Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: Welcome everybody to the General Committee meeting of 12th of April beginning by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land on which we meet which is the Kabi Kabi or Kabi Kabi people and pay respects to the elders past, present and emerging. We have no apologies, we have all councillors in attendance. We have the confirmation of the minutes from the General Committee meeting held on the 15th of the Ides of March 2021. Can we have someone move that the minutes be accepted and confirmed. Moved by Councillor Stewart, seconded by Councillor Laurenton all in favour. Thank you. We have no presentations, no deputations the first item
00:01:00 referred from the committee is a Development Application for a material change of use for a residential care facility a 32 Beuland Drive, Goodmoose Heads from the Planning and Environment Committee agenda. Thank you Mr Chair I Mayor Stewart: Councillor Stewart inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in this matter as the applicant de lucca charitable foundation limited and the application de lucca charitable foundation limited according to the ano Is building this facility for the benefit of young care and I am on the board, I am the board director of young care. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while this matter is considered and voted on. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, councillors. There were some questions asked of Kerry at the committee meetings last week. Do you have any further questions for Kerry or have you had them sufficiently answered?
00:02:00 Councillor Wegener: About the views, you sent an email this morning saying that there are only two storeys and they would actually need a third storey to get the views that I was concerned with on last week. Speaker 6: Yeah, so the applicant's architect has provided an email to council advising that there are limited views at the height one and two storeys proposed. So what they did instead is focus on giving each of the rooms an internal view of the landscape area and making sure that eventually the views are being made. So yeah, limited views given the height there. Councillor Wegener: Obviously, I think the views are important because the disabled people, that's what you have is your view and really to focus on that is important. Councillor Wilkie: Just to clarify, car parking, the minimum of six car parking spaces. On page 8, it outlines the car parks that will be there.
00:03:00 Three visitor parking spaces, two staff parking spaces, one disabled parking space. And one emergency vehicle bay. So is that in the seven spaces? Speaker 6: Six. Six, yeah. Three, oh no, there's seven. Councillor Wilkie: Three, two, and two are seven. Speaker 6: Yeah, you're right, there is seven. Councillor Wilkie: There are seven. Speaker 6: Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: So they will provide seven, not just a minimum of six. Yep. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: And to clarify, the requirement for parking there is in keeping with an aged care or a care facility? Speaker 6: Yeah, the car parking rate for this facility is the same as an aged care facility because it has very limited traffic movements. So three spaces for visitor parking and family and two for the carers, the onsite staff. Councillor Wilkie: I just have a question about the need of this facility. It's mentioned that the, this is a purpose-built facility to be used. It's meant to provide housing for young people with high care needs who would otherwise be
00:04:00 accommodated in aged care facilities, despite their younger age. Are you aware of any other facilities in Mercer Shire that serves this very important purpose? Speaker 6: No, I'm not aware of any other facilities in Mercer Shire that serves this purpose. Currently, I understand if you're a highly disabled and a young person needs to be required to go into a nursing home, which would be a very difficult thing to do. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just from being out there over the weekend, it's not, there's some substantial vegetation in your foot you identified. It's not remnant. And it's clear that some of the large hooplines and a couple of the probably fairly significant cypress will have to go. The question is, is it, are we able to suggest or condition that the developer have a look at the options of actually making use of the timber rather than just mulching?
00:05:00 Like, you think of the large hooplines, can we, is it relevant in a planning application or is it a note we could put on to say that we request you consider productive use of the timber? Because it's, you know, they are significant hooplines. And it may be something like the crew or woodworkers or a local small sawmill might be interested rather than just mulching. Speaker 6: It's not something that we can condition the development to do. But I see no reason why we couldn't request the developer to consider that. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: You'd have to see if the vegetation was actually going to be removed from site that it could be repurposed and reused within the project itself. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. There's very few coastal sites that would have millable size timber in this one. Speaker 6: Yeah. Yeah. So, yeah, we couldn't condition it essentially because there's nothing in our planning for this scheme that requires that. But I can draft something up ready for the ordinary meeting. I'd be appreciative. Councillor Jurisevic: Making that request to the developer.
00:06:00 I think the note could be put on. I think I'd agree. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Just a follow-up question for clarification. At the previous meeting I asked about the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act and your feedback to me was that the applicant had to do their own research regarding that. Before the development is signed off on, do they have to submit to you to sign off the conditions for the property to be complete that you have cited that as part of the process? Speaker 6: No. There's no requirement under the state planning legislation for that document to come to council. It sits outside the development assessment process. It's an obligation on the developer to prepare a plan and undertake their own investigation. So, it's not a requirement. It's not something that they would be required to submit to council. Councillor Finzel: So, how do we follow up if something further down the track comes up? Or what's the instrument used to, I don't know, I guess mitigate the risk of something
00:07:00 being found when the development starts? Speaker 6: Yeah. We do have an advisory note that goes on all our development approvals. It advises people that they need, you know, of their obligations. But it is, it is, sits with their responsibility and with the state, not with council. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: So, is there, so what is the due process to ensure that a baby title has been reviewed in a situation such as this? And once it goes to the, you know, they make an application to the agency, how do we, the council is trying to elude what happens if an application isn't made to the agency? How do we ensure the due process has been made to the agency? And what are the consequences of that not being undertaken correctly? Speaker 6: So, it is outside our jurisdiction. It's not something that we can enforce. So, there is an investigation process that they undertake. And I'm not overly familiar with that process. But I understand that they would need to consult with First Nations people in the area and
00:08:00 do their own investigations that way. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Just to follow up with that. So, the consultation with the local Kabi Kabi people would be, you know, if there's something that happens after the event, if something's found not prior? Speaker 6: No, it's meant to be undertaken prior to construction on site. Councillor Finzel: Okay. And who organises that? Is that council or is that the individual? That's the developer. The developer reaches out to the Kabi Kabi people? That's right. Speaker 6: They have to take those investigations and prepare the plan. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you. And then where is that information stored? Does that remain with the Kabi Kabi people state or the applicant? Speaker 6: I'll have to come back to you on that question. I'm not sure. Okay. Thank you. I'm not sure there's any requirement for them to submit it apart from just preparing that plan. But I'll check for you. All right. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: No further questions. Mr Chair, I'd like to move the staff recommendation with an added clause. Yes. And that would be C, to request the Chief Executive Officer to investigate the existing
00:09:00 traffic and car parking concerns in Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads, raised by residents in their submissions to application number MCU20-0128 for a residential care facility at 32 Viewland Drive, Noosa Heads. Councillor Wilkie: We have a seconder for that, please. Seconder, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Juris. Councillor Jurisevic: I think the need for this facility has been well versed and I think it's going to be a great opportunity. I know that the opportunities within the Shire are quite limited, so I welcome the new residential care facility for what it will deliver for the Shire and for those people that will find this facility a benefit. But one of the things that has been raised during the application process was the concerns of residents in and around Viewland Drive with regard to traffic and car parking mentioned in that area. So I welcome the new residential care facility for what it will deliver for the Shire and The street, I believe that it's only pertinent of Council to undertake an investigation with the existing traffic and car parking concerns raised by those residents.
00:10:00 That's it. Councillor Finzel: Can I just add a question? Yes. Is there a process by which the conversation we've just had around the Kabi Kabi people and the state, is there a way that we can have that notified in this document, that we have that discussion around the process and that's recognised? Speaker 3: Well, I think the advice from staff was that that process sits outside what the Council would adopt. That there's a process between the state, the applicant and the Kabi Kabi. Is there a way we can have that included in this document? Well, that's what I'm saying, it's not part of the Council process, so it's not something we would adopt. Speaker 6: So if Council like, I can include the standard advisory note in as part of this resolution, would it be acceptable just to note that the following advice note would be included? Councillor Finzel: It can't be a condition. Oh yeah, so can we include the advisory note? Thank you.
00:11:00 Councillor Wilkie: Do you have a Council's wish to speak to the motion? Speaker 3: I'm sorry, just to close that off, so Kerry was already coming back to Thurston and I was with an advisory note about the timber issue, so I had an extra advisory note, so we'll do the same thing, we'll bring that at the same time. That'd be terrific, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I do. I think it's really important to acknowledge that this is a key new asset to our community, that both the applicant and Unity Water, who put out their land for use for community housing of every sort, basically leading in the provision of this particular form of housing which we've already identified in the questions, is absent. And if you had relatives in aged care facilities, you probably will, as I have, seen young people with disabilities housed in those areas because it's the only thing that was available to
00:12:00 them. So this will create a new opportunity for people with disabilities. It is fantastic to see that it's in a great location, and quite often we talk about the desirability of integrating social services. Social housing amongst the urban fabric rather than putting them as great big conglomerates on the edge of town or whatever. So this ability to convert public use land to the highest and best use is, to me, a great outcome. It is unfortunate that the site has got significant vegetation, there's no doubt that the people who are living beside it probably had a view that they'd always have a lovely lush forest beside them. And so there will be impact from that perspective. But in my opinion, the public benefit far outweighs the loss of the small amount of natural area that is encompassed in this development site. So I think it's really important to say that this is great work by both the charity and
00:13:00 Unity Water. And I do agree that we do need to look at the Viewland Drive more generally in terms of traffic management. Because basically there's cars parked on both sides of the road and if you've got one coming up the hill, one car coming up the hill, one coming down, someone has to pull up to let them pass. So that's not desirable for such a busy street. So we do need to investigate what the solutions are to that. Councillor Lorentson: I want to just start by addressing some of the concerns raised by the residents about this development application. And I want to assure the residents that this is a very important project. We have a duty of care as councillors to exercise due diligence in all development applications that come before us. So firstly, the residents have raised concerns about whether the site location is suitable for its intended use given the topography of the area.
