamond Lane, I'd wonder why Diamond Street was being used, but if it's a mix of Diamond Lane and Diamond Street, I'm probably not as concerned. Speaker 6: And also remembering that this is a commercial development, so the generation of the waste trucks and the amount of waste is different as well. And we've got residential development on the eastern end of Diamond Lane. So it was a balance of reducing the impact on those residents as well. It's been demonstrated in the application that the waste trucks can get on site safely. Councillor Jurisevic: They'll actually come into the site not off the street, because my concern was on street
00:26:00 parking. There is going to negotiate bins on Diamond Lane. Speaker 6: No, no, we ensured that as part of the assessment that the waste truck can come onto site into the back area, is that back of house area behind the bigger tenancy, and they can turn around and drive out and forward here. Councillor Jurisevic: So not right at the back of the development actually on Diamond Lane, but the back of the, so the rear of the premises, the front Diamond Street. Speaker 6: Correct, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, thank you. The last question is, and I'm pretty sure that it has been done, I'm pretty sure we've had it confirmed in the past, but I'll ask the question. This site was an Energex site. My recollection is there was potential for contamination on the site as a result of the industrial activities going on there in the past, but the site has been cleaned up. Have we confirmed that the site has the relevant contamination and cleanup certificate? Speaker 6: The site, through our planning legislation, the site's required to go through a material
00:27:00 change of use through the state. And so there's a condition included that ensures that that contaminate, that further application is gained. Councillor Jurisevic: So it's all been assessed and all people, that's all? Just wanted to confirm that. Speaker 1: No, sorry. It hasn't been assessed yet. That will be a separate application to the state. Okay. To look at contamination on the site and clean it up if necessary. So it's not necessarily- Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding is it's already been undertaken on the site. Speaker 1: That's not our knowledge. Councillor Jurisevic: Prior to the current uses being allowed on the site, historically. No? Speaker 6: No. We, sorry, we went to the state about this in case that we had done a missed referral, which is a referral that runs concurrently with our application, and the state came back and said they're unique. So we need a completely separate application. And my understanding is that it hasn't been-
00:28:00 Cleaned up. It hasn't been cleaned up. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Because that's different to- My understanding was before we permitted the current uses on the site that have been ongoing since Energex had left, and then, because there are activities occurring on the site, including real estate activities and things like that. My understanding was that the site had been cleared of contamination before they were allowed. So if you can confirm what the process is in that regard, it would be appreciated, knowing that we do make sure that we get the tick- Yeah. Speaker 1: It's our understanding that it hasn't been cleaned up. It hasn't been cleaned up. And when the decision notice goes out, it will have a list of further development permits that the developer is required to obtain. Okay. And one of those will be- All right. Okay. Decontamination. Okay. I don't understand. Council Tom. Councillor Wegener: Oh. Mm-hmm. Hi, sir. Could we look at Figure 5, please, and pull it up? And I'm just going to, on page 16, and I'd like everybody that went around there this
00:29:00 Speaker 3: weekend and just look. Councillor Wegener: And so, question concerning the hotel site here, where the hotel burned down. Where is the traffic going to come in and out of this one? And the reason I ask this is I'm just looking at how much is going to come down Calgary Street, how much more traffic is going to come down Calgary Street and turn right or left up there, which is, you know, it's a pretty clear view looking both ways, but truly, all this, everything here will end up here, Calgary Street. And so, we're looking at a real, like, we don't want to have a rat run, as we say, but it's just a, it's all going to end up right there. So, I'm just wondering, here, and I'm just, okay, so that's the first question. The second question is, is this a little bit piecemeal in that this place is the newsagent and that will eventually be redone, and so the trash trucks will come into here, probably take the trash from here, the rubbish, and go out.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Would it be better to have a master plan for this site, this site, this site, and this site working together? I know that, I know it's big, but is that possible? Speaker 3: Ben, I'll deal with the second one and you deal with the first one. They're all different ownerships. Yeah. That's the issue. So, unless you get one, you can only deal with the applications in front of you at the time. Yeah. So, unless the, you know, the joint application, which involves what are called integrated development across multiple owners, then really we can only deal with the applications in front of us. But we do so knowing that there'll be further redevelopment of those sites at some stage. So, Ben, you want to deal with the traffic? Speaker 1: Yeah. And I guess, just to expand on that, that's really what sort of streetscaping projects are all about too, is to develop that master plan so it all works together. This obviously hasn't been done for this area, and as Brett indicates, we're having to deal with individual owners as they lodge, and in the absence of the master plan, you achieve the best outcome you can as a whole for the area.
00:31:00 I'll probably just ask, in terms of your first question, why do you think it's all going to end up in Cary Street? Councillor Wegener: Because if you want to go to Noosa, the only way to get there is out of Cary Street. Speaker 1: All the way? Or you turn right at Diamond Street and go the other way. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If you're not a local. You can't turn right there. Speaker 1: Yeah. Sorry, you turn right into Elm Street. Elm Street. Councillor Finzel: Oh, Elm Street. Councillor Wegener: From Diamond Street. Speaker 1: From Diamond Street, you turn right. Councillor Wegener: And then you go around the block that way? Speaker 1: That's right. So there's two options. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Except the right turn from Diamond Street is one of the worst right turns in the Shire. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah, true. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Then the next question is, if there's going to be stoplights, where will they go so that if the traffic doesn't back up past here, when this is red, and these people ... I'm sure you've thought about that, but is that something that you think about when doing a development
00:32:00 application? Speaker 3: Just to give an overview of the traffic management review. Speaker 6: Yeah. Okay. So we sent this to our external consultant, and it also went to the main roads department. This is their jurisdiction, this road. So we encouraged the applicant to look at using Diamond Lane. We went to our external traffic consultant. Okay. He wasn't convinced that that was the right way to go, but they looked at that opportunity. And it came back that, as a whole, it was better to spread the traffic out coming from the development, rather than pushing it down either Diamond Lane coming one way from west to east, or east to west. That type of future planning hasn't really ...
00:33:00 Yeah. ... been undertaken at this point. So the main roads department came back and said that they were happy with whatever their future planning was for the intersection of Diamond Street and Elm Street, with the addition of the medium strip opposite this direction as a left in, left out, because there wasn't the sight lines and the safety to turn right into Diamond Street. So it was more about spreading the traffic out, rather than funnelling it into specific laneways or streets around this area. Councillor Jurisevic: So traffic leaving this site will not be enabled to turn right, that's a result of the stuff that main roads have required to be built in the way of medians to prevent that, right? Speaker 6: That's right. And that's part of the main roads' assessment as well, is to whether they felt it was safe, and how the intersection would work as well.