00:14:00 And Kerry has contacted the developer and I'm satisfied that the location is suitable. The residents do not drive nor do they own their own vehicles and most of the residents have high levels of disability so will spend the majority of time on site. Also we've been told that off-site trips will be typically for medical appointments. And these trips are going to be supervised by the carers and or family members. And any of the trips off-site by electronic wheelchair won't be very frequent and again, the residents will be accountable. The other concern raised by residents have been about the impact of what is already a significant parking issue on Viewland Drive. I'm satisfied that my questions that I asked at the Planning and Environment Committee
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 were satisfactorily answered. And I'm satisfied that all of the parking demand associated with the use can be accommodated on site with little reliance on kerbside parking. And that in terms of site-generated traffic, this will be negligible. I agree wholeheartedly with Councillor Joe Jurisevic that review of parking and traffic management should be undertaken by Council with the goal of formalising the on-street parking area. Thirdly, residents have raised concerns about noise from plant and construction activities. I'm satisfied that the development approval has been conditioned to minimise amenity issues. Condition three only allows deliveries. And service related activities to occur between 7am-6pm Monday to Saturday and 9am-5pm Sunday or any public holiday. Also under conditions 50E-G, there's a communication plan that outlines how potentially affected parties that is nearby residents and businesses will be informed in advance of works that
00:16:00 may have offset impacts. And finally, what Councillor Stockwell has just talked about. Residents of race-consuming areas will be informed in advance of works that may have offset impacts. There are concerns in regards to vegetation clearing and habitat construction. In response, the applicant is actually seeking to retain as many trees as possible on the site for the residents to enjoy and the existing vegetation as has already been discussed is not remnant vegetation and is not mapped as having significant biodiversity significance. So in conclusion, I do believe the development is consistent with the zoning and the applicable codes and benchmarks for the development. And that's what may have been reached. Just as a postscript, I just want to highlight what is a residential and care crisis throughout Australia for young people and middle aged people with high care needs. There is at the moment an urgent need for accessible and affordable housing for people
00:17:00 with disability. Young care states that there are currently 12,000 young people and middle aged people that have been left behind in inappropriate housing, like we've just discussed, such as aged care facilities, hospital rooms and rehabilitation centres. This is not the place for young or middle aged people who are not sick. These people have broken bodies, they're not sick. This is not the place, aged care centres, hospital rooms, rehabilitation centres, this is not the place for restoring dignity. In these broken bodies. And this is not a place for these people to call home. I want to acknowledge, take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank young care, who are working with industry and governments to confront this housing crisis and bring about change in the disability sector. I'd like to thank young care for understanding the importance of independent living and community
00:18:00 inclusion and community connection. Andrew Solomon, who's the author of the book, Young Care and Community Inclusion and Community Development, author of Far From the Tree, a book that tells the stories of parents learning to understand and live with their exceptional children, said that the burden of being perceived as different will always persist. The solution to this is community. So I therefore look forward to welcoming the residents of this development to participate and be included in our community. Or as our traditional owners would say, Wunyung. I strongly support this application and staff's recommendation to approve. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Lyson. Do the councillors wish to speak to the motion? I'll just quickly say that yes, this application is for a facility that will cater for our most, arguably our most vulnerable people in our community, and those young people who have
00:19:00 disability. Yes. And those who are finding themselves in the unacceptable situation of ending up in aged-care facilities despite their younger age. There are parking issues in the street, which will be reviewed as a result of Council Jurisdict's motion requiring the CEO to have a look at parking. It is appropriately zoned. These residents will be generating less traffic than any other residents in the street, and the Shire, and it's an entirely appropriate place for this sort of facility. And I fully support the application and the review that will follow. Councillor Jurisdict, do you wish to close? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes please. Look, thank you, Councillor Lyson. Your words and your research there were very thorough, and they do explain how dire the need for a facility like this is, as someone that's been around people with high needs
00:20:00 and the disabled community. For well over 30 years, through my own sister-in-law, I understand the need for this facility as much as anybody. Again, I think also Council Stockwell alluded to the need that this creates or fulfils within our community, a long overdue need that has been there, and I, like all councillors around the table, welcome the opportunity to see this development take place and the niche hole that it will fill or start to fill within our communities. Thank you. Thank you for this sort of care requirement. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the motion those in favour. That's carried. Thanks Kerry.
00:21:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Welcome back. The next item is item 2, Park Road Temporary Path Upgrade. Further information report from page 4 of the Services and Organisation Committee. Welcome Adam and Brian. Tell us if there's questions for staff. Yeah. Complex. Councillor Jurisevic: Got one more there. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my relationship with Andrew and Catherine St Baker who reside in Park Road adjacent to where the pathway is located. My family have holidayed once with Andrew and Catherine St Baker. My husband is close personal friends with Andrew St Baker.
00:22:00 And one of my election signs was located at Thomas Surf Boards. And Andrew St Baker is a joint owner of that property. And Andrew St Baker is a joint owner of that business. 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, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Wegener: I, Councillor Wegener, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter due to my association with Andrew St Baker who owns a property in Park Road adjacent to where the pathway is located. Andrew St Baker contacted me in May of last year. He told me about the pathway in question which runs along the northern edge of his property. I went to meet with him and looked at the path and he told me the history of his dealings with Council. I contacted the project officer and passed on Mr. St Baker's concerns. Later, I informally met with the project officer on the boardwalk and I believe he told me that it will eventually come before Council. I have a perceived association with Mr. St Baker as I am a surfboard manufacturer and
00:23:00 he is the owner of Tomless Surfboards in the Tomless Factory. I believe Mr. St Baker had a fantastic influence on the manufacturing in Noosa. In Noosa Council, I have often congratulated the Tomless Factory and I have discussed the emerging enterprise business zones which Mr. St Baker supports. During the campaign, Mr. St Baker allowed me to put an election core flute at the Tomless Surfboard Factory. I occasionally meet with Mr. St Baker in the surf and have had two discussions over the subject of the Noosa Biosphere, the history of Noosa, and the Bring Back the Fish campaign at his house, which is obviously right above the surf break. Although I have a declarable conflict of this interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr. Baker. I therefore will choose to remain in the room, however, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain in and participate in the discussion.
00:24:00 Councillor Wilkie: Tom, I have a question. In your previous declarations, did you mention that your surfboards were for sale at Tomless Surfboards? Councillor Wegener: No, I have never had a surfboard for sale at Tomless Surfboards. I thought that was a previous declaration. No, that was Noosa Longboard and the Golden Breed site. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: The other question I had was, Councillor Lorentson declared that Tomless Surfboards and you've also had election corporate at Tomless Surfboards. Councillor Lorentson has left the room. Why do you feel you should stay in the room? Councillor Wegener: She left the room mostly because her husband is very good friends with Mr. St. Baker and they've gone on trips with him.
00:25:00 And so the photos would show up with them, you know, on a boat someplace beautiful together. Mayor Stewart: Tom, I've got a question. Yes. Besides attending Mr. St. Baker's to talk about those council projects, have you attended his house as a visitor or as a guest? For dinner? For lunch? Councillor Wegener: No, I've never attended for a meal of any sort. Mayor Stewart: And has he attended your house as a guest? Councillor Wegener: No, he's never come to my house. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: In the past when this has come up, have you left the room? Councillor Wegener: I've never left the room on this one. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the stay motion there that it's in the public interest that Councillor Wegner participates and votes on this matter because Council believes that Councillor Wegener does not have a close personal relationship with Mr. St. Barb Baker and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the following decision is made in the public interest. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second that. I'll second that. Councillor Stewart? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I do so because I think it's clear that the association is one primarily is outlined
00:26:00 in terms of the declaration as a councillor, two, as a surfer and that's a significant body of people in Noosa so just because you're a surfer and if you were me, you'd wipe out in front of someone, doesn't make them a close relationship and in terms of the extent to which Mr. St. Barb Baker assisted in Councillor Wegener's campaign, it's clearly to me that the value of that is less than what would be considered to be a declarable interest anyway. So I'm happy to support his staying in the meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Can the councillor just speak to the motion? Put the motion those in favour? Well done. Okay, thank you. All right. Questions of staff councillors? Mayor Stewart: Adam, I've got a question. Just on page five of the services and organisation report, which is the original one it was in, it says, looking at the costs of the finance, and then underneath it, it says, is it acknowledged
00:27:00 that council is currently delivering a significant capital works program with first significant programs of purpose? So this is in regard to this particular item, it's proposed that this is non-urgent project to be referred to a future budget review to determine if funding can be made available from other project savings or existing project timing. Correct. So does that mean that if we didn't do anything about it, it would just remain as the status quo as it is now? If there was... Speaker 2: Yep. Mayor Stewart: So in the current state that it is? Speaker 2: So in the current state, we would need funding from a project saving or something through a budget review to obtain funding to do this work. Mayor Stewart: But we're saying that's non-urgent, but it's not considered non-urgent? Yeah. Because my concern is it's in a bit of disrepair. I've walked out. Yeah. And so if we stay, it's actually a bit unsafe. Speaker 2: I guess it probably should be. I guess it's just because the program is so busy.
00:28:00 There's so many projects, they probably all come up as urgent. There's a lot of grant funded projects. So there's a lot of projects that the team are working on that are probably taking priority over this. But given the state of the handrail, as you say, I would like to see this done as soon as possible. Right. If the decision is to keep it. Mayor Stewart: If the decision is to keep it. Speaker 4: Yeah. I could add, through the Chair, that we'll continue to maintain it, and we'll render it safe by doing regular maintenance inspections and maintenance activities on it during that, while it's still in place, in situ, and before we find the funding to upgrade it. Councillor Wilkie: Right. Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: The reason it hasn't received potential, some maintenance, being the fact that it's been due for consideration as to removal or being upgraded. Speaker 2: That's right. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Karen, you go ahead. I've got a simple question. Councillor Finzel: So prior to the construction of the temporary pathway, based on correspondence received
00:29:00 from Andrew St. Baker on Wednesday, the 3rd of July, the construction of the temporary pathway, which was to be completed on the 14th of October, he notes it was a failure by Council to honour their undertaking to remove the temporary path installed two years ago to facilitate the construction of the boardwalk. Prior to it being built and communicating with the community, how did you communicate to the residents that this would be the case, that it would be a temporary pathway? Speaker 2: So I wrote to St. Baker. Yeah. Prior to the completion of the path, that would be our intention, that we might keep the temporary path until the end of the defects liability period. So I wrote to him on the 31st of October 2018, the boardwalk was finished on the 4th of November 2018. And so I actually wrote in that recommendation in my email to him that I suggest we keep the path to the end of the two-year defects period, however, that we would remove it on
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 completion of the defects period. Noting, though, my last line to him, I said, no, we have been getting public pressure to keep the path and I cannot control this. So that was on the 31st of October. We received further correspondence after that to actually request to keep it. So it was always intended originally as a temporary path. But momentum built after that, and I do have some of the correspondence here about requesting to keep it. And they're not from properties who are directly beneficial. Mm-hmm. Beneficiaries off that path. So that hence kept, you know, there's a number of correspondence with St. Baker to say, look, you know, still within the two-year period, I'm getting correspondence to keep it. I'm going to have to take this to council. So that's the gist of how it was. Councillor Finzel: And the following, yeah, I was just trying to establish at what point prior to all those works going on, was the community notified?
00:31:00 The residents around there, that this was just a temporary pathway while this project happened? Speaker 2: Yes. Yeah. So we issued project news. Sorry to interrupt. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Sorry. Speaker 2: Yeah. We issued project news that would say there is a temporary path that will be constructed for during the pathway. We have not issued any further correspondence to the broader community to say that this path will stay. Any correspondence will be that this will be subject to council approval. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So at what date? Sorry. I'm just trying to. Speaker 2: Oh, so that would have been during construction. So that would have been during 2018. Prior to the third. Prior to completion of the main boardwalk. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: So all the people in the community from the start of that construction were notified and understood it was a temporary pathway. Yes. Speaker 2: Yes. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Speaker 2: However, subsequent to that, we've received correspondence saying this is a great facility. We would like it to stay. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Okay. Oh, I'm going to come back. I've got other questions.
00:32:00 Oh, no. Mayor Stewart: I just got a question following on from that. But in the planning environment, sorry, in service and organisation committee last week, we've had two submissions. Is that correct, Andrew? Adam, please correct me if I'm wrong. Two submissions. Speaker 2: Can I make a correction? I was incorrect. There's actually been three written submissions to keep the path. Three written submissions to keep the path. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: And because it was two, wasn't it? That you said last week. Speaker 2: I did. But I went back and checked my records and it's actually been three. Mayor Stewart: Okay. And one against. Speaker 2: And one against. Which is. Mayor Stewart: Three in one. Speaker 2: Yes. Mayor Stewart: So we haven't had an overwhelming. Speaker 2: No, but I guess to anecdotally, some of the correspondence alludes to we in the area. And so it's more than just a singular person that appears that the letters have been written on behalf of. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Just on that. Are you able to read some of the correspondence? Speaker 2: May I drop my mask? So I don't pass. I can do that. I did bring some. Okay. What have I got? As a local resident, I'm now wondering. So this is the first one prior to completion. As a local resident, I'm now wondering.
00:33:00 Councillor Wilkie: So what was the date of this? And you said it was prior to completion. Speaker 2: So this is October 2018. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah. As a local resident, I'm now wondering what's going to happen to the temporary pathway, pedestrian pathway running alongside the huge house currently being built on the old Cocoa You wouldn't pull it out. It's community land. Rate pays money. And would have cost a packet to build. Leave it there. It is my vote. I can read the other two. Please, please. If you like. Councillor Wilkie: We've received correspondence from the person who doesn't want it. Speaker 2: Well, that's right. And remiss of me not to share the other views as well. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Speaker 2: So this is 1st of November now. This is still just prior, days prior to the completion. Dear Council, please retain this alternative pathway to the national park. It is built on community land and it is a great asset to our area and much used by
00:34:00 the residents, athletes and runners. As it is, the rejuvenated land beside the new monstrous ice on the corner of Park Road facing the national park has been developed so that the public is not able to access it for recreational purposes. Totally inaccessible. A deliberate barrier of stolen privacy from the public. Our area wants this pathway to stay, please. Mainly because it would be a shame to destroy such a useful additive asset to our area. Bracket, which we have paid for. Please listen to the residents. Hopefully prayerfully. P.S. Congratulations on the fantastic boardwalk. Stunning. Shall I continue? Well, there's one more. Speaker 3: One more? Speaker 2: Yeah, there's one more. There's actually two correspondences from the next. So, okay. So this is 14th of January, 2018. I figured this is. 2019. Sorry, 2020. I'll correct myself. Yeah. So this is, some time has now passed and we've received the existing concrete footpath
00:35:00 on the southern side of Park Road, which was built as an alternative pedestrian access. When the boardwalk was being constructed, should be retained and maintained in good order. It is a wonderful piece of infrastructure providing pedestrians like me with an alternative means of access to and from the national park, particularly at busy times. It will also serve its original purpose when the timber boardwalk over time needs to be closed to carry out repairs and maintenance. And this was an unsolicited response from someone that I don't know or we don't know. So there's. And I've responded to that person saying that this will be up to council to decide. And I'll continue with their further response and says, Dear Adam, thanks very much for your email regarding the temporary pathway footpath at Park Road. I'm very pleased to hear that you are looking into upgrading, retaining this beautiful piece of infrastructure for the future benefit of residents. So I informed that it would be subject to council if we were to do that. Most people I've spoken to about this matter do not realise that this walkway could be
00:36:00 demolished and like me would be extremely disappointed if this were to happen. The pathway has been very well constructed and doesn't make any sense to demolish it. I'm sure that the retention of this footpath would have widespread community support. I would also like to say what a great job your team did in constructing the timber boardwalk. It's quite simply a masterpiece. Please keep me informed. So that's the completion of the correspondence. So you can see, I guess, the through the project, the original intent was temporary. There. They're quite emotive submissions I took and it would be remiss of me not to bring it to council. So yes, it appears opposing to what the original intentions were to the resident. However, it's remiss of me to bring this to council given the content of the letters. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you for bringing it to us. Yes. Difficult decision. Further questions? Tom.
00:37:00 Councillor Wegener: Well, you know, this is a really important decision because we are, we are giving the green light to this project with this vote. It's not taking it down. So last, I believe it was last October when this came before us, there was a report and Joe asked for, you know, we made the motion to kick it down because we need to learn more. We need to learn quite a bit more about it. And I'm sorry it wasn't at the committee meeting, but due to the declarable conflict of interest, I wasn't able to take your time and ask all these questions at that point. So there, there are, because of the gravity of this, and I think that the gravity has to be looked at at a much bigger level and in the, yes, I have three big, big questions to ask and I'll ask Kylie to pull up the map, but the, it's, we asked for more information or Joe did. And this is a very, very light report.
00:38:00 And this is a very, very light report. And one of the, the three, um, uh, things that is discussed is the additions, revel in relevant information, um, unapproved works in the road reserve. What, what bearing does these, does these other works have to do with the path? Speaker 2: In my personal opinion, it appears that the, the, the resident opposing the path, it appears, and I, again, I haven't studied the file, but the, the works appear to encroach closer to the pathway, which may perceive that the impact is greater to them. So that is why I think that this should be raised at those other works, which are being investigated by others in council, not through myself. Okay. But to take this view holistically, those works are bringing the impact closer to that residential. Councillor Wegener: Actually, I don't, I don't follow it at all. Speaker 2: So from my awareness, there is landscape works that have occurred within the road reserve, which has appeared to bring the pathway closer to the property.
00:39:00 Councillor Wegener: Oh. Speaker 2: Appears being a perception of, of private ownership of public space. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Correct. Speaker 2: Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask a question? Councillor Wegener: Sorry. You, you can, cause then I'll go to the map up there. So please go. Yes. Councillor Finzel: It's about, I'm sorry if it's out of order, but it's, um, do I call a point of order only for clarification about, I asked Tom prior to sitting here in our boat to stay in. I asked Tom if he'd been voted out or had been out of any other meetings and he's. Councillor Jurisevic: He hasn't. He just voted in. Councillor Finzel: He just, he did. He didn't attend. Councillor Wegener: He didn't attend it. Oh, okay. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Wegener: I didn't attend. Yeah, I didn't because of the, the rules. I could have attended. You could have attended. Councillor Finzel: Oh. Councillor Wegener: I could have. Councillor Finzel: Cause it hadn't been voted on. Because I hadn't been voted on. Okay. Sorry. That's out of order. I just wanted to clarify. Councillor Wegener: So with, with the road, I don't, it, what I'm concerned is, and the questions will come,
00:40:00 is that the report is very, very light on very, very important details concerning this pathway. And the, this is the pathway we're talking about here. And this is the masterpiece that Adam constructed or oversaw here, the, the yellow one. In order for people to utilize this path to enjoy it, you either have to live right here on this basically a road that has no public parking on it, where there's four properties and up to 11 residents to, to get onto this path. To come down here. Councillor Wilkie: What's the question? Councillor Wegener: So is, have you considered the safety factor of, in order for anybody outside of there, the other outside of the various four properties, the safety of crossing Park Road? Cause that to me is a huge issue and as well, the safety factors of crossing here.
00:41:00 Because you, because you've, you've created the masterpiece. This is the, this is your super highway here. Why are we, why is OAE asking people to go across here and cross Park Road twice? Speaker 2: So in response to that, as it's been written in the report is not intended that this be a major pedestrian access. It's always intended to be very low key. And so it's not meant to duplicate the purpose of the intensity of the main Park Road boardwalk. It's really, there's an existing asset. There are some local community who can benefit by it. So if the, in the event that there is storm damage, we could then go back to the temporary pedestrian management plan that we use for the construction of the boardwalk, depending where the damage is, and we can very simply get that going again. So I have spoken with our operational works team and they have said that when they've tried to do maintenance in the past, it has been very difficult. People want to get to that national park, regardless of what barriers you put up in
00:42:00 front of them. And that was one of the reasons why we went for that site in the first place, to have the numbers of people trying to access that boardwalk, that national park. Any form of barrier will not stop them. So there's a small benefit without a storm or without impact, should there be some impact through a storm or something. And again, it's very unlikely, but in the event it did happen, we would then add on the additional traffic management that we would need depending where the impact was. And then we would take up the benefit of that temporary park. Councillor Wilkie: So to follow on from Tom's, what I think Tom's question is, people using the boardwalk will not be required to use that. Speaker 2: Not at all. There's no intention of... Councillor Wilkie: Unless the boardwalk was shut. Exactly. Otherwise that temporary pathway, that pathway is only intended to service people on the western side of Park Road. If they choose to use it. They choose to use it. Yes. And how many properties in your estimation does it service? Speaker 2: Well, there's 11 there within that local area. So you'll go from 11 and however many use that, to if there's an event, you'll have thousands
00:43:00 of people who will use it. Councillor Wilkie: And people parking in the streets will probably use it as well. Speaker 2: Possibly. Not many people actually park. I think there's parking is controlled within that little site access. Mayor Stewart: Is it four or 11 properties that use it? Speaker 2: So there's 11. So there's some strata, there's some units there. Councillor Jurisevic: Four properties with 11 residences. Strata type. Speaker 2: Strata type. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Given now with Tom falling on for what Tom has said, we're almost now talking about like concept designs. And if now this is an issue and the intent is for like if there's storms or having to access stuff to clean up and people moving there, a lot of money I understand is spent at concept of design, its impact and all of that. Why are we now coming back to almost what should have been to me then an integral discussion around such a huge project that now we're talking like we need this with an intent to do a particular like council maintenance job.
00:44:00 Where in the past was that discussed? Speaker 2: Again, it was always meant to be temporary. We're just in a different situation upon completion. We've got completion of the pathway. We've got community requests to keep it. Not, yeah, not to remove it. So it's. Speaker 4: I could jump in there too through the chair. Obviously, we've learnt from when we were constructing too where we can move traffic movements as well. So as we've matured and gone on the journey of construction and now doing maintenance, we always looked at Park Road as the pedestrian alternative. And we would separate vehicles and pedestrian flow if we had to shut down the boardwalk for maintenance. This enables us not to. This gives us a flow where we could have traffic held, crossings occur and have just traffic management on that crossing should that point be needed or not.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 So it does enable us to enable vehicles to keep flowing a lot freer than what we would be with shutting one lane free. To get the vehicles in, there was major maintenance work being done, but we've recognised that as well with staff, that they can shut it off for temporary more frequently, and there's lesser impact on vehicle movements with that too. Speaker 2: So going back to the original scope of Park Road Boardwalk, I'm not sure if you remember the asset that was there, the whole thing was very degraded, we had to really put a lot of our focus into the main asset. It wasn't the scope, and remember, we didn't have the budget at the time to create two pathways down both sides, so it's more that we presented with an opportunity rather than a lack of planning from the original intent of the project. Councillor Wegener: But we're talking about, you know, if the masterpiece is degraded, and we need this path, really the degraded area is from here to about there,
00:46:00 because this is on land, and it doesn't really, so the question is, is it worth it to keep this path and pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep this, when it really only, does that make sense to put that much money into it, when the only part of this path that can actually degrade, that's not on solid rock, is a very, very small piece of it? Councillor Wilkie: What's your response to that? Speaker 2: I mean, that is correct. Interpretation of which path, you know, would be impact, part of the main path would be impacted to get the true full benefit out of it. However, if there was other sections, it just allows you to create that pedestrian management plan that we've already worked through. Councillor Wegener: And then the next question is, well, right here when it comes down, there is a car parking situation, and Mr. St. Baker in the emails to all of us has said,
00:47:00 according to his experts that he's asked, that we would lose car parks right there, and Kathy, can we go to those other photos? Speaker 2: So I have, our design team has been down there, and council does not have to change the design or upgrade the crossing to deal with this low scale pathway. Councillor Wegener: Here, after you come across here, you go there, and there's a, it just, I'm just asking the question. Mm-hmm. Um, is this appropriate to have a path with a, with a car, car, with a car park in front of it? Speaker 2: Yeah. So when the question's put to our design manager, the context of the pathway being very low traffic, it is acceptable. Okay. If the situation were to change, if there was an event, and we were putting a lot more people on it, we would do some temporary control of that car park, but we wouldn't remove it completely. Councillor Wegener: And then, this, this car park right here, because, as, as you know, we're, we're considering paid parking coming up, and by approving this.
00:48:00 Councillor Wilkie: Question time? Councillor Wegener: Yeah. If we were to lose a car park, what if, what did we decide that a car park is worth once we, if we do go down the path of paid parking? Speaker 2: Well, I don't, I'm not sure if I'm there at that point yet to, to know what the value of one car park is over the life of it yet, but again, this would only be, um, a temporary change to the car park situation if there was an event that we would be managing it. As, as it is, our design advice is that we can leave the car parking arrangement as it is. Councillor Wilkie: So, Tom's asked some very important questions there about the potential loss of car parking based on some engineering work done by Mr. St. Baker's consultants, and he, he says you could lose two car parks. You're saying that's not necessary? Speaker 2: That's not the advice that we've received from our, no. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Because, um, can we go back to the map? I believe we can't be. Copy.