00:34:00 Councillor Lorentson: So it's, I think, Holland Traffic Consulting. Correct. They were the ones that undertook this report. So their report, when I read it, said that they consider the increase in traffic logging to be minor, not problematic. Can we hold them to that? Or can we revert to this? But can we ask them to revert to this? Can we ask for a review of that, at least as a condition of the application, so that on the on-chance that COVID produces another 3,000 residents in the Cooroy precinct, and given that the Gem Life development is coming to Council for approval, is there an opportunity for us to ask for a revision of that report and make that a condition of the Speaker 6: application? Our external... The applicant's name... The applicant provides us with all the information they feel is required, and then if needed,
00:35:00 we will then go out and have that reviewed. So it's the professional opinion of our external consultant to say that what the applicant is providing is within the guidelines or relevant standards, et cetera, et cetera. I think to provide a condition that this development will not... Will retain its minor increase in traffic would be an unreasonable condition to impose. Councillor Lorentson: But a revision of a traffic plan, not just... Speaker 1: No, we can't do it, because conditions have to have certainty for the developer. Okay. So they have to be finite, so they know when they have an approval, and they're going to start construction, the goalposts aren't going to change. So we can't ask for a review in the future, we really have to make that assessment now,
00:36:00 and make the best decision we can based on the information we have. And that's what we've done. We've had the applicant's traffic engineer review it, we have had an external traffic engineer, in this instance, Main Roads has also reviewed it, so this is based on the best information we have today. Speaker 3: What they do is to look at, I'll call it carrying capacity, what's the capacity of the number of vehicles that come in and out, and then look at how that impacts on the traffic network in that area based on various models, and so they've all three of them had a look at it, come up with the same conclusion. Right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, a couple of things. I think Councillor Wegener's comment, firstly history, I think the hotel that went down, if you're talking about the historic one, was on the corner, where the service station is. The motel that was demolished is on that corner between Elm and Opal Street, and my recollection is the major access to that development is from Opal Street, but there is a secondary
00:37:00 access off Diamond Lane for a couple of uses at the back. When we look at traffic in this area, we have to remember this at one stage was the sole route in and out of Croy, and it was the Bruce Highway. Just having a quick look, I would suggest that Diamond Street was designed so that a Bullock Drage could do a U-turn, it means it's 40 metres wide. Probably. So if you look at a 40 metre wide road, that was designed in the old days to, I know Maple speaks like this, so a Bullock Drage could come in town and do a U-turn. And so there is actually a very wide road reserve to be able to cater in terms of turning lanes, parking. So there probably isn't that significant issue about trying to squeeze in a manoeuvring width and loss of car parking, et cetera, so to me, yes, there is probably a potential that people doing a loop through Kauri Street will affect it, but I suppose the nature of this being the commercial centre of, part of the commercial centre of Croy, always means
00:38:00 there will be some increased traffic as the town develops. Yeah. Speaker 1: I think Kauri Street has quite a bit of traffic now with people circulating, and I think that once we see that Diamond Street, Elm Street intersection upgraded, that will potentially reduce that somewhat, because the intersection will function better, and people are trying to avoid that intersection at the moment. Councillor Wilkie: Could that intersection involve a U-turn? Could that intersection potentially involve a U-turn for Diamond Street, Elm Street? That would be up to... Yeah. Okay. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. . Given the image on page 26 reflects a possible usage of the left-hand side building as a convenience store, is that in due to something being large enough for a small-scale supermarket, i.e. IGA or Aldi? Because I know at Aldi, there has been talk of something like an Aldi or a supermarket,
00:39:00 at least a small-scale supermarket, going on this side. I didn't look at the actual floor area. Yes. Yeah. You haven't looked at it yet. I'm wondering about the volume of traffic that may use it. It's going to be a supermarket in town. The potential for traffic is significant. Speaker 6: It's 350 square metres, Councillor. I'm not sure if someone like Aldi, I'm not sure if that would be a large enough footprint for Aldi. I wouldn't think so. But it would be a small-scale, very small-scale boutique type. Speaker 1: And I think, you know, the current owner owns the other supermarkets in town, so I think that, oh, I don't know what goes in here. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. I'll look it up. Okay. So that's where it might be. Speaker 1: Yeah. And I think there is probably a need for a bit of a convenience store on this side of town for a restaurant as well. Councillor Jurisevic: I was wondering what scale of convenience store it was going to be. If it's going to be that small, it's probably not going to be. Speaker 1: Yeah. I wouldn't have any concerns about it.
00:40:00 That's all right. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I note, and I think it's quite unusual, that the developer in this instance, and I commend him for it, took in consideration existing tenancies and businesses around this precinct. So there's to avoid duplication of services. And to me, that's someone that's part of a community and someone who understands how successful businesses are run. So I commend that and I encourage that for all developers because duplication services and businesses results in shutdowns. Yeah. Speaker 1: Yeah. I think I agree with you. I think the developer has a real passion and this application has been in with us for some time. And one thing we haven't spoken about is the design of the building. And there was a lot of work done with the developer's agreement to come up with a design that would fit in with this area. Because it was actually very hard to design for, given the sort of mix matching development in that strip.
00:41:00 So I think great job to the developer in pursuing and keeping with that to come up with a design that was going to work for the site. I agree. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And to follow up, the other part we haven't mentioned is the fact that it is a great demonstration of both the typical character and sort of, you know, reflection of the vernacular. But also the fact that it's also built in for two bedroom units. So we've got that desire within the Noosa Plan 2020 that our business centres have a residential component. So we start building life into all our little business centres and large business centres and in what I hope is a good trend that is economically viable for the future. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I thought that's where it started in, you know, country towns having a shop with living above it. Councillor Wilkie: Now, Councillor, given this is coming back Thursday night, there's an opportunity for more questions and discussion then. Are you happy to move this motion and move on to the agenda? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can we have a seconder, please? He was suggesting that. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, all in favour?
00:42:00 It's carried. Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Okay. Speaker 6: That's done. Speaker 2: That's done? Speaker 1: No. Good. Councillor Wilkie: We're now up to item two on the agenda, which is the development application for material change of use for an extension to a shop hire and storage building at Jetty 256, Kinty Terrace, Noosaville. This has been referred from page 29 of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting agenda. Councilors, any questions for staff? Councilor Jett. Councillor Jurisevic: Figure six on page 34. 2018, 19 and 20. The reach of the jetty doesn't appear to have
00:43:00 changed. But I'm trying to clarify some of the comments within the report, but also the drawings as to where the boats that tie up at the end of that jetty are or are not fitting within the lease area. There's 19 that sort of says half the boats are, and 20 that says none of the boats are. Yet it seems to be the same footprint as far as the jetty goes. Speaker 6: There's 2.4 metres from the head of the jetty to the outside of the lease area. Councillor Jurisevic: So those boats would typically be within the lease area? Yes. That's all right. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you. That doesn't appear to show that in those drawings. Speaker 1: Yeah. There's a note in the report that notes that the cadastra and the aerials don't line up exactly. Councillor Jurisevic: It's clarification. Any more questions? It's fine.
00:44:00 Councillor Lorentson: Kerry. Hello. Kerry, if the enclosure was to be approved, would the extra GFA, which is 11.4 square metres, attract car parking infrastructure fees? And if so, how much? Speaker 1: Yes. So the car parking rate for a shop is one space per 20 square metres. So yes, it would attract a car space. And we... Council has a... No. ...contributions in lieu of on-site car parking. So the developer, if Council was to support this, could ask the developer to enter into an infrastructure agreement to pay that contribution. And from memory, I think it's $15,000 per car space for Noosaville. But that was a few years ago, so it's subject to CPI. Councillor Lorentson: So would that be done on a pro rata basis, given that the area proposed to be enclosed is almost half 20 square metres?
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 It's 11.42. Speaker 1: It's not. It could be. That would be Council's decision. It's not typically. You know, you can't have half a car parking space. Once you sort of get the pathway, you actually contribute to the full parking space. But that would be a decision Council could make to pro rata that contribution, if they wish to support this. Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Just to clarify, what is the definition of gross forward area? Speaker 1: So we do have the definition ready for you, just so we can show Council this. But essentially, gross forward area is about whatever is roofed and is enclosed by walls. So that's the definition there. But yeah, at the moment, there's a roofed area, but it's not enclosed by walls, and they're now looking to enclose that by walls, so it becomes gross forward area. Mayor Stewart: So it's currently not considered gross forward area? No, because it's only roofed. It's not enclosed. So it's one out of two. Speaker 1: That's right. So it's site cover, because it's roofed.
00:46:00 Yep. But it's not gross forward area, because it has no walls. Mayor Stewart: But it's not, yeah, they're not looking to make it any bigger, are they? They're just Speaker 1: looking to enclose. No, it's within the roofed, under that roofed area. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. So gross forward area versus site cover. Speaker 3: Site cover, imagine if you look from the top view, you know, what's the area of the roofline, or the building that's from the area. Gross forward area is if you look at what's enclosed. Councillor Lorentson: So buildings on water. So it's built on the jetty. That's, GFA refers to that enclosure as well. Yes. It doesn't change whether it's on water or land. It's still gross forward area. Mayor Stewart: As long as there's walls. Yeah. Kerry, I went down there yesterday afternoon to have a look, late yesterday afternoon, and it seemed to me they had at full capacity with all their boats. I mean, some of these pictures show. One of the concerns in here was that an increase in size would potentially increase the business and increase, I guess, the usage of the river system and that sort
00:47:00 of thing. Is that still a concern for you, considering that when I was there, it was at, I mean, I don't think they could fit any other boat or vessel or jet ski there. It was at full capacity. Is that a concern? Speaker 1: It is a concern. And what we're seeing with this business and its history of compliance issue is it's not just operating at full capacity, it's actually operating beyond that. That boats and kayaks and so forth are being stored outside the lease area. So that is of concern. And I think, you know, part of the reason why they're looking for additional storage space with this application, because they're not just operating at capacity, they're outside of that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If I could ask Glenn to make available a couple of those photos, it gives sort of the demonstration of that. Certainly over the years I've been here, I've received a number of complaints about.
00:48:00 So, yeah, that's operating well outside those boundaries. But into the park, you know, I've, you know, once again, areas outside what appear to be outside the lease being used. I know I've had complaints about people, children being chased off the beach as all the jet skis come in and land on the beach. I've had others in terms of just the lack of use. And I suppose the key thing for me in this argument is we set limits. We've gone through a very extended process with the community and. So it sounds like you're going into. Oh, good point. Yes, I am. Yeah. So I suppose that these photos demonstrate to me what the. Councillor Wilkie: Well, was there a question in there? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I did. Yes. Can you show the photos?