00:49:00 Copy. Copy. So we're, what we're saying is that this is a very, very light use. Will it find its way on the, the map? So we, we're working on our cycling and, uh, pedestrian pathways. Will it appear on the maps? Because we're working on, on putting all these, these, you know, our, our pathways together and it's really terrific what we're doing. Will it appear there if it's meant to be really light, do you think? Speaker 2: Well, again, I did put that also to our team who's working on the walking and cycling strategy and obviously that came after these works and, and they've said, well, given the, the principle nature of this recreation area, it is beneficial to have access on both sides of the road. Councillor Wilkie: So where did that advice come from? Speaker 2: From our walking and cycling team working on the strategy. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So in answer to Tom's question, will that appear on any maps? Speaker 2: Um, I guess that's work that will have to come and I, and I can pursue through that as to say, look, yes, it's, um, low water path at the moment. Should that be added on or is it an intention that it's not added on because we want to
00:50:00 retain it as a low access feature because there's other, you know, crossing details and the impacts that we're trying to work through. Speaker 4: And probably just to add to that, um, we do map all our pathways anyway, so they're in their public mapping system. So it would be mapped, um, with its features of being X meters wide and long, uh, within the system as well. Councillor Wilkie: And it's become part of the asset management. Yes. Correct. Yeah. Speaker 4: Okay. Councillor Wegener: So the next question is it, it, it costs, you know, $100,000 plus to, to fix this, uh, path up to, to make it worthy, you know, to put the guardrails and so forth. There's lots and lots of other paths. I mean, there's gorgeous paths circulating around, um, okay. Have you considered the middle path because there's one is to take it completely out. The other is to, to repair it either way. One is you're looking at $100,000 plus if we actually do lose car parks, we're looking
00:51:00 at the loss of 50 to a hundred thousand dollars plus every year in the loss of a car park. Have, did you consider the middle ground of just, of blocking that, covering it with dirt, putting a rock there and erasing that entrance, burying the steps there, putting a rock there, burying that as excess and it might cost 10 to $20,000 and then you wouldn't have the handful of people using it here because they, they already have this access right here. The question is, has that, has that, has that been considered? Speaker 2: I haven't considered that and that, and I guess on the reasons that that's different to what the community requests have been. So possibly in my view, if you were to bury it, put a barrier to them, it would be the same as pulling it out in their view. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I have a follow up question on that? We've made some assessment about what it would cost to remove it or to upgrade it to meet us along the life standard.
00:52:00 What is the embedded investment by this community in construction? So how much did it cost to construct? Speaker 2: Well, it only cost about $100,000 to construct in the first place. So now I think I've got figures in there, I think it's about, I've rounded to about 200 and something thousand dollars and 8% to allow a whole of life cost assessment on that asset. Mayor Stewart: Adam, it seems to me from just these discussions we're having around the table that indeed it really was meant to be temporary because we seem to be ad hoc and flying blind. We're unsure about the impact on parking. We're unsure when it's going to be done. In fact, it says it's not a priority. We're unsure about safety of pedestrians. We're unsure if it's part of our cycling strategy. Like it seems very much that this is not a plan for, this has not been planned for. And it's just like three residents have written in and said, hey, we should keep it. Why not? Like to me, it's, there's a lot of confusion, uncertainty surrounding, you know, if we were
00:53:00 to keep it from the discussions we've had and the unsurety about some of the answers. Would that be fair? Speaker 2: Well, I guess, yeah, because we're reviewing this project as if it's been a planned asset, whereas when it was originally built, it was a temporary asset. So that's correct in what you're saying, it was only planned as being temporary. However, we have received correspondence and we have had internal advice from our operating team. Maybe we should keep it. Is it perfect? No. Would we have designed it like this if we gave it the same design attention as we did the main boardwalk? No. However, it is just an opportunity that's been presented to us. Do we remove it for a higher cost or do we upgrade it for a slightly lower cost? And that's really where we're at. So that helps. Councillor Finzel: I'm just winding back the clock a bit just to try and get some information. What was the original designated use prior to the temporary pathway of this council asset given you said it was also recognised as a degraded asset?
00:54:00 So what was its purpose and use? And where- Speaker 2: The land prior to the pathway? Councillor Finzel: No, temporary pathway. Yeah. You've said that it was council asset in a degraded, it was in a degraded state. What was it used for? What was, was the asset just a footpath or? You're talking about the land or the pathway? I'm talking about the- Speaker 2: Oh, the main boardwalk was a degraded asset. Oh, okay. Yeah, the other side. Yeah, yeah, sorry. The one we replaced. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, okay. So across the road where the temporary pathway was put, what was that land used for prior to this? Speaker 2: Weed storage. Just for weeds? Sorry. There was a lot of vegetation there. And I guess to be perfectly honest, that site revealed itself as an opportunity once the owner of Sixty Park Road cleared the road reserve vegetation and put landscaping in there. And at that point, the topography was identified as being suitable for a temporary path.
00:55:00 Councillor Finzel: So is that during the construction process that Brian talked about? Speaker 2: That was prior to the construction of the main boardwalk. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Brian? Speaker 2: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think we've had heaps of questions, so I'd like to move the staff recommendations. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second. Second. Councillor Jurisdicting? Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillors, if we put aside any lobbying, any public interest, what we're dealing with here is a motion to build a footpath on the footpath, to leave it there. It's about what every resident in the Shire wants, better pedestrian access along our roads. It's about the principles that we have set out. It's about the principles that we say that we've got for our transport strategy. Let me read a few that relate to it. Prioritise our focus on moving people and goods. I'll take this off. Goods rather than on moving cars. Provide infrastructure and services that are designed to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists, scooters and public transport over private cars.
00:56:00 Improve safety and amenity of pedestrians and cyclists in our transport infrastructure. They're the principles that you are committed to as a council in regard to making decisions about transport infrastructure. That's what guides your decision. It's not about consideration of private interest over public space. Okay? We've just gone out for a cycling strategy. And the vision for the cycling strategy, I've left it off, is to improve how we provide access to pedestrians, cyclists and public transport. By all means, don't vote for this motion if you want to be ridiculed. How could a council who's gone out to the public making a big song and dance about we're doing all possible to improve pedestrian walking and cycling in Australia say that, oh, we've considered it because there's one owner who has concerns about it in front of their property, that we should demolish a $100,000 asset that this community has.
00:57:00 At the same time saying we haven't got enough money to do as much as we'd like for another 10 years for some people left away, we're saying, but we have got enough money to pull out something that's already there and serving a purpose. I think it's quite clear that there is a local pedestrian path that is of benefit to the local community. And it has another valuable role in facilitating safe pedestrian access at times where maintenance needs to occur on the regional asset, which is the boardwalk. There is probably a good opportunity to have a look at where this pathway does enter onto just at the entrance there to the national park, in my view, we should be prioritising
00:58:00 pedestrians throughout that zone. It should be a shared space zone, but that's something that comes in the future. It's nothing about the cost of maybe losing some finances in the future from potentially paid car park. If we start going down that way, we have totally forgotten about what the transport strategy is. We've totally forgotten. We're going to make more money by as a council by facilitating cars. That's opposite to the principles of the transport strategy. And staff are saying, because this is a. Very local scale pedestrian path, it doesn't need to affect the current design. So, councillors, it's straightforward. We're retaining a footpath on the footpath because local residents in the majority have benefit from it. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Yeah. Councillor Switzer speak for motion. Councillor Wegener: Councillor Wegener. Do you want to go? Yeah. Well, I. I think the exact opposite.
00:59:00 This is. This is. This is not a better, a better walkway for pedestrians. It doesn't. It doesn't complement our walking strategy because you have to cross Park Road twice to get to enjoy this pathway at all. Where it's not an improvement because it well, let's just go through the the the pros as listed in the report provides. Better, broader local community access. Well, it doesn't provide access for four properties which already have access across Park Road down there. It's only four properties. I think we'd be looked at saying you are helping these four properties and not the public in general for a minimum of $100,000 plus the the ongoing cost. It is going to cost a lot when you when you walk that pathway, it's on top of sandbags in the. The. The roadway is taking over if the amount of leaves and stuff that fall on that, it's substantial
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 to maintain that little bit of pathway when you have the majestic superhighway monolith, which we just paid seven million dollars for right there, which you don't have to pack across Park Road to get to. In case of damage and repairs to storms, as we as we noticed, the the the danger of damage is a storm affecting. That's really that part of the masterpiece. Very, very low because it's actually on rock almost the entire way. Access for weed control and reserve. Well, that's, that's protecting, it pretends the asset life, protects the asset life. It was meant to be carried, torn out all along. So, and then the risks are that I believe may well cost us a lot in parking.
01:01:00 And, and potential parking fees for paid parking, crossing that road is dangerous. And you, there's a photo that Mr. St. Baker took of an accident right there where a person was hit as it, as that is the most dangerous bloody little intersection in Noosa. When, when people are frothing and the surf is good, it is, it's intense right there. And you have a public pathway going right through the middle of that when you're supposed to be on the great pathway over there. A hundred thousand dollars plus, I would much rather see spent on all those other fantastic pathways going around there. I mean, up, up, up to behind Hall's Lodge there, there's gorgeous pathways all the way through. A hundred thousand dollars plus is a lot of money and the public would want it to be used for the public, not for these four properties. And so I, I recommend that, I recommend that I would rather see us go down a middle path.
01:02:00 And I, I don't, I would, maybe I will make a motion on Thursday night or maybe if we have support here to make a motion now to say the middle path is $20,000 at most, maybe $10,000 to block off either end of the path. But we don't want to overstep our mark with, um, with our staff. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, thank you. Councillor Finzel: Sure. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Um, well, this is a complex issue. Um. I think the view that I come from is in conflict with Councillor Stockwell. My approach, how I see it, is that it's reputational damage back to Council, um, in terms of this was a concept, this was a design, um, surely within the budget of the build, uh, the construction and removal of the temporary pathway had to be costed. Um. Throughout this Noosa Shire, from my understanding since I've sat here in one year, that all planning and designs and infrastructure and process and everything comes back to strategic planning, concept design, community input, consultation.
01:03:00 This to me, yes, I agree, the opportunity has presented itself. But also now I feel the discussion around the table has led us to the reputation of this project. It's an ad hoc approach. I like the idea of milled ground. Perhaps money could be put towards, back to design, whether that's within the cycle pathway strategy or however that looks. Bringing it to the table to make a vote on the information provided to me is insufficient information. Given across, if we're to be equitable and fair across this shire, including the hinterland towns that wait on hold year after year to have something done in their community. And it all comes back to planning, town planning, design.
01:04:00 Speaker 3: How do you debate the councillors, not the staff? Oh, sorry. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Sorry. My apologies. Um. I've just got a little bit passionate. Sorry. Back to the councillors. Through the chair. Um. Yeah. So, I think it's a great opportunity. I think for council reputation, it cannot be ad hoc. For equity, equitable and fairness across the shire to all our residents. But I would prefer the middle ground where we see, we go back to the drawing board and we have it properly included in a strategic plan as is expected on every other project throughout the shire. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. It was over. Off you go. Councillor Wilkie: Wow. Thank you. I'm happy to speak. Look councillors, this is a difficult situation. It's an evolving situation. But the dilemma we face is we're being asked to spend $100,000 of ratepayers money either way. So we can spend $100,000 of ratepayers money and end up with no path.
01:05:00 Or we can spend $100,000 of ratepayers money to keep a path that the community has expressed a desire to keep, that they use regularly. Not just the 11 properties, residences that are nearby. I've used the path myself running from the National Park up along that side of the road. There are hundreds of people that use that path, the broader community. This is a question of public benefit. Councillor Finzel mentioned reputational risk. There's also a reputational risk that this will become a council that looks after the interests of one influential property owner over the greater community benefit that could flow from a decision like this, as I said before. And also reputational risk that we're spending money to remove assets on the say-so of one resident at the detriment of the greater public good.
01:06:00 I object. Excuse me. Okay. Councillor Wegener: I have a point of order. Can I do that? What's your point of order, Tom? I'm not sure. The debate is about the path. And you're pulling the debate into a particular person who has objected. There's been four right letters in today here. Most of the letters have been by that particular person. But I don't think we are being swayed. You're alluding to the fact that we're being swayed. Councillor Wilkie: Excuse me, Tom. I have to overrule you there. I'm making a call. You cannot object and have a point of order because you don't like what you're hearing. You object to the arguments I'm making. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Can I call a point of order? Councillor Wilkie: Yes, of course. Councillor Finzel: Just on the fact that you're saying about the cost of money, it's not been identified that the cost to remove the temporary pathway does not sit in the original budget of cost for the project.
01:07:00 Councillor Wilkie: That's not a point of order. That's a question you have for staff perhaps, no? Councillor Finzel: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: But I'm not arguing that. Excuse me. Councillor Finzel, you cannot object because you don't agree with what I'm saying. Councillor Finzel: I'm trying to identify facts. Councillor Wilkie: Well, you can do that through questioning, but you cannot call a point of order because you don't like what you're hearing. Councillor Finzel: Taken. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. So, as I said, $100,000 will be spent either way. You can either spend that ratepayers' money to end up with nothing or we can spend the money to end up with an asset that the community has expressed a desire to keep. Our Councillor mentioned a reputational risk before. There was a reputational risk that Council will be wasting ratepayers' money and have no assets to actually show for it. There's a reputational risk that this will become a Council that looks after the interests of one influential property owner who doesn't want a path in front of their place over the interests of the broader community that use that park regularly.
01:08:00 I cannot support a push that will result in less pedestrian access and less safe pedestrian access to the National Park. It was said before that if this park exists, if this pathway exists, it will require people to unsafely cross Park Road. That will only occur, as the staff have said, in the case where the board, the Coastal Board Walk is shut down for maintenance reasons. Then they will be required to cross Park Road. But this way, residents don't need to cross Park Road to access the boardwalk to get to the National Park because they have this pathway that they can use. Not just the 11 residents that live nearby, but also any jogger or walker that happens to approach the National Park from the opposite side of Park Road. Councillors, it makes good sense to keep the park open. We need to keep this pathway for the greater benefit.
01:09:00 As Councillor Stockwell said, the whole thrust of the transport strategy and my understanding of what this Council was about was greater access for pedestrians. Cyclists, yes, and pedestrians. A back to basics approach. More safer pathways. This is certainly one of the most accessed areas of the Shire, if not one of the most accessed national parks in Australia. For us to restrict access or take away a well-used access to one of the most well-loved, well-used national parks in Australia, it just does not make sense. I will be supportive. It's a difficult decision. It hasn't come to us under ideal circumstances. But from a pragmatic point of view, I'm going to have to support this. I will happily support this motion that's before us. Mayor Stewart: I've got a question. Adam, you're coming back to Councillor Finzel's question. What was the provision to pull it down?
01:10:00 Was it costed? Speaker 2: It was a provisional sum within the contract. We did have funds remaining at the end of the project. We had approximately half a million dollars that we returned into Council on completion of the project. However, obviously, we don't retain half a million dollars against a project for two years while we wait for the defects period. We have to go through that budget process to get the funds back. Mayor Stewart: But was there a provision in the original? Speaker 2: Yes. So it was temporary work. So the provision was provide temporary work. Mayor Stewart: So all of the half a million dollars was temporary works? Speaker 2: No, no, no. That's the budget balance that we had at the end of the project. The project came in under budget. The project came in under budget. So we would have taken in, if there wasn't community interest to keep it, we would have just taken $130,000 out of the $500 that we retained and we would have just removed the pathway. Mayor Stewart: And that was always the intention? Speaker 2: Yep. And again, as I've always said in the beginning, it was always intended as a temporary path. The opportunities presented itself obviously with the community writing in about it. So that's... Councillor Wegener: I have a question.
01:11:00 Kylie, could you pull up that map one more time? So, Frank, you mentioned that it's not only for these residents here, you're talking about the residents over here. Of course, the map isn't very clear, but in order for any of these residents, all these residents... Councillor Wilkie: This is a question, Tom? Yeah. Councillor Wegener: In order to get... Councillor Wilkie: So is this a question or are you going to further your debate? Councillor Wegener: The question is, is it safer to... Is it safer for them to go across here, up and cross again, or go across down the side where there's no sidewalk whatsoever? This is just... Tom, what is your... My question is, is it safer? Is that a reasonable thing to say that it's safer to come this way than crossing, crossing, crossing? Councillor Wilkie: Tom, you've made that point in your debate. It's a rhetorical question. You have an idea of what the answer will be. You've had your say, Tom. Other councillors... I have a question.
01:12:00 Councillor Finzel: I agree that this is a fabulous opportunity in regards to our walking and cycling strategies, which I do support across the Shire. For the future, it's a great vision that has my support. Question. My question then is, in your opinion, what would be the best way to follow a process to provide us back with strategic infrastructure for our residents? Is it a walking, cycling strategy? Where does it fit? And where is the plan to inform our decision? Where would that best come from? Speaker 2: That would be a new project initiation where you would have to put that through the budget process to look at broader footpaths within that whole area. However, you would have to consider what do you do with that path in the meantime. That sort of work... Yeah. ...to... Yeah. ...look at Pandanas. We all know Middy Street. We all walk down there and surf ourselves. When you have to park up the back, you know you're all walking down the roadway to get
01:13:00 down Middy Street. We haven't looked at, as far as I'm aware... As far as I know, looked at that broader area in terms of footpaths. So, are we going to include this temporary path within a broader locality, which is, at the moment, fairly informal? As again, we all walk down Middy Street, that's informal. Would we put people down Middy Street if we were to design a project now? No, we wouldn't, I would imagine. But it's a historical way that we've done it and we haven't gone in there and have disturbed that local area, trying to keep it low key, trying to keep it Noosa style. So it's hard to bring in the temporary path and how would we now fit that into a broader scale project? You would have to do an initiation, there's obviously a lot of consultation. My concern is that time disappears with the scale of that project and what happens to this temporary asset in the meantime. There's potential if we keep delaying a decision, to be honest, the asset, you know, with its
01:14:00 sandbag protection, et cetera, which was built for a temporary nature, we don't want to lose the opportunity because I guess we take a long time to address and wait for, say, a project that looks at the broader suburb and its pedestrian access. Councillor Finzel: Can I just ask, so what now classifies the temporary pathway as an asset? Speaker 3: It's there. Just because it's there? It's built. It's built. It's built infrastructure. Councillor Finzel: Okay. So the built infrastructure spent for that came out of the initial project? Project. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Just to clarify something I heard before, did you say the cost of removal was quoted at $130? Speaker 2: $130. It's not like for life. It's more than the improved. Councillor Wilkie: And so to keep it and improve and upgrade it would be $103? Speaker 2: That's the latest estimate I have from the contract. Councillor Wilkie: $130 to remove, $103 to keep. Yes. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: And if there's been suggestions that it costs up to about $20,000 to remove.
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 Yeah. Would you dispute $20,000 to remove it? There have been suggestions. Would you dispute that? Speaker 2: I would dispute. I mean I've got these quotes from our main contractor, Hutchinson Builders, who have gone and got expertise in that area, $20,000 is not likely and I would like to review the safety plans for a contractor who proposes to do that for $20,000. You've got removal of concrete on a very steep bank, the potential for injury is very high when doing that project. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: There's traffic management, et cetera. Speaker 2: Yeah. There's a lot of safety control in doing that project. Councillor Jurisevic: Would it be fair to say also that the completion of the contract to create the boardwalk would be the removal of the temporary pathway and that would still fall to the original contractor, Hutchinson? Speaker 2: I would hope that we would align Hutchinson Builders. Councillor Jurisevic: Would that be part of the original contract? Speaker 2: No, because it was a provisional sum variation so the scope was able to be drawn as to where we were. Councillor Jurisevic: Just clarifying whether it was part of the original scope. Speaker 2: Yeah. Yeah. No, there's no contract.
01:16:00 The room is on that. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, I'll speak. Speaker 2: Claire. Mayor Stewart: I think this is a hard one, as everyone's alluded to, but I think there's one word we can't escape and that's the word temporary. Indeed, the first words of our report state the temporary path. This was always meant to be a temporary path. In a letter from Hutchinson Builders on the 13th of April 2018, they state preliminary works will be started on Monday the 16th of April 2018 with the establishment of site facilities surveying and the construction of a temporary footpath. The need for it is now long gone with the construction of our magnificent Park Road boardwalk. I've walked the particular path in question. It was not used at all when I was there and indeed Councillor Finzel was there and we were there during a busy time. I would call it in fact on the road to nowhere is what well I would describe it. There have only been three submissions in support of it and there's been one against it. I can't on those terms say that there's overwhelming support in the community for its presence.
01:17:00 Council gave an undertaking to the residents at the time of the Park Road boardwalk when it was being constructed that they would do everything possible to minimise the impact on their neighbourhood and the temporary path would be constructed with gravel and scaffolding. Is there a need for it now? I'd suggest not. Indeed the lack of support from the community for the pathway through only the three submissions in favour of it demonstrates this. Access is available or achieved by only four properties. There have been talks about concerns with safety and that's fundamental. This was never designed to be a permanent structure. Safety considerations at the time were never taken into account. This was always only temporary. The most important part of our cycling and walking strategy has to be safety. Indeed this doesn't even fall under our cycling and walking strategy. I keep coming back to one word and it's a promise. It's an undertaking that we as a Council gave to our residents. This path was promised to those residents that it was only temporary and that it would
01:18:00 be removed with completion of the Park Road boardwalk. It isn't disabled compliant. It's not all abilities. And it does not meet full accessibility standards. It doesn't have to. And as our agenda states, it is common that not all paths meet full accessibility standards. I note this simply because the path itself does not add any additional features to the world-class boardwalk that already exists, nor does it provide any additional resources to our community, especially those with mobility restrictions. Finally, I note on the statement on page five of the agenda, which refers to the fact that this project is a non-urgent project. It refers to a future budget review to determine if funding can be made available from other project savings or existing program timing. We know we have the biggest ever 47 million capital works program and that path, as it is, is unsafe. Now, I know that we've heard that it will be looked at and maintained, but it isn't
01:19:00 a safe structure as it is. Most importantly, we must honour our word to our community, our promise to our residents. We are nothing if we can't be true to our word. Whether or not this pathway is in front of a $20 million home or a $200,000 home, that is not the point. The point is, we made a promise to our residents that it would be temporary, it was never designed to be permanent, and we must honour that word, that promise, and be true to our word. We are nothing if we aren't true to our word. Thank you. So I will not be supporting the staff recommendation. Councillor Jurisevic: I have a complete contrary review. And the Mayor alluded to the nature of why. And that was that the original intent of this pathway was to be gravel and scaffolding. And it's unfortunate, when we understood that that wasn't a sufficiently safe alternative, a safe option, and the pathway was upgraded, that we didn't remove the word temporary from
01:20:00 the process. Because to me, this is an asset. This is an asset that's going to be used in the future. This is an asset that well serves an element of the building. And whilst, at this point of time, it may only look like it serves 11 residences, four properties, but 11 residences, to enable safe access down that, and what is otherwise a fairly steep and unmanageable path area, it's in the road reserve, it's quite in Council's option and nature to build structures of this type within road reserves. And that's exactly what it is. It does facilitate a need. And it also has an opportunity for expansion in the future. Sure, it's not in the cycling and walking strategy and hasn't been considered at this point in time. It doesn't mean it's healthy. Certainly, the residents along the Lambie Terrace may need to amble along a bit of road to get to it, but they also have access to it. So, I think there's more than just those park road residents that live immediately adjoining the pathway or connected to the pathway that can enjoy the benefit of it.