00:49:00 Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, any question? We are here not to make a start. Mayor Stewart: When I went down there, I was asking about the infringement notices. And the reply was that in the infringement, and I think we all received this information that in 2019, the three infringements within four days were because the owner was under the belief that under DERM, they are allowed to do one thing within council and change its policy. And they weren't aware of it. They weren't aware of that. And that's why they got the infringement notices. Is that correct? Speaker 1: Well, I can't speak to what the owner believes, but certainly the lease has a condition on the lease that says all commercial operations have to be within the lease area. So that the lease is with DERM. It's a state lease. So it's not just council requirement. And certainly in recent times, there's been joint audits with the state and with council officers asking these businesses to ensure all their activities are located within the lease and
00:50:00 not outside. And this is one business, we've listed a number of non-compliances, but this is one business that offices regularly see operating outside its lease area. Mayor Stewart: Has there been any complaint, any infringements since January 19, Kerry? Speaker 6: I'd have to look into that one, councillor. Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jones? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I was interested to read, we actually received an email from the operator of the business with regard to the reasons behind asking for more. Part of the reasoning is associated around COVID and the need for cleaning and additional life jackets and sanitising and having room to hang these out to dry. If the areas were to be fully enclosed or enclosed in some form, would that be a problem? Yeah, that's a good question. If the areas were to be fully enclosed or enclosed in some sort of a cage-type material, i.e. cyclone fencing or the like, to at least allow secure
00:51:00 and safe storage and drying, would that constitute gross floor area if it was more of a temporary fencing nature, at least in compliance with COVID? Is that a compromise that might be able to be achieved? Speaker 1: Well, council's been supporting many businesses with temporary measures. So I would say that's one of the reasons why they couldn't have a rack that they wheel out of the building each day potentially with their life jackets hanging on that. So that would certainly be an option for them. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, an element of security, if life jackets were just out there in the open, perhaps that they may be removed. I'm thinking from a security perspective. I mean, if it was caged as opposed to enclosed, would that be a difference in the appetite? Speaker 1: Well, we can certainly talk to them about... I think we need to separate what's potentially permanent and what is temporary. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I'm trying to achieve in my head and whether that's something to...
00:52:00 Speaker 1: Yeah. So temporary things shouldn't be given a development approval. That's something we can have a separate discussion with about some arrangements for them to cope during this period and what they need during this time to operate. I have to be careful about putting and enshrining in a development approval a cage. I think that could look quite ordinary on the riverfront, but certainly we could talk to them about temporary measures, but do that outside the development application process. Speaker 3: I'm just wondering if security was an issue, whether that would be... Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 3: Thank you. I just directed that. I mean, the development application process is a temporary approval. Councillor Jurisevic: No, I agree. I understand that. I understand that. I'm trying to see whether a development application is necessary if some other alternative could be sought or whether something of that structure would need a development application. And the answer is if there were temporary measures, perhaps not. And it might be something that could be incorporated if it had the correct type of appearance on the riverfront. Speaker 1: Yeah. We could certainly talk to them about temporary measures outside the development Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to be talking to them this afternoon. It's something I wanted to have in my head.
00:53:00 Councillor Wilkie: Can I ask a question? Did the applicant come to seek campaign advice, either over the account or through a pre-lodgement meeting, where it would have been laid out pretty clearly that under the NUSA planning scheme, Waterways Works Code, that no increase in gross floor area is permitted on these leases? Speaker 1: No, there was no... Councillor Wilkie: Did he come to get that advice before the application was lodged? Speaker 1: No. There was no pre-lodgement meeting. No advice. Councillor Wilkie: So the first thing you were aware of was the application. That's right. Councillor Lorentson: Just to further what Joe's talking about, which is looking at solutions under COVID response support, and Anthony, maybe a question to you. Would outdoor roll-up weatherproof blinds in that front area, would that be something that Council would entertain as a temporary measure to accommodate?
00:54:00 Speaker 1: I think we can be open to talking about a range of options that might be temporary for him. I'm not sure what his needs are, and he's probably best placed to talk to us about what he needs on a temporary basis. Whether it's blinds or... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I suppose one of the other contributing considerations is where we got to, is that in terms of the Noosaville foreshore master plan, and it might be good for Dennis just to outline whether... There was a lot of consultation with the community, one of the biggest sort of participation rates we had. I suppose the question is, is the feedback we got and the settings in the Noosaville foreshore master plan consistent with the view of planning staff that we should be limiting the growth of commercial use on the foreshore?
00:55:00 Dennis, come up with it. Thanks. Thanks for the answer. That'd be great. Speaker 2: The foreshore plan was completed in May 2018, and its focus wasn't on the built form per say of the jetties and the boat sheds, but it did look at the encroachment of commercial uses onto the foreshore. So one of the key principles of the foreshore master plan was that commercial encroachment didn't occur beyond the lease boundaries. So that was certainly enshrined in the plan and carried through into the planning scheme. Councillor Wilkie: And just to be clear, the applicant is not asking for an increase in the lease area? Speaker 2: Correct. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. We have a question for Dennis about the Noosaville foreshore plan. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, I will. So under the Noosaville foreshore plan, Dennis, land use criteria permits a single kiosk
00:56:00 for all the commercial leases, where it's okay for a small scale ancillary type use, whether it's a shop or even a coffee shop is allowed. So is that contrary or does it contradict the outcome of what we refer to as like an accumulated impact on commercial use? Yeah, I'm thinking is there a contradiction in one, in one instance, we're saying it's okay to have a 10 square metre coffee shop or shop that sits 10 people. And then in another breath, we're saying that under the Noosa River plan as well, and under the Noosa foreshore plan, we're saying that we've got to limit commercial activity. Speaker 2: It was a hot topic at the time of embarking on the foreshore master plan. The coffee use had sort of been introduced and continued to grow between the various
00:57:00 commercial leases and it was sort of one up and ship in a way of these businesses were getting larger and larger and also spilling out onto the foreshore. So the foreshore plan sought to sort of broker an acceptable outcome for the community in relation to the scale of those coffee businesses. And that fit directly into that. The new planning scheme. Speaker 1: But it was all about using existing space, not creating additional space. So just about if you wanted to convert part of your existing storage area to sell a few coffees, then the foreshore management plan was supportive of that. It wasn't saying you can then now have an additional 10 square metres had to be within that existing. Within the leasing. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, are you finished? Yes, thank you. Can I ask what would be the staff's opinion if there was a C attached to this recommendation that read something along the lines with staff to meet with the applicant to discuss temporary
00:58:00 alternative solutions to storage due to COVID restriction requirements? Speaker 1: Yeah, that would be appropriate. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Are you moving that motion? Well, I will when the council's finished. I will move that. Yeah. I'll see you. Speaker 3: I'm just a bit worried. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. So it's request staff to meet with the applicant to discuss temporary alternative solutions to storage issues due to the COVID restriction requirements. Councillor Lorentson: And I would add and assist in- In providing COVID safe environment for his staff and employees. So there's two issues here, storage and office space. Solutions to storage. Yeah. Social distancing. Yeah. Solutions to storage. Storage and staff issues.
00:59:00 And staff. And staff. Yeah. Just all. Yeah. Staff working conditions. Speaker 3: Just ask the word storage, Kylie, in the second line there. And staffing. And staff safety issues. Councillor Lorentson: Safe. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: That's a big part of this. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would it be better just rather than restricting health directive requirements or something like that? Yeah. I'm happy with that. Speaker 3: That's- That's sufficient what you've got now. Okay. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a second? Seconded by Brian. Okay. Yeah. Councillor Sire, I think we're all, we sympathise with what the applicant is trying to achieve.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 I think it's best that staff go and meet with him to find solutions as contained in Section C. Councillor Jurisevic: Question, can I clarify, I'm assuming with an application being in here, the applicant has lodged the fees and all that associated with a development applicant, yeah? Speaker 1: That's right. Speaker 3: The council's spent time and effort assessing that. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'm just wondering why that wasn't, I'm assuming there was no pre-lodgement meeting, that there was no pre-lodgement discussion? Speaker 3: No, there was no pre-lodgement. Speaker 1: Yeah, there was no pre-lodgement. And also the issue of COVID and the need for this storage really wasn't raised in the application. It was all about just needing additional storage space.