01:21:00 It prevents those residents from having to cross the park road, which, as we all know at times, is quite well-trafficked and quite dangerous as a result. So, it does facilitate a safety aspect in there. It does complement the existing boardwalk pathway because it provides a maintenance benefit for that in the event that maintenance is required. Thank you. So, it also has another opportunity to come back into use and come back into prominent use in the event that maintenance works are required. I, for one, fought hammer and tong to try and see the only asset that I've ever seen in my town and council removed, returned. And I won't see an asset removed for the sake of removal. I think it's unfortunate that we had that consideration, that once we upgraded that pathway from a gravel pathway to a concrete pathway. That we didn't see the opportunity then for this to be a more permanent structure.
01:22:00 Speaker 4: And I see the opportunity now for that to remain. Councillor Jurisevic: It's also an opportunity to enhance the road reserve, which for many, many years has been weed infested. It gives us access to areas that probably never really got the need of maintenance. In that regard. And I see that we can enhance the asset further with better plant management down there. The idea, the concept of a middle path and blocking off one end and the other, I think only creates a further maintenance issue in the future. Because all that will do is allow the path to decay and fall into complete neglect because it's not being used, not being maintained. And at some stage in the future, we're going to have to pay to remove it because it deteriorates into such a state that we can't be maintained. So I don't see, you know, I don't see any benefit in an option such as that. I mean, there was talk about maintenance, but every pathway requires maintenance.
01:23:00 Every road requires maintenance. Do we stop building pathways and roadways because they require maintenance? I mean, that's a nonsense. The point is that unless they're assets and in the asset register, that they don't come into our maintenance program. And as a result, don't get the due care that they deserve. And that's what we're going to have to do. This pathway, I think, complements the existing pathway, I think, with a minor enhancement, which is less than the cost of removal of the overall pathway, that becomes a benefit to the community. It becomes a longstanding opportunity to create an asset that fits in with the pathway process that we have. The philosophy of people over cars, giving people ways and means of accessing one of the great assets of Noosa, which is the Noosa National Park, safely, without having to cross Park Road in many instances, and an opportunity for the future for further connectivity. As Adam alluded to, we haven't done a lot of work with regard to pathways in this area
01:24:00 because of the informal nature of things like Mini Street and the like. And we may not want to see them there, but we do have a duty of care to ensure that we have a safe and secure road. Safe pathway access to all of our areas for all of our residents, regardless of where they live, whether it be in the hinterland or whether it be at Noosa Heads. I think that's about all the points I've got. Oh yes, the $100,000 plus for removing an asset, I don't see that as a great benefit for the community. I see $100,000 spent into enhancing an asset which can provide service to the community for the future is a far greater opportunity. Graver and safer access for residents is the way forward. And yeah, in this location, it would be very difficult to provide on all abilities. Pathways here, the gradient and the crosshairs and all the rest, but that doesn't mean that
01:25:00 we can't have pathways in the Shire. And we do have pathways in the Shire that are stairways. And particularly around this hill region, I mean, Noosa Hill is one giant stair. It doesn't mean we can't have pathways in the Shire. It just means that there are areas that some people won't be able to negotiate as a result of the pathway not being suitable for that region. As to the safety elements that were mentioned at the base, I've spoken to staff as well and they assured me that if this is kept as, depending on the categorising of the pathway, that the crossover isn't required down the bottom and the access down there and the car parks don't need to be relocated as they currently stand. So I'm satisfied that this is a benefit for the community for the future that should see some additional work put in to maintain. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. I have a quick question of staff. You mentioned $130,000 to remove, $113,000 to keep and upgrade the asset.
01:26:00 If this council decided to remove the asset, would it still have to go through a future budget review process to access the funds to remove the asset? Yes. Speaker 2: Okay. Any funding, regardless of the decision, will have to go through that process. Right. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I have just a question. Through the Chair, given the word temporary is on all our reports and we're talking about this as an asset, is it currently listed on the asset register? Speaker 4: Through the Chair, no, it's not. It hasn't been written on our books yet. Okay. Councillor Finzel: So through the Chair, thank you to Brian. Thank you. Secondly, why then are we talking about infrastructure? Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, you can ask questions of staff. We just don't debate staff. That's a question. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you for the clarification on the meeting process. My pleasure. Any time, Councillor Finzel.
01:27:00 Perhaps this is where the confusion sits in terms of money, projects, design, assets, etc. At what point then, may I ask, does infrastructure end up on the Council Asset Register? Speaker 4: I'll just do it that way. We actually go through a process at the end of each project and we break down each component that's been constructed and we write them on as part of that process. Because we, as part of that process, we've got a lot of work to do. It's a drawn out process in regards to we wait for final bills and the like, and there's a backlog of that occurring. And that's why we haven't written this asset on. And we also had this flagged as a temporary asset that was to be removed as part of the project. We've debated this through our project control group and a couple of works executive for it to come to Council through that process of whether we're going to write it on or off.
01:28:00 And again, we're waiting to see what the actual outcome of this decision will be before it is written on to the books. But it is a process that both finance and the asset team work with in getting our assets written on to the financial asset register. Councillor Finzel: And given our Council reputation back to community, that service levels and the delivery of projects and things within a certain timeframe, how far in the backlog or how much of backlog in the workload has brought into play around this? Has that been an interplay in that aside from just this project sitting there because of the debate that we have to have about the temporary thing? What's the impact on our reputation back to Council because we're not delivering within
01:29:00 timeframes? Given we make a commitment to service levels? Speaker 4: Just to clarify the question, in regards to this particular project or any delays that we've been doing in regards to our project delivery overall, because essentially we obviously report regularly to the community about our delivery. We have in recent years achieved our 90% targets in most cases of completing 90% of our program. So our service levels seem to be quite well maintained in the project delivery element. In the maintenance aspect, we're still continuing on improving through our civil ops review and through also continual inspection regimes and ensuring that we have good interventions on assets. And this is no different. If we are to agree to retaining this asset, then we will bring in some maintenance schedules to ensure that it doesn't deteriorate until we actually do those works.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 And those works are essentially around handrails and the like that would be more aligned to our look and feel than a temporary type handrail that was currently in existence. Councillor Jurisevic: Also include some sweeping and landing path on a regular basis which doesn't appear to be occurring at present? Speaker 4: We don't do too much sweeping of pathways. We let Mother Nature do a lot of that. But where needed, we will clear and have that done. Councillor Finzel: So just to clarify in this, just with regards to this, so the hold up here has been bringing this before council in terms of getting it on the asset register. Speaker 4: That's correct, yes, because at the end of the day, we haven't agreed to keeping it or not. Whether it's temporary or not. Yes. We've asked temporary over here to say we need a decision on this. And we acknowledge that it is a temporary asset at the moment. Yes. Councillor Finzel: We want to clarify when it's being discussed as infrastructure, technically it's not actually infrastructure as such from an administrative perspective.
01:31:00 Speaker 4: Well, it's a physical asset that we're doing work on. Yes, and from an administrative. But it's from a financial register and on our books it's not being depreciated at this point in time though. Speaker 3: Yes, because it's listed as temporary and that's the whole point of this is to bring it to a head and say is it temporary or is it going to be permanent. We take it out all the way. That's right. That's the whole point. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. I mean, that's no different to any asset because developers quite often construct assets that become right on. Question. Question, Joe. The question is, it's no different to the things that developers do, I mean, the way of pathways or paths and that are part of the development that then get written on as council assets. They don't get written on until completion or handover of that element. So the process of writing the asset on is no different to what we would do with a development that had components of assets that get written on once they've been finished as part of the Speaker 4: I think the question is, do we do anything different from developers to our own constructed
01:32:00 assets? And the answer is, no, we don't. We're very similar. A similar process. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Question in regard to safety. There was a statement made that the pathway is unsafe. Can you advise whether you agree with that or whether you believe whatever minus current safety issues may be there can be adequately managed through operational works up until such a time as a budget is available for its upgrade? Speaker 2: I think the time that that comment was made today, it was during construction. That pathway, although temporary, safety was its priority. Hence, we had no accidents for 600,000 people using it. There was a statement made about the pathway currently being unsafe. Well, again, this is where we work with our operational works team. And whilst it's a carryover of the original project, they will throw in screws and swap over timber and do what they need to to make it safe. But that's not how we're going to continually maintain it. That's not how we recommend it.
01:33:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So my question is, do you agree that it's currently unsafe? No. No, I don't know. Okay. There's another statement made that there was a potential middle option to close off each end of the pathway if, I presume, that that would allow the rest of that path to degrade. Is that something from a safety and a risk perspective that we could entertain? Or would we, for example, if someone injured themselves on a degrading path, still be liable for any, or still be potentially liable? Could you make that? Speaker 2: I wouldn't recommend that. I would recommend that you remove the whole path before you do a partial retain. Speaker 4: But through the chief, to answer your question, is that that would be the risk that we'd wear, that it would degrade, and that it is a public area, because it's in road reserve, that people could still utilise that facility. And if we aren't maintaining it, then that could be a risk. It could occur. But if there was something that was to remain, we would still inspect it, as well, to ensure
01:34:00 that it was safe. Councillor Wegener: Mr Tom. What was the original cost to put in the path in the first place? About $100,000. Would it be better to spend a bit more money and make a really nice path on there, instead of refurbishing this one? Because sometimes it's easier, like for me, to make a new surfboard is infinitely easier than repairing a very, very damaged surfboard. Speaker 2: So what you would get out of this temporary path upgrade, you would have handrails similar, but not exactly identical, to the main boardwalk. You would have, whilst it has steps and it's concrete, you will have an appearance that it complements the existing boardwalk. It's not a low standard. And it will appear as a much higher standard, complementing, whilst it has stairs, the existing boardwalk on the other side of the road. It won't appear as a hacked together upgrade.
01:35:00 It will appear planned. It will look intended. And that's hence why there's $100,000 that's proposed to do this work. Mayor Stewart: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I have been on that path, and I had to be part of this trying to find them. Because it was, to me, on that, when I was on that, and it was, there was shaky handrails. Have you had a service on that since? Speaker 2: I'll have to talk to our operational works team. We put in the maintenance report. Councillor Finzel: We used to put in because of the safety issues concerning that path. And that's something I'll follow up. I was trying to find photos, but I can't find them. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is that closed? So, there is a valid point that we did go out and say that this is temporary. Can I say that the majority of the human assets in this Shire started life here temporarily as visitors. There is nothing wrong with changing your mind, making temporary things permanent if they are of value.