01:01:00 So the reason given around COVID has just come to light now. Councillor Jurisevic: I guess I'll ask our economic team manager, was the issue of a COVID safe working environment or storage needs raised by the applicant before they put in a development application? Not at all. It's a shame that a conversation wasn't had earlier. They might have prevented the cost of a time associated. Okay. Mayor Stewart: I'll speak to the motion to you. Look, I agree with Councillor Wilkie's amendment. I went down and saw the space yesterday. It's very small. They are concerned about the COVID restrictions. There are 12 staff employed. Recently, in the last few years, Australian Maritime Safety Authority, or AMSA, increased the necessity for every person hiring a boat to have a life jacket. That wasn't the case a few years prior to, which has increased the use of life jackets.
01:02:00 It's also increased the number of life jackets. There is now the COVID requirements of having to clean them. And this isn't just that people aren't just taking boats out for a whole day. They're taking them out for a couple of hours. So the turnover is creating a lot more, you know, a lot more life jackets coming in and needing space for them. They've also flagged the idea that there are flagged the notion that there were long queues with people waiting because the space is small. The social distancing requirements are hard to adhere to. The space is very small and at times they can have a number of people working in the shop or waiting. So I think this, look, none of us want to see overuse of the river. We're all very much, you know, on the same page when it comes to restricting the commercial usage of the river and maintaining it for our residents. So, but I think this is a really good motion. I think this is, this is something that, you know, shows that we're willing to work with the applicant. And so I support it wholeheartedly. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison.
01:03:00 I'll speak to this one. This has been a difficult decision for me. The applicant, UGD, has requested what I consider a minor extension to shop, hire and storage building. The area is minor. It's 7.6 metres for a bigger office and shop and 3.8 square metres at the back of the shop that's going to be used for storage. Again, what he's requesting is minor and his reasons are actually valid. Increased regulation has meant increased light, increases in life jacket numbers and safety equipment. And COVID has meant that staff are to work in a COVID safe environment. The extra space achieves both objectives. We've got a local economic development plan that's aimed in supporting existing businesses that contribute to our economy. And here we have a business that does just that. This is a 14 year old business that employs 12 staff and have come to us for support.
01:04:00 But, and I say but. But allowing it to expand and operate from outside the existing lease area onto public land is not how we do this. And more importantly, it does not support other existing businesses who follow the rules. If we approve this application, we do undermine the Noosa plan and make a mockery of the Noosaville foreshore plan and Noosa river plan, which make clear that the foreshore is a public space. The Noosaville foreshore plan states that, commercial businesses along the foreshore do not encroach onto public land and remain wholly within commercial jetty leases or freehold lock boundaries. Public lands must be preserved for the benefit of the community and generations in the future. These lands are quote fundamental to our social, economic and environmental well-being and must be protected. If we approve this application, we put at risk all public land, our beaches, our paths and our waterways.
01:05:00 So, councillors, I'm not prepared to do this and I support council's recommendation to refuse the application and support council Wilkie's recommendation that the applicant reaches out to council to look at alternate solutions for storage and providing COVID safe working environment for his staff. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jones. Question for start. If this application were to be approved, can the uses on those extended areas be restricted to item white storage? Is there any way that the purpose of the room can be conditioned? Speaker 1: Yes, council can. I think we need to be a little bit mindful though, that the new rules are going to be in place. The use of plan does allow, you know, those spaces to be converted without a development application for food and drink outlets.
01:06:00 That was my next point. Councillor Jurisevic: That was the next part of the question. Yeah. Yeah. So, yes, we could, we could convert them, but there's, we could condition them, but there's no guarantee that that use. Yeah, I think the condition. Because there'd be no requirement for a further application to change the use of that. Speaker 1: Yeah. Is that correct? Councillor Wegener: I think, you know, it's the only, I think, one of the things that's been passed in my lifetime that you could rent a boat from any of those places without a life jacket. I don't think, I don't think the regulations would have changed concerning having to have more life jackets on the premise now than before because historically, whenever you rent anything, kayak, any sort of boat, you have to have a life jacket. So just a fact to check up on where you might want to ask about if that's actually the case because it's been rolled around a couple of times here that all of a sudden there's new regulations because they have to have more life jackets. I doubt that.
01:07:00 Councillor Wilkie: Just to clarify, the email we received this morning suggested that you need more life jackets because you need to clean some while others are in use due to COVID requirements. Is that not something you haven't required before? You just need more now? Speaker 1: That's my reading of the email that councillors received this morning. Councillor Lorentson: I also got some information saying in 2017 I think the Maritime Safety Act actually stipulated that there was this increased requirements and I actually had a look and did some research on it and once upon a time I think that if you had a vessel you actually didn't need life jackets. There's a word neutral buoyancy. They refer to. So 2017, 2016, 2017 there were actual changes that did not request, require that all high vessel operators increase the number of life jackets. So it became one per person instead of none per boat. And also safety equipment. So there was also an increase in safety equipment.
01:08:00 Mayor Stewart: So Tom, does that answer your question? Australian Maritime Safety Authority, I think it was under. Councillor Wegener: Okay, yeah, that's very, that's new news to me. Yeah, that's very interesting. I wanted to bring it up because it was in the back of my mind. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Maybe a difference between state and Australian legislation as well because there would have been state legislation around life. Councillor Wilkie: So we'll take that as a question, Tom. Do you want to speak to the motion at all? No. No, thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, so understand I think the inclusion of C is a good indication of preparedness to address the emergent needs of this business. I think the planning case and the planning principle is what's at stake. Councillor Lorentson mentioned a business of 14 years and maybe the current owners haven't had it for 14 years.
01:09:00 But I, first time I got a sale of the Hobie Cat was from this establishment. In the early 80s and back then it employed one person who slept most of the day. So it's a much smaller enterprise that when the lease was actually offered and obviously the benefit economy is now it's employing more people. But at the same time, the history of compliance on this site has been the most significant of any business. And now that some mention has been made about it's only a small increase. So councillors, the existing building is only 18.3 metres square. If approved, this would be 162% increase in the gross floor area. 62% increase over the existing. So it is a significant increase which would be able to be used to significantly increase the commercial activity.
01:10:00 We've heard that there's an ability once it is approved to convert it into part of that to other commercial uses under the NUSA plan 2020. So to me, the principle is, as it should be, that we in NUSA base all our tourism to be based on the carrying capacity and the capacity on the river is within what is there now. And I think operating the business within the lease area, we wish them all the success they can have. But I think this principle of not increasing gross floor area and commercial use on the NUSA river is a very important one. And that's why I agree with the recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? I think it's all been said. In closing, I think it would be fair to say that the applicant has had challenges in containing the commercial uses within the leasing area.
01:11:00 Just to clarify, he's not seeking an increase in the lease area as part of this application. But it does involve an application for an increase in gross floor area, which is contrary to the NUSA planning scheme, which contains the aspirations of the community that commercial development does not increase on the river. And I look forward to hearing back from staff about what solutions you're able to arrive at in negotiation and discussion with the applicant. The motion goes in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you. The next item three is the debt refinancing investigation. It came direct from New Services and Organisation community meeting due to the significance of the issue. Welcome, Michael. If there's any questions, Claire. Mayor Stewart: Michael, I asked this question in the earlier meeting.
01:12:00 But I'll do it again now, maybe more for the people at home and perhaps some of the councillors who weren't at that meeting. On page eight of the Services and Organisation Committee agenda, the new initiative announced by the Queensland Government allows the early repayment adjustment to be funded either by cash and or debt or a combination of the two, where previously an ERA had to be paid for by cash. Can you just explain this again to us? Speaker 4: Sure. So basically, this isn't too dissimilar to a normal person looking at refinancing their debt. The banks, you know, generally like to, you know, they have to borrow funds from various sources. And if there is a request to refinance, then there's usually a cost involved with that. And that's no different here. Previously, the government of Queensland Treasury. If councillors wanted to refinance their debt, they had to, any adjustment associated with that debt or an early payment adjustment or a fee that had to be paid upfront.
01:13:00 Where given COVID and the cash flow pressures on local government at the moment, this initiative allows that to be effectively capitalised as part of the refinancing and then paid off over the life of a new loan term. Great. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: So what are the two options? I notice we've chosen the second option to recapitalise. Why was that option chosen as opposed to using cash? I don't know the answer to it, do you? Yeah. Speaker 4: Look, the reality is if you look over a 20 year life of a refinance, if you look over 20 years of refinancing, of refinancing our debt, there is technically no net benefit in terms of interest savings.
01:14:00 Because over 20 years, interest from a 1.7% loan to a net five, average five is the same because the loan term is increasing. So you're paying interest for longer. Why are we doing this? It's all about the current uncertainty in the global and local environments in terms of the economy. So, you know, and we've worked on this. We've just gone through a really difficult budget. You know, a lot of uncertainty, a lot of cash flow modelling from Trent and through finance to make sure that we are sustainable in the short term. This exercise is to actually, you know, contribute towards that. So actually, you know, free up some cash in the short term over the next five years, which will then, you know, Council still needs to do things. So it's using that cash potentially either as a buffer. If there is any economic challenges we face in the next few years or potentially for
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 investment. We need to invest in the local economy, which we have been doing to continue that investment approach, then we are freeing up cash to do that. The thing to note probably wasn't made clear in my report was, you know, there's a $3 million cost here, however, which will be passed on to ratepayers post year 10. So year 10. It's 10 to 20. It's effectively $3 million more of loans that have to be repaid. However, in our view, the short term benefits outweigh the longer term cost. And that's why we're recommending to do that. Speaker 3: And I might just ask Michael a sort of follow up question in relation to, you know, in 10 years time, if interest rates are at 5% and the Council's got fair cash, we could pay off that outstanding balance earlier if we wanted to, the 1 to 1.7. Speaker 4: It's all forecasting. As Councils know, things change. However, based on our current model, the numbers are the numbers.
01:16:00 In our view, this is a prudent, again, part of our prudent financial management of the Shire, which we've been doing for the last five years. Councillor Jurisevic: Having said that, Mr. CEO, any early payment doesn't come without a cost. And there's still a cost associated with an early payment. Because the borrower, of course, would expect the full amount of their interest over time. So there is still a cost associated with an early payment. Speaker 3: Yeah, at the moment, though, most of that payment, Michael, correct me if I'm wrong, is on the basis that we're coming from a higher interest rate to a lower interest rate. We're going the other way. There might be a benefit in the future time. Just clarify that. Councillor Lorentson: On page 13, Michael, total cash on hand at the end of November was $65 million. As you just alluded, we've got strong cash reserve. How does that compare with our neighbouring councils? Thank you. Speaker 4: No idea. Mayor Stewart: Oh, sorry.
01:17:00 It's services and organisation. Oh, excuse me. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Back to the blue book. Councillor Lorentson: The blue book. Yeah, the blue book. Sorry. Thank you, ma'am. Councillor Wilkie: We want to go there, too. That's a great one. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. Sorry, Michael. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Councillor Harper. Yeah, I suppose, once again, the benefit of short-term cash reserves versus, say, loaning at the current is that cash reserves can be used for any use, whereas if we didn't do this and we needed to loan money, we'd have to use cash reserves. If we didn't do this and we needed to loan money in future years, we'd be restricted to capital items. Is that one of the key considerations? Correct. Speaker 3: And I wish I could borrow $1.7 million. So do we all. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wish I had $65 million cash reserves. Councillor Jurisevic: I just want to clarify something in the figures, if I may.
01:18:00 The chart on table two says the total reduced annual repayment, and in the report, by either the ERA funded by debt or funded by cash, it's $2.4 million annually. Over a 20-year loan, that's $40 million in a reduction of a $23 million debt. Is that right? Speaker 4: No. The repayment is just one component of a loan. So you've got the interest component as well. So there's interest and repayment equal. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So it's equal. So that's the interest. That's the actual. So that's actually paying off the debt. Speaker 4: Correct. Councillor Jurisevic: So that's the debt and interest would accumulate. Okay. Sorry. Yeah. I understand the figure now. Sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Michael, the amount of debt inherited at de-amalgamation is about $40 million. Is that correct? Yeah. And the table on page nine mentions the de-amalgamation transfer debt is $16 million.
01:19:00 The rest has been, it's recent loans that we've taken off. Speaker 4: Correct. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So it's basically, we've effectively halved our debt. Yes. We have. Since 2014. Speaker 3: Yes. And maybe just to benefit the new council, with that de-amalgamation debt, it's not what it cost to do the de-amalgamation. What that was for is that Sunshine Coast had a debt and we apportioned roughly 20%, Michael, 20% of that debt was then apportioned to Noosa because a lot of that money had been incurred during the amalgamation year. So it was a fair allocation of that debt that we then inherited as part of the Sunshine Coast Council debt. But it wasn't the cost of doing the de-amalgamation. It was just, you'd like to split the bank accounts when you get a divorce and split the debt. Similar sort of thing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So at the time- Councillor Lorentson: So this is evidence that the New South Wales Council didn't have the capacity to repay that debt.
01:20:00 This is evidence that we do. On page 14, we're on track. Yeah. Speaker 3: Yes. Sorry. In fact, we made an extra one last year. Mayor Stewart: It's 10 million last year, wasn't it? Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 4: Look, we've got, we've had two reviews by Queensland Treasury over the last six years and we're in a sound financial position and got good capacity to continue that way. So it's, I think we're in a good spot. Speaker 1: Thanks, Michael. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor, anyone care to move that? Move Councillor Stewart. Seconded Councillor Wegener. Thank you. Councillor Stewart, would you speak to her? Mayor Stewart: No. I just, I mean, I think this is very self-explanatory. I think that, you know, thank you for your hard work, Michael, and, you know, Queensland Treasury Corporation clearly indicates, you know, or understands, you know, the pressures of COVID on small councils. So I think the refinance at 1.7%, as Brett said, I think anyone in Australia would love
01:21:00 that interest rate. So I think it's a great thing. And thank you. These numbers are very sound. So thank you to you and Trent and all the team for your hard work. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you. Now the councillors speak. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. I'd just like to highlight how great it is to be in local government where one minute you're discussing an 11-square-metre storage area that needs a refinancing of $23 million. Mayor Stewart: Never done one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And one takes an hour and the other one takes five minutes. Speaker 4: Like the government right there. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you, Mike, for the investigation and hard work on this. Thank you. It is a very prudent decision. Make use of very low interest rates. 1.7. Refinancing the debt at 1.7 as opposed to 5.4%. Makes good sense. It will free up cash when needed over the next five years. I guess the discipline for councillors is not to spend it just because it's there. But it does give us that capacity to absorb any shocks that may be coming our way. And the next budget, as you said, will be a very tough one already.
01:22:00 Thank you. No, I won't close it. We'll see. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. The next item is item four, which is tourism newsletters exemption request for the provision of alcohol for temporary events during COVID-19 pandemic. Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as I'm the board director of young care, who are the beneficiary of the funds raised from the young care lunch event for which tourism newsletters are applying for the exemption request. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will leave the room while this matter is being considered and voted on. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you.
01:23:00 Hello Jill, good to see you, hello Clint, hello Frank, good to see you. Do we have any questions Deputy Mayor Stockwell: for staff, councillors. Clarification. I know what a high tea is and I know what a soiree is, but what's a high tea soiree that's got licence. It's a hybrid. Mayor Stewart: Drinking Long Island ice to it. I think they probably have champagne and orange juice with it as well as having tea. So to clarify, would it be fair to characterise Councillor Wilkie: this motion when we pass it as a giving in principle support for these high tea soirees. I think what they've done is they've set a rule in the Senate to have these trials be lodged, these applications, temporary event permits involving alcohol to be lodged and assessed. It's not approval at this point. It's in principle approval for these applications to be lodged. And then they'll be assessed.
01:24:00 Speaker 5: That's right. Yeah, it's two parts to it. This is considering an exemption for the provision of alcohol. Council needs to consider that exemption. And then the assessment of the actual event is a separate process. Councillor Wilkie: And can I ask what was it about the material you've received so far that reassured you that an exemption was the appropriate way to go? Speaker 5: Well, with regards to our items on page 5 and considering the previous report to Council as well in August, they've submitted all of the details required. It's been considered by the reference group. So it's addressed criteria there and satisfactorily addressed those criteria.
01:25:00 So the reference group was happy for this exemption to come to Council. Councillor Lorentson: Clint, can I ask, what's the processing timeframe? How long does an application like this take from start to finish? Speaker 5: Through you, Mr. Chair. Councillor, that is very much in the hands of the applicant to a large extent. The quicker that we get information in to help us begin an assessment, the quicker the turnaround can be. So it can be a matter of weeks. We have to do a stake. So as we receive information in, we then go to stakeholders, our internal stakeholders, because they involve road closures and other various. Components that need to be discussed within Council. Some of their organisers submit all that information all at once. So we're in a very good position to be able to begin an assessment quite early on. Others tend to dribble it in, if I can put it that way, and which makes the assessment a longer process.