01:36:00 And that's what we've got here. We've got a valuable asset. We've got... Really important also is that we... We can retain that valuable asset, upgrade it to a point where it is consistent with the look and feel of one of the most prestigious walking areas in Australia for less than it will cost to take it down. We can achieve that outcome if it was designed into the original boardwalk project and still come under budget by several hundred thousand dollars. We can achieve it by saving $27,000 to spend on other projects. And the statements we made that it's not in the cycling and walking strategy, I think we're getting confused. It is not a link that has been prioritised individually as part of the draft implementation
01:37:00 plan. It is totally consistent with what we said we want to do in the cycling and draft cycling and walking strategy. Our vision is more people riding a bike and walking for health, transport, tourism and the environment. This goes towards achieving that vision and at the same time saving ratepayers money. We've talked about the reputational risk and to me that is far greater than the ones associated with the... changing our minds about whether making a temporary piece of infrastructure permanent. I think the reputational risk is one that we weren't using limited resources wisely. There is no doubt that not only do we save $27,000 of retaining it and upgrading it compared to removing it, but we also save by not having the opportunity cost of the
01:38:00 value foregone. The opportunity cost which Council Wilkie quite clearly identified is not just for the 11 residences, but as in his words, and I'll have to believe him because I don't jog that much, hundreds of joggers. It is a resource that allows us to separate those who want the experience of calmly walking along Australia's best boardwalk, admiring nature and the views with those who want to get their heart rate up to a certain level and sweat. They are two different uses and this facilitates it. So we are adding to our network. We are achieving the goals of the transport strategy and we're achieving the vision and the objectives of the cycling and walking strategy while saving $27,000. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put the motion those in favour.
01:39:00 Jurisevic, Stockwell and Wilkie. Those against. Councillor Stewart. Finzel and Wegener. It comes down to a casting vote. I cast my vote on this occasion in favour. The motion is carried. Councillor, after that invigorating debate, can we take a five-minute adjournment please? Sure.
105 minutes in ¶
01:46:00 Okay, welcome back everybody and we're up to item three, which is the proposed lease for Shop 8, the Sunrise Beach Shopping Centre.
01:47:00 This is a report directed to the General Committee and we have Robin Mercer here from our property committee. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. And we have a conflict of interest here. Oh, okay. Councillor Lorentson: I, Councillor Lorentson, informed the meeting that I had a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as my children are both casual employees at Cafe Le Monde and El Capitano, which I believe are also owned or part owned by the director of Tanglewood Company, Ryan Taylor. In addition, during the 2020 election campaign, I had election materials. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person can have a perception of bias because I believe I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr Taylor. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision.
01:48:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay, we have a motion before us whether Councillor Lorentson stays in the room or not. Any questions? Go on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In the minds of the CEO, as children, they're close associates. Is that right? Your children are your close associates under the Act? Speaker 3: I understand where your question's going. So, no, this is only a declarable conflict of interest. And the reason is that while your children are close associates, this is a conflict of interest. It's not a direct connection. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll move that Councillor Lorentson stay and that it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson participates and votes on this matter because Council believes Councillor Lorentson does not have a close personal relationship with Mr Taylor. Therefore, a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public
01:49:00 interest. Can I have a second on that? Oh, I will. Seconded by Councillor Stewart. Councillor Lorentson has declared that he does not have a close personal interest with Ryan Taylor. There was election material left on display at Cafe Le Monde. That's not an indication of a close personal relationship. Therefore, it is a declarable conflict of interest. The Councillor has declared that. And I'm quite comfortable that Councillor Lorentson remains in the room for the purpose of this debate. Thank you. Thank you. Any other councillors would speak to the motion? I'll put the motion to those in favour. It's carried unanimously. Councillor Spitts, any questions of Robert and Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: This may allude to the answer to the question I was going to ask, but the entity Tanglewood Company, Procurement Limited, do we know what other entities they are responsible for within the Shire? I'm assuming Cafe Le Monde and whatever the other one was.
01:50:00 Two of them. Are there any others that we are aware of? Speaker 1: It wasn't part of our scope of investigation. I think everyone's familiar with them to a degree in the region, but that wasn't something we carried out at the time. Councillor Jurisevic: It's often difficult to know by a company name what entities that come under that company name banner. Councillor Lorentson: Robin, in regards to the commercial property, it's shop out at Sunrise Beach. How long has the property been unoccupied and why? And what has this cost Council and ratepayers in terms of holding costs? Speaker 1: I believe it was prior to my tenure, but I think it was around April or May 2018 that the prior tenant vacated. I'm not really sure it was the first half of 2018. Why? As I said, it was prior to my tenure, but I think their business model became unsustainable is probably the best way of describing it. I think there was a lot more micro aspects to it, but at a broader level, it became
01:51:00 unsustainable. And sorry, the question around. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of holding costs, what has it cost ratepayers? Speaker 1: The holding costs are fairly minimal because the operating costs are variable. So if you've got a tenancy within that shop, you've got water, electricity, maintenance. Once you remove the operation, those variable costs diminish. The opportunity for the tenant to be able to move out of the property is very, very Councillor Lorentson: small. How many applications were received? Sorry, Brian. How many applications were received by Council and what was the criteria in assessing the applications? Speaker 1: It's a fairly fluid space. So the way it works with commercial brokering is that over the last 12 to 18 months, there's
01:52:00 been various parties that have expressed interest. Sometimes they remain as a verbal and Colliers undertakes that interaction for us. Sometimes they proceed to an offer to lease. Where something becomes documented, which is a non-binding document, and then it can fall away at that point also. So in terms of the number of applications, it's the number of offer leases that have come through my inbox of probably upwards of four or five, really, over an extended period of time. And then they've fallen away or someone's lost interest. In this particular aspect, in the last months, we've had two interested parties and one decided not to proceed. So in coming to this report, there was just one. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I stop you? So do we have an indication of the nature of use that's going in there? Is it going to be different to the old general store? Speaker 1: Yes. So previously, it was a food works. The model now is more so around wholesale food production with a retail space to complement
01:53:00 that. It might have a similarity in Belmondo's to their organic food. It's a fairly niche market. I think it's conceptual to a point, and the business model will be fleshed out through the lease negotiations. But yes, it's in accordance with the permitted use that was documented in the report. Councillor Jurisevic: Is there a potential for conflict with any of the other facilities, any of the other providers within the facility? Speaker 1: In terms of what the offering is and the permitted use, not that we believe, because it's, as I said, it's that niche whole food market. It's a wholesale whole foods, organic foods market. Their intent is to produce items that will then be distributed throughout the Shire. So that's a large portion of it also. Mayor Stewart: Robyn, it says in the report that Tanglewood will be undertaking substantial fit-out work
01:54:00 to the premises to evaluate, obviously, to the whole shopping centre, which is great. Yes. When is that undertaking happening, and at what time or when can we expect Tanglewood to act? Speaker 1: So, the next step after today is that we move into the lease preparation space. So, we'll seek our legal counsel will guide us, and Tanglewood will get their legal counsel and will effectively come up with an agreement and disclosure statements. And I think I put in there that it's the 1st of June that we hope to actually for the lease to commence. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Speaker 1: That will be subject somewhat to how we go with the lease discussions. We don't foresee any problems. So, that's the date that we're aiming for at this stage, will be the commencement. And any fit-out would commence at that point. Mayor Stewart: And at the cost of, obviously, Tanglewood? Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. Not a cost borne by council. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to move this. I've got some more questions. Robyn, Shop 8 is the largest tenancy in the centre, 305 square metres, and it's the centre's
01:55:00 key anchor tenancy. It's common practice that anchor tenants receive significant concessions from landlords. And I note that six-month rent-free period has been given to the applicant. Have any more concessions been allowed, given that the shopping centre, in my opinion, will be impacted significantly by the construction of the Blue Care development site nearby? Speaker 1: The conversation around concessions and what a tenant is willing to make, I don't think we can move forward on the basis of. So, we have an in-principle offer to lease, and that includes that concession mechanism of a rent-free period. That's what they're comfortable to move forward with at this point. Yes, with other negotiate or discussions with interested parties, there's a number of other mechanisms that you can look at, whether it's around market reviews and flat increases
01:56:00 over time. That's a really broad space for lease negotiations and how you subsidise that initial entry and then reduce risk. But this offer to lease, that's a concession that they're comfortable moving forward with in principle. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: That six-month rent-free period, how does it sit with any anti-competitive or competitive neutrality practices? Is it a standard offer in the month? Speaker 1: It's fairly standard, yes. Six to 12 months is standard, what you see in the commercial and retail space for a new lease. They've just sunk their capital in, so it's just that initial establishment period. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of return for investment, what did council pay for the shop and what return for investment are we getting on our property? Speaker 3: I don't know the answer to that.
01:57:00 In the 1990s at least, that shopping centre was there. When I arrived in 2001, I'd been there for quite a while. I actually did a review then whether we held it or sold it back in 2001, so it's been a long time. Councillor Jurisevic: My understanding was an asset built by council to fulfil a need that couldn't be met by commercial realisation. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, fantastic. Councillor Jurisevic: Back in the 1980s or early 90s. Councillor Lorentson: So a great return on investment by the sound of it. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: That's all. Speaker 3: Sorry, just to add to that, probably to answer that a bit more fully. The other thing when you've got an asset like this and you're looking at what is the percentage rate return might be, 3%, 5%, 6%, if you're a private owner, you look at that sort of stuff, at the moment with low interest rates, if the council ever sold this, you go, well, we've got $2 or $3 million, what are we going to do with it? So you've got to look at the relativity about what that risk is that's been vacant, but you also get a higher return when it did fall to. So that's the balance you've got. Councillor Lorentson: And capital growth is probably the most important aspect.
01:58:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart moved the motion. I'll second it. Councillor Stewart? That's a good question. You're free to ask questions during the debate at any time as well. Councillor Stewart? Mayor Stewart: I'm just excited by this prospect. This is an exciting thing coming before us, I spent a lot of time at Sunrise Shops during my campaign and it's great to see that a major tenant, you know, the largest in the centre, will be such a value-added tenant to the whole precinct, a lot of work has been done in this area, Robyn, thank you so much, this has been, especially with COVID, it's been interrupted, so thank you for your hard work and tenacity in finding a tenant and, you know, it seems to me this tenant will really be a fantastic fit and, as I said, you know, a rising tide lifts all boats and the initiation and the implementation of this business in that area, I think, will really help those other small businesses in the area. So thank you very much and I know we've had a lot of briefings about this over the last 12 months and it's great to see it come to fruition, so thank you. Councillor Finzel, you have a question? Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you for your work done. It's great to see one of our assets potentially being used and bring a return back to the community, so thank you for your work around that.
01:59:00 Just regards a question around due diligence, just how does Council go forward making sure that their commercial viability is a safe investment? Speaker 1: This is a role that Colliers undertakes for us, we have a contract with them to undertake our property management for that centre. Their submission, they provided a summary and I'll note that within that they've stated they're confident that Tanglewood Bivik will be able to meet the financial obligations of the lease, so we rely on Collier's assessment in that space. Councillor Finzel: Okay, thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'd just like to just make comment. It was critical that the right tenant was chosen for this site. A high profile tenant that can maximise the potential for the adjacent... and tenants and create value for great payers. With a CV that includes the success of places like Belmondo's, Cafe Le Monde, El Capitano and the Hot Dog Stand, I am extremely confident that this operator will improve the character and the prominence of this sleepy shopping village.
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 It took some time, over two years, to find the right tenant, but the wait was worth it. Thank you, Robyn. Mayor Stewart: I just need to confirm that. Belmondo's is not part of this application, is it? Because otherwise I would have had to declare a declarable complaint. Oh, okay, but Tate Family. But it's a separate entity. It's a separate entity. It's a separate entity, yeah. Thank you, I just needed, otherwise I would have had to declare it. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you, Council Chair. Mayor Stewart: Thanks. Councillor Jurisevic: Joe? It's good to see someone has seen the financial viability of the space that has been vacant at the Sunrise Beach shops for some time. Obviously, this space has been the local convenience store for many, many years, and I used to service the store back in the early 2000s, so I know it was a viable entity for many years, and it's a shame that that didn't continue on, and that the space became vacant, but it's good to see that somebody can see that Sunrise Beach shops has another use and another life, if not as a convenience store, but one that will add vibrance, and it's good to see that somebody can see that Sunrise Beach shops has another use and another life, if not as
02:01:00 and colour a new activity to the Centre, and, of course, with the Blue Care development soon to get underway, it should be a booming location for any business that's operating out there. I wish them well. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart. Notice line? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. I think it's very interesting to see what the market has come up with. We've had the traditional local general store, which most people went to for their bread, milk, etc., dog food, when you didn't have any and you had to get on the bike and get some, because I lived down the road for five years. And it's been replaced with an artisanal food production business, which is based on values such as organics.