01:26:00 So to answer the question, generally speaking, it's the quicker. The quicker they get the information in for us to assess, the better. It's hard to give you a precise answer, but it can be a couple of weeks. Once we've gone through the stakeholder assessment, it can be very quick. Councillor Lorentson: So a couple of weeks. So that's my next question. So if they wanted to fast track it, they've got that opportunity to accelerate that process. Is there? Speaker 5: Well, through you, Mr. Chair. Councillor, they're fast tracking it now because we're receiving the information. So as of last week, the information is now flowing in. So Jill is in a very good position now to be able to do an assessment. And the information is going out to stakeholders, that has happened.
01:27:00 So depending on what the stakeholders say, we should be in a pretty good position to turn it around quickly. Okay. So as of last week, the information is flowing in, so I'm more confident now in giving a quick turnaround. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Joe and then Councillor Brian. Whilst this is the first application for an event outside of the current restrictions that we've got being brought to Council, is this the first application or a request for an event that you've received to be either serving alcohol under 500 people or, you know, in excess of 500 people? Speaker 5: Through you, Mr. Chair. This is the first one the reference group has considered to take forward. There has been other... With alcohol. With alcohol. There's been plenty of other events that we've approved without alcohol under the current restrictions that we have. Not the question I asked. Councillor Jurisevic: Within the restrictions, have there been other applications or approaches to serve alcohol
01:28:00 in events under 500 or to have more than 500 people at an event until the restrictions are lifted? As proposed to be reviewed in February. Speaker 5: Well, this is the first one with alcohol that we've considered. Okay. That's all I ask. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Right. And I suppose just to clarify, when we put the requirement in the policy, we said about no alcohol. It was with concern that events in public space, bars open to the public, lack of social distance, high likelihood of social distancing. Areas being compromised. People after a few drinks are more likely to shake hands. And this one is ticketed, seated and restricted to public access. So all those things, all those concerns about what the alcohol consumption might lead to have been managed in this environment and therefore why the exemption has been suggested.
01:29:00 Speaker 5: Yeah. Through you, Mr. Chair. That's correct. And we refer back to the criteria. There's a number of criteria. The current health advice from the state. So when the reference group, and it meets monthly, and it considers all of those criteria that are listed. So current health advice from the state is an important one as well. So what's the environment looking like in terms of infections and whatever else. But as we say in the report, overall, we think that this event probably is going to be a fairly low risk. Councillor Wilkie: I'm happy to move. Thank you. Moving to Councillor Stockwell. As a seconder, Councillor Jurisevic. Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, I think the rationale for providing this exemption is quite clear. Our policy at the moment is putting a strong priority on public health.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 And these two events, I think, have managed that to a point where the risk is minimised to an acceptable level. I think it's a good recommendation from staff. Councillor Wilkie: Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion? All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. Thanks to you. Thank you. Speaker 7: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Next item is the financial performance report for November. That's on page five of the general committee meeting agenda.
01:31:00 We have Clint and Michael here, manager of financial services and director of corporate services. Michael. Questions? Amelia. I've already asked my question. Councillor Lorentson: You only get one chance. I've got a... Yeah. In regards to our cash reserves. Kay, do you have anything to add to that? 13 of the report, Trent, notes that total cash on hand at the end of November was $65 million. And my question is, that seems very healthy. And how does it compare with other councils? Speaker 7: I think I'd start by saying it's not always easy to just take the dollar value at a snapshot point in time in our cash balance and simply compare that to your neighbouring council's either side. Is it a healthy balance? There's a couple of considerations. One is obviously, as you can see, it's not always easy to just take the dollar value at a snapshot point in time, but I think that we're going to see, by the graphs in the report, the balance does fluctuate quite significantly between rating cycles. So, we're midway through at the moment.
01:32:00 So, it will drop lower between now and January as we continue to chew through that cash, so to speak, operating capital expenditure. I just want to... I suppose, the best thing is to point out the... Some of the key performance indicators that are on page 15 of the report where we talk Cash cover and net financial liabilities ratio. And I think that's the key when we're doing comparison in terms of what is a healthy cash balance for different councils to have. And the cash cover is the key for us is that we want to be above that three months cash cover ratio. It's about making sure that we've got enough cash at any one point in time to continue to operate between three to six months if no other income were to come through the door. So for us, as you can see, we're quite high. We're well above the benchmarks there, which is quite healthy. Mayor Stewart: Just for the people at home, Trent, we're over three times the benchmark.
01:33:00 10.7 months versus three months. Speaker 7: Correct. So we're very healthy there. That's right. So even after, obviously, investment decisions last year to repay $10 million worth of debt early, and also obviously to allow for any uncertainty during this year in terms of capital, COVID and how that will impact the operations of some of our larger revenue earning business activities, such as waste management and community facilities and the holiday parks, we've still got quite a conservative cash buffer to cover us for those uncertain events or to reinvest into the community. So we are in a very good position from that perspective. Mayor Stewart: Trent, I've got a question. On page eight, we look at operating revenue. Compared budget compared to actual, we're 2.1 million, 2.8 million, sorry, more. Is that because of our parks have been open sooner rather than predicted?
01:34:00 Speaker 7: Primarily, it's due to the holiday parks and the community facilities, such as the NAC and the leisure centre that when we did the budget for this year, we obviously forecast that they would be closed for a period of time and then slowly ramping up again. But fortunately, so far this year, that hasn't been the case. We've been open the whole time, so it's primarily due to those facilities being open. Mayor Stewart: And our expense is down by $500,000, $400,000. Correct. What's that mainly due to? Speaker 7: There is obviously an element of it that's employee costs. So we've got some vacancies in positions and delays in recruitment for some positions during the year. Yeah. Now, obviously, there's been some offsetting backfill for casuals and overtime to cover some of that cost. But that obviously doesn't completely absorb the saving we've had from some of those vacancies. And the rest of this point in time is in relation to materials and services. So for some of our business activities, such as workshops, parks and landscapes, et cetera,
01:35:00 timing of their expenditure is scheduled to occur later in the year. For example, parks and landscape, the barbarous, their air maintenance and mulling works, I'm sure after our weekend of weather, we may even see a spike in that next month coming through. Councillor Lorentson: And there's also a spike, again, in legal costs. And I've spoken to Brett about it and quite excited to be told that we're undertaking a review of our governance branch. And we're considering looking at in-house councils. Speaker 3: Yeah, just maybe explain to the rest of the council. So we've, our governance branch, managed by Guy, has a lot of sort of competing interests at the moment. And our exec team had a look at that three, four weeks ago.
01:36:00 And we're doing a review of that area to have a look at what's the right mix, how the functions work. And included in that is a look at the legal services, whether we're better off having in-house lawyer or not, or what that might look like. It's only lawyers who can charge so much. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, will that be a general lawyer, Brett? Speaker 3: That's what the reviewer would look at. My gut feeling is that you wouldn't get a specialist planning lawyer in with two specialists, and that's where most of our expenditure is. You're probably better off with a generalist type lawyer to cover a lot of the other issues, but also then manage that part of the issue as well. In-house council. Yeah, that's what most other larger councils do, they tend to have some generalists in there, where in that sort of mid-range, it's whether we should have one or not. That's what that review is going to look at. Can you speak? Councillor Wilkie: Brian, did you go? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So a range of indicators is really good, but the one that's always probably a lead indicator of economic recovery or futures is your fees and charges.
01:37:00 And so I see that, you know, building, plumbing, and development applications are all above predicted, so that suggests that we're getting more applications or larger applications, probably more smaller applications that will result in local construction jobs in the coming months. Is that accurate? Well, that's a real listing of a swing, wasn't it? Speaker 4: Sorry, it hasn't really stopped. The building hasn't stopped. It was a little bit of a blip. It was a little bit of a blip back in, I mean, March, April, but it's kicked on, particularly up here. And we're starting to see it through the surge fees now for property transfers. It's a bit out of control at the moment in NUSA, and everyone wants to live here, and we'd like to know. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jurisdict. I just confirmed that the capital expenditure variance of $0.1 million is what we're seeing on.
01:38:00 In the next part of the report, further down in this, in the next item in this report, in page 24, are that 110, 110 in adjustments on page 24 on that page? Speaker 6: That's the next. Speaker 7: It's in the next item. They're different items. The year-to-date. The year-to-date is 110. Is that 0.1 million something? They're different items. Councillor Jurisevic: They are different items, right. Speaker 7: So, we are, in terms of year-to-date expenditure, we are 110,000, 0.1 million under budget for Capital Works, which over $35 billion is through, so it's good, but it's racking well. There's obviously some large Capital Works program items scheduled in to start construction later in the year. So, depending on timing of tenders and construction and weather, we'll see how that schedules out during the year.
01:39:00 Councillor Jurisevic: That's ahead of budget. Not behind budget. That's ahead of budget in that table. We've actually spent more. That just means we've done more work in the, than expected by the end, by this point in time. Speaker 4: Look, it's, you know, for every single project, the project managers have to do cash flow forecasting. So, it's... Councillor Jurisevic: That appears to me to be... Speaker 4: It's not exactly the exact sum that's trying to get the year-to-date budget exactly matching Councillor Jurisevic: the actual... And that appears to me that we're ahead of schedule, at least on schedule, we're ahead of schedule rather than behind. Speaker 4: Well, potentially, but I think a lot of the projects, I think there's a couple of big ones, Rupert Street's one that's probably tracking a little bit behind, but a lot of the COVID-related projects are all tracking well in terms of their speeds. Speaker 3: Sure. Councillor, the only other one I'll point out is Government Street, the rates and arrears. A bit like what Brian said in terms of early indicators of what's happening in the economy with development applications and plumbing, building and plumbing applications. This is one where things are really off track. We'd be getting a bond bill, but we're not.
01:40:00 But people are still paying the bill. It's interesting. In fact, it's probably a little bit ahead of where we've been previously. Councillor Lorentson: That's because their property prices have tripled in the last six months. Councillor Jurisevic: It doesn't mean you can still pay the bill. No, it doesn't. Councillor Lorentson: But there's confidence in the market. Councillor Wegener: But just with the building boom that's happening, in general, how does that money from the building out there transfer into the budget of our budget? How does it filter in to us? Because most of our money comes from rates and sidewalk dining in the holiday parks. But how does that filter in? Speaker 4: Development-wise, it comes through development application fees. So, when a developer wants to lodge an application, there's fees that they must pay council to do that assessment. There's building regulations. So, our building and plumbing team have fees that they charge to do the regulatory aspects of any building works. So, they have to pay for that.
01:41:00 So, that comes through. So, even if their private certifier type works, there's still a regulatory element that has to be assessed. And that's where we see council charging fees for those type of activities. So, they're probably the two major areas from memory where the development and building boom or activities flow through in terms of revenue and counselling for fees. Councillor Wegener: And do you feel confident that we have enough people on the ground or in council working with the builders to get those fees and to get it all happening fast and efficiently? Speaker 3: Well, they're not in my area, so I can't comment, but I assume so. The building and plumbing area has been under the pump at the moment. We've got a bit of a backlog, but they're working through that. I was talking to our manager there who thinks he'll have that cleared sort of late January or early September. Councillor Wilkie: Is that an acceptable timeframe just to see that? Speaker 3: Yeah, I think so.
01:42:00 They're getting all the urgent ones out and doing what they need to do. But it's the sort of thing where you get a quick spike and you've got to get through it. You can't sort of period staffing levels up to this to get one spike and then deal with it and be up here. So, they're geared up for what they call business as normal. They've got the spike now and they're just going to clear that over time. Councillor Wilkie: So, is that a spike that's been there since, well, this year? I know that every time we get a report like this, this building and plumbing and camp planning, they're way above budget in terms of expenses have been flat out. So, is it a spike that's become a plateau? Speaker 4: Oh, look, I think it's probably a component of this conservative budgeting, which we've all been talking about. It's not always done in terms of making sure that we generally realise upside in terms of revenue. We don't overestimate our revenues, which then can potentially flow through to underestimating general rate increases that we may need to fund general operations.
01:43:00 So, I think potentially you've got a combination where you've got conservative budgeting, but we know that things are hot at the moment. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Potentially needs to be more conservative in budgeting for a ... Yeah. We've been talking about that, but if we've been conservative, the surplus is likely to look better. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. And if the councillors just wish to move that motion. I'll move it. Move it. Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Finzel, Councillor Stewart. Mayor Stewart: No. Again, just thank you, Mark and Trent. This is really sound. It's where sort of the budgeting conservatively has worked very well. So, I mean, this is, every time we receive this, it seems that, you know, we're on track, and if not just on track, but, you know, things are ahead. So, that's good forecasting and good management. So, thank you very much for that. Councillor Wilkie: If I could just go on to that. Just point out before, cash is king. There's something you all were saying, Mike. $65 million of cash. That means, and even if there were no rates, fees or charges to come in from today, this council could still operate and provide all the services it does for another 10.7 months. It's a very good position to be in.
01:44:00 Again, it doesn't mean that when it comes down to that, half the time, the free councils can go crazy. No, that's right. Speaker 3: Can we just remember this moment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: When did the chairmanship role give you the job of being a killjoy? Councillor Wilkie: May I, Councillor, speak to the motion? No. All in favour? That's carried. And by line is the budget review to page 22 of the general committee agenda.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'll ask. I'll ask the board. I'll ask the board. The key criteria for budget reviews include point one, that council must ensure compliance with its financial sustainability policy targets. Note for 2021 adopted budget, one indicator will not be met due to COVID-19 impacts. What's the one indicator? Speaker 7: Operating surplus ratio. So, we're still at BR2. Councillor Jurisevic: I thought I'd reiterate what the one indicator was. Speaker 7: So, you'll see, obviously, in the table on page 22, the deficit remains and increases slightly this year. Councillor Wilkie: Amelia? Councillor Lorentson: My question, page 25, in your opinion, Trent, what are the major risks that you've identified as having the potential to impact on ongoing financial sustainability? And second question, are you concerned with the investigation with the Queensland Environment Department regarding the burning of the treated timber? Is that one of the risks?
01:46:00 Speaker 3: I'll answer the second one. Sure. Speaker 7: Obviously, as we talked about earlier this afternoon, in terms of conservative budgeting, we are in a very healthy position in terms of being able to absorb any future risks or impacts that may or may not occur for the rest of the year due to COVID-19. I think that's probably the major financial risk for us. And in terms of other operational risks that may impact a meeting budget, whether that's unexpected expenditure, costs that we haven't budgeted for, we still have significant capacity. So, from that perspective, very low risk there and concerns for us from a finance perspective. The only other one to mention would be in terms of debt, as you can see. Our debt is exceptionally low. The sustainability indicators in the previous report show that we have significant borrowing capacity even after refinancing to absorb that.
01:47:00 So, I have no concerns about that. Speaker 3: That's not a meditation, by the way. Yeah. Yeah. Let me just pick up on that one. You know, the biggest risk in reality is a second lockdown. And then you have to shovel out facilities and lose revenue. That's the bottom line. Do you want to ask me a question about the... Stockpile. The stockpile at Pomona? Yeah. No, I'm not concerned about that. We had a scenario where some of our staff have done the wrong thing in terms of burning off some materials they shouldn't have burned off. We've been working very closely with the Department of Environment and provided them with all the information and got remedy plans and things like that. It's finally a matter for that department, but I'm not expecting a sign out of that at all. But they haven't made that final decision yet. They're quite comfortable. All the feedback we've been given is they're very comfortable with the rectification action plan we've put in place and what we're doing there. And just to ensure there's no other issues, we're doing a review of all of our other storage
01:48:00 areas. So, that's one of the storage areas at Pomona. We're looking at that one. We're looking at Ringtail Creek and the one at Noosa Hills just to make sure we've got the right practices in place. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Just a question with regards to risk mitigations. Because we're going to have an increase of cash surplus, are you confident that we have robust enough accounting systems to make sure that there's no issues moving forward in terms of mismanagement of finance? Speaker 4: I can answer that question. So, generally speaking, there's a lot of risk mitigation. We have good budget management at the manager level. So, they do a good job of managing their budgets, their actuals to their budget. So, the financial literacy is pretty good within the organisation. Bringing it up though to the higher level is our overarching sustainability policy. So, as a council, we agree to that policy before we start any budget process.
01:49:00 And I'll be asking councillors to review that policy. And if they do the same, and effectively what that will do, Karen, is commit to achieving those ratios. And if we commit to achieving those ratios in the budget, or getting close to them as part of our recovery plan through COVID, then there's a lot of risk of us being financially mismanaged. Councillor Wilkie: Are you saying councillors are the risk makers? Speaker 4: Well, the councillors are the decision makers. The councillors decide on the big ticket options. The capital budget, the operating budget, everything really. So, it's up to us to provide that support and education and information. Councillor Wilkie: And we have that policy, which we've all ratified. Correct. Speaker 4: And I think, you know, again, I think we'll be in a good space when we prepare next year's budget and we'll be making good decisions and investing funds where we think they're needed.
01:50:00 Speaker 3: And just to pick up on that, you know, some councils and other parts of the state have made, the council have actually made decisions that for five years in a row they'll adopt, as part of their budget, a different budget. And then after five years, they go, well, we haven't got enough money to be able to look after our assets or do whatever. And there's some surprise expressed about that, which always amazes me. Yeah. You know, it's no different to your home budget. If you're spending more than you're earning, eventually you're going to run into trouble. So you're going to run out of money. Speaker 4: But we have good systems in place. We've got technology, which, you know, helps inform. So we'll all be, we'll be using all of those things to help inform good decision making in the next six to 12 months. Speaker 3: And it's only to order by the Queensland Audit Office, which is an early audit process each year. Councillor Wilkie: Michael, this budget review process feeds very, supports and complements very much the zero-based budgeting approach this council has taken since DML in motion. But then if we were to listen, we'll just expand on what zero-based budgeting is and how BR2 is sort of like a, provides flexibility to that process if any emergent issue arises.
01:51:00 Speaker 4: Yeah. So zero-based budgeting is probably what it means. It means you, you start off, you build your, what you need to deliver your services from zero. So you work out what salaries do we need? What materials? What contracts? And when we build our budget, each, each area council does that. They build it up from, from, from a zero base. It's not just last year's budget plus we'll give you 3%. It's actually based on levels of service and what, what we actually need to deliver those services in terms of employees. And, and as I mentioned, materials, contracts and so on. So that, that helps us, gives us confidence that, you know, we're, there's no hollow logs. There's no fat building in, in the budgets, which, which happens. That happens, happens in the private sector, happens in the public sector. So we're, we're confident we have a fairly efficient cost base. And then that helps us look at our revenue levels and, and our general rates and, and
01:52:00 what we need to then charge to be sustainable, which, which, which has worked well for us over the last five years. Councillor Jurisevic: Michael, we love hollow logs. They provide good environment for our, our, our native farmers to... So what you're saying... Figuratively speaking, hollow logs. Any type of hollow log we like. Councillor Wegener: Another wood analogy, but there's a, there's no dead weight that's kind of hiding back there. It's probably is a little bit more, more work to do the zero base every year, but you don't, but you just don't have a, a dead weight accumulating in different places, like you said. So... Speaker 4: Well, we don't. And I think it also helps particularly, A, managers manage their budgets, because they know then where, where things are over and under. And if things go over, that happens, but then there's a mechanism through the budget reviews to address that. Yeah. Yeah. So that's, I think we, I think the approach works well, and it'll also allow us in terms of finance and corporate service to report variances through the monthly, the reporting
01:53:00 process in terms of where, where things are over and under in terms of service delivery. Councillor Jurisevic: So... Only all state and federal agencies have adopted the same process. It's a lot of work, but they know where, they know where they sit. Speaker 4: And it does, it, yeah, it does put work on our management team. And, you know, we appreciate that. We understand it. Budgets are probably not, they're trying to deliver their activities and services, but, but we, you know, we're committed to, to this process, and I think it's, it, it keeps us in good stead in terms of sustainability. So... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Right. Yeah. Just looking, table form page, or attachment form page 31, revenue, and just looking at grant subsidy contributions to the nation. So it's gone up from 5.4 to 6.1 million, so about 700,000 since we adopted the budget. Is there any more irons in the fire, or ones that we've been, or received that wouldn't
01:54:00 be showing up in that figure at this stage? Speaker 7: Not at this point in time, Councillor. We, we, we have a, a system where we, we track of all the grants that are, that we're applying for, that we're successful for. And if, if they're, they're approved and they're happening this year, or the cash has already come in, then we factor that into this budget review too, which is why you'll see that most of the submissions in the previous attachment, they're all primarily grant related, in terms of either recognising where we're now committing to spend some of those grants received in prior year, or when new grants come in that we, that we applied for in the last few months.
01:55:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, and just to last thing, that takes us up to 35 million in capital works, about, from memory? Yes, sir. And so that's about 225, 230% higher than what was the case in an amalgamated council. So not only have we reduced our loans, we've increased our ability to provide products and services to the community by two and a half times. Councillor Wilkie: Michael, it's on page 34, you've got the statement of financial position. And I think the final is, you've got a 10-year projection. Once you get this early, we've changed the arrangement of QGC for the loan. That, those figures all go to chum, don't they? Speaker 4: Correct. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. More of a 20-year horizon than a 10-year horizon. Speaker 4: Correct. So we'll see more, more loans on the books over that first 10 years, rather than seeing it being paid off. We'll sort of see it more stable because we're paying it off over longer.
01:56:00 Councillor Jurisevic: You said a decrease in the beginning. We'll see. And a flattening out over time. Speaker 4: We'll probably see more of a decrease, not in the balance sheet, but in our operating budget where the interest will drop in the short term. Just probably one comment, councillors, is that there were comments in the previous report around our fees and charges and sales being well above budget, which probably the question is why haven't that fed through to the budget review, where the response to that is that we're trying to still play a nice, a conservative approach here to our budget in terms of particularly COVID over the next few months. So rather than take up any upside revenue now, we want to hold the line, let that flow through into early next year, and then see where we're at. And if things hold, and we remain in a good position as we are now, and there's no second or third waves. We can then... Budget review three will probably be a bit... There'll be more transactions flying through budget review three, particularly with our
01:57:00 revenue. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Michael. And while we're talking things, budget, Michael, for those who are listening that are interested, the consultation around the 21, 22 budget process, the public consultation, what can you tell us about any reporting that's going to come to council about what shape that may take? When can we... Yeah. Speaker 4: So the budget engagement will commence for next year's budget. We will be bringing a report to the January round, the ratification by council on that process and approach. And then we'll have to move fairly quickly to implement. So there's been a few things happening at the moment that's delayed. We're getting that report to council, but there'll be, definitely in the January round, there'll be a report for discussion and agreement on the process. And then we'll get that report to council. We'll be looking to kick that off imminently after that, so start getting community involvement in our budget process for the 21, 22.
01:58:00 Okay. Councillor Lorentson: One quick question, Michael. And I just can't seem to find it in the financial report. Where do we absorb insurance costs? So flood insurance, public liability, where's that captured in the report? Speaker 4: There's probably not specifically. Identified as a line item, but there is within materials and services, we have an insurance expense budget. Governance holds that budget. So generally what that is, is if we have to pay excess on an insurance claim or we actually settle a claim that we think we don't really need to put that through our insurer, then I think that's a $50,000 budget that sits within governance to address those. Yeah. And there's also a budget, minor budget in fleet for minor insurance claims on our vehicles and plant, but we don't want to claim, because they're given value, so low value.
01:59:00 Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Speaker 7: Just to add to Michael's comments there, in the previous agenda item on page 21. Yep. Attachment for the final attachment is actually a breakdown of some of our key materials and services categories. Oh, insurance. Such as legal fees, utility charges, insurance. Which covers both the premium and the excess for any claims that come through for the year. Councillor Wilkie: And given that we're coming into storm season, Council set aside money in a disaster contingency fund. What is that amount? Can you reflect on that? What is that amount? It's always kept at a certain level. Speaker 4: Very quick. Yeah. It's, we, in our restricted cash policy, which is on our internet, it's a Council policy. We keep that at a certain level. We have a restricted cash reserve for disaster management at 5% of general rates, gross general
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 rates. So I think at the moment it's around a bit over 2 million that's sitting in our free cash to respond to any emergent events that might occur over the next few months. And keeping in mind, if it's a declared disaster, then we do get funding from, support funding from the federal government. Councillor Wilkie: Or we use this for minor disasters, perhaps, if we need to. Speaker 4: Yeah. Or our, usually there's an amount Council needs to contribute. But if there is a local or an event that's not declared a disaster, then Council would need to fund that. Mayor Stewart: Trin, just a quick question. Looking at that insurance, are we under, we're under budget on that, aren't we? So currently just. Speaker 7: Yeah. So obviously that might move a bit during the year. We pay our premiums earlier in the year. But we might, depending on the level of claims. Yeah. Made during the year, that might, that might trickle over later in the year. Yeah. At this point in time. Mayor Stewart: So we're trending well at this point in time. Yep. All right.
02:01:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have a motion for the motion from Councillor Lorentson, seconded by Councillor Jurisevic. Amelia, would you speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: No. Just thank you for hard work. Appreciate it and notice. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Cousins. Likewise, acknowledge the hard work of staff and the sand financial position that you will find yourselves in. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. It has been a monster year and we hope you have the restorative and restful Christmas. Speaker 7: Thank you, Frank. I'm quite relaxed. I've been away on holidays for two weeks. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Michael Sobey. Michael Sobey, good news, he'll be our three instead of bringing that for Christmas. Speaker 4: You know, Mr Conservative, come on. I was just thinking Grinch. Speaker 6: Doesn't fail, that's unanimous. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.