02:02:00 And to me, that's really interesting from a broader perspective. I think it's also good that the planning scheme did allow for these sort of businesses where you're manufacturing and selling and wholesaling from a centre zone. That was one of the things that we overtly did when we brought up the NursiPlan 2020 is try and make the business centre. And so that was suitable for these new urban enterprises, which tend to have a mixed model in terms of making and retailing, etc. So it will be interesting. I think the local community will benefit from it, and I think it will hopefully be a complementary to and build more foot traffic for all the other businesses in the locality. Being organic, the dentists might not get as much because they won't have much sugar in there.
02:03:00 Councillor Wilkie: And the next item is Budget Review 3 for the 2021 financial year and welcome Trent, our Manager of Financial Services. I did have a question that I gave on notice earlier in the last week. We're asking that there be an extra $25,000 for a development inspector engaged to support the progression of the short term accommodation of local law. I ask, obviously in preparation for that once the local law is ratified, what sort of duties will that person actually be doing to prepare for the introduction of the law? Speaker 5: Sure, so obviously aside from the upcoming discussion about adoption of the SBA local law,
02:04:00 there's obviously a lot of planning. There's a lot of planning and project development in regards to the project that needs to occur. There's still ongoing approval and compliance work associated under the existing and superseded planning schemes associated with the STAs, which is currently being borne obviously by existing offices. So they can obviously reallocate their workload accordingly back to their existing application approval work. In addition, they'll be supporting the ongoing responses and investigation of complaints that Council is receiving in regards to STA matters, and commencing training of other offices and assisting with public notification and finalisation of the STA local law when it actually finalises. So they're actually boosting the resources of the existing team. Councillor Wilkie: Correct. Assisting them with their existing duties. Correct. As well as preparing. Speaker 5: Correct. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah.
02:05:00 And the whole team will be gearing up, I'd imagine, to prepare for the introduction of the law. Speaker 5: Correct. Not just one officer. Yes. And at present it's been borne by obviously existing officers that will otherwise be working on other development and compliance related matters. So it will enable that rebalancing of workload across the branch. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Questions, Councillor? Thank you, Councillor. Trent, the Kin Kin community have expressed a bit of disappointment in the program Capital Works for Kin Kin. On page 11 of the report, key criteria number three, consideration has got to be given to community priorities before endorsing any capital work. Is there an opportunity for us to bring forward any proposed funding for upgrades to, for example, the oval facilities and amenities that have been programmed for to Kin Kin? And is there an opportunity for us to look at Kin Kin, revisit Kin Kin and their priorities
02:06:00 for skate parks, expansion, street skates, footpaths? Speaker 3: That's where our annual budget process is for. So we look at our 10 year capital works program. And if there are projects that are sitting in, for example, 2027, and you think that they should be brought forward, that's the time for our budget process to do that. That's a better time than through a budget review. Halfway through the year. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. Thank you. I want to add another question, if I may. Okay. So looking at emerging issues that represent risk or opportunity to Council's ability to deliver the capital works program, have we factored in risks such as climate change? Should we be including in our budget, a budget for a seawall to protect the environment, protect important infrastructure such as public land and beaches? Should we be budgeting to construct bigger pipelines, dune protection works, beach nourishment?
02:07:00 Should we be anticipating a severe storm event that may put the northern eastern beaches and main beach at risk of closure? And my other question is, these are risks, in my opinion, that could impact on Council's financial sustainability, how have we budgeted for these risks, and how will they be financed if such an event does occur? Councillor Finzel: If we're discussing eastern beaches, I think I have to go out of my way. Councillor Jurisevic: Point of order, Mr Chair. The relevance of the question to the item before it, we're talking about budget review three, and I think the... I can answer the question. Speaker 3: It's a process question. I guess the short answer is that we are going through a coastal hazards program, at the moment. That's where that will be dealt with, not in the budget review. So that's a separate issue. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 3: In terms of how we deal with our budget for, I call it natural disasters generally, so
02:08:00 if you have a cyclone, storm, flood, or whatever it might be, we do have provision in our policies that allow 5% of our general rate, or the equivalent of that, we hold in a reserve, so that if we have a storm, or we need to spend money on a natural event, then we can do that, whether it's a storm at Kin Kin, or a flood at Cooroibah, or whatever it might be. We have money in our budget set aside for natural disaster events, if they're not covered by natural disaster funding, then we have those policies in place. The rainy day reserve. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Oh, I was just clarifying if we were going to discuss eastern beaches. I had to leave the room. No. Yeah, just checking that. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. So the big picture here is that there's a $4 million of extra revenue that's come in over the amount that was originally budgeted for, mainly due to the early opening of the holiday parks and council facilities.
02:09:00 Correct, Councillor. Speaker 5: So that's been the focus of this BR3, has been operationally abandoned. We've been discussing our conservative estimates and concerns 12 months ago about ongoing COVID closures and what that would mean to all our facilities, including Holiday Parks and the Aquatic Centre and the Leisure Centre. So you're seeing that positive upside coming through in these numbers and it's made a significant improvement to our deficit. Councillor Wilkie: So it's improved the bottom line by $2 million effectively. Correct. Is there a question? I've got a question. Sure. Mayor Stewart: Trent, in regard to, and this is probably not a question for you, because it's probably more a question about delays and impacting capital infrastructure, so I won't address them to you, but I will address questions 24 and 20, on page 24, 25 and 26. On page 24, it's all the same.
02:10:00 Page 24, sales revenue. Page 24, sales revenue. I just noticed in BR3, 2021, see we're at 10.036 compared to the previous BR1 and BR2, it's 7.319. Speaker 5: And that's in relation to those facilities that have reopened. So most of that is what we've, under the P&L, or the reports that we run, we categorise that revenue from the Holiday Parks, site bookings and entry through the Aquatic Centre for casual passes as sales revenue. So that's that. That's about $4 million, frankly. Mayor Stewart: On page, can you just tell me on page 25, line item provisions, what exactly does provisions mean, under liabilities? Speaker 5: Provisions, under liabilities. So under our liabilities, we have a, at a very high level, very basic, you've got credit liabilities, which are the bills that are coming in every week and every month, end of the month, what our outstanding bills are for our suppliers and payments.
02:11:00 Okay. You have borrowings, which are obviously our long-term loans. Provisions are where there is a known and recognised and measurable future impact. Where there is an outlay that we will be due to pay at some point in the future. But there is no obligation to pay that now. So what that comprises is, one is employee provisions. So for all our staff at Council, at some point, they may take their long service leave. Got it. They may take their annual leave. So we provide... Mayor Stewart: It's a rainy day policy in a way. Speaker 5: And the other one is for the landfill. So we obviously do a lot of work to assess the lifespan of the cell and how much waste can accommodate that cell before we have to engage in rehabilitating the landfill cell.
02:12:00 So we recognise that at some point in the next 10, 20, 50 years, there'll be progressive expenditure that we'll need to incur to rehabilitate those landfill cells. Mayor Stewart: Okay. And the borrowings, obviously, below it, which we've decreased by, you know, over three mil... Well, 300... Sorry. 19... From... No, 300,000. We'll do... For the borrowings. From BR2 to BR3. We've gone from 19,114 to 16,015. Is that our savings on our investment? Speaker 5: Not at this point. Not at this point. So we actually haven't brought into these figures yet the outcomes of the refinancing arrangement, Queensland Treasury. That was actually approved a week ago and it's gone through this month. What that is there is that during the year, actually last month, we had our biannual loan repayment. So we repay our loans in August and February, March each year. So that's come through and so the loan balance has been moved to short-term versus long-term.
02:13:00 So you'll see there's two lines in there. There's a short-term and a long-term borrowing. So it's just... We've recognised the fact that the borrowings have dropped as a result overall from that repayment of that loan. Mayor Stewart: Okay. And the last one, page 26. Net cash flow from investing in activities. We've gone in BR2 from 19,816 to 15,330. Speaker 5: That is primarily due to the line in there for payments for property, plant and equipment, Councillor Wilkie: which you'll see in the budget review for the capital budget review, capital works have Speaker 5: been delayed. So our capital works program has dropped from 35 to $31 million. And so obviously we're not expending as much on building bridges, timing of construction and capital works. So that pushes out for next year. Mayor Stewart: Oh, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you very much. Councillor Wilkie: Move Councillor Jurisevic, seconded Councillor Lauritsen.
02:14:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Good to see the financial position at BR3 has improved to the degree that it has. After a very conservative budget and borrowing times through the year, we've seen it be coming out on the other side with good elements of recovery and also a lot of financial assistance from external equities, such as the federal government. So we'll see there. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Put the motion those in favour. That's carried unanimously. Thank you, Trent, and that's item is the monthly financial report. Councillor Jurisevic: I thought you'd be honest. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, councillors, more questions? Councillor Lorentson: On page 32, there's reference...
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 Sorry, Amelia. Oh, excuse me. Mayor Stewart: May I have a question first? Oh, sorry. No, that's all right. I've got it just ahead. On page 39 of the agenda, Trent, can you explain for our residents why in the summary of capital expenditure and funding, the expenditure and funding totals are the same? Speaker 5: Sure. So, councillors, there's essentially two... Task 1 has two reports. The top part is... This is a profit and loss statement or operating statement or P&L, purely operating, it's the rates, money we're getting from rates and obviously how we spend that across the plethora of activities on running our facilities and maintaining all our infrastructure. So on any year obviously you'll always run with a profit or a loss depending on how we're performing during the year. The bottom report is very different, so it can be termed to be a summary of capital expenditure and funding, a capital funding statement, I think some organisations will call it a sources and uses of capital funding.
02:16:00 Essentially the idea behind a capital funding statement is it's about how much you're spending on your infrastructure and where you're getting it from. So the simplest example, if you're building a community facility for $2 million, the cost or the capital expenditure is $2 million and you have to get that $2 million from the community. Now it'll either be grants, it could be loans, it could be council reserves or profit that we have. So the idea is it's just showing where we're getting that funding from and what we're expending it on to invest that back into the community's infrastructure. So when you look at this report, the key questions you need to ask yourself and the audience need to ask themselves is, is the capital expenditure running on budget and on time? Are we over-expending or under-expending and what's that mean for timing of works? And then if the funding is different, what's happening with loan drawdowns?
02:17:00 What's happening with grants? Are the grants coming in on time? Is there a delay with the grants? And are we using too much or too little of the cash that we've got put aside? Speaker 6: Thank you. Thanks Trent for the information. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Happy to move? Move Councillor Jurisevic. I'll second it. Seconded Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Lorentson: Trenton Prince. On page 32, I just would love an explanation. There's a reference made to governance legal fees, $260,000 unbudgeted. How is that different to other legal fees and materials and services and why is that being singled out? Speaker 3: We had a claim last year that was not covered by insurance for an asbestos claim. So that figure that you're referring to was not, we didn't anticipate we'd have a claim for asbestos. And that was the cost of settling that claim plus the legal cost.
02:18:00 Councillor Lorentson: Still on legals on page 42, that we're over budget. We've already hit our annual... Budget for legals. And this is sort of an ongoing conversation that we have monthly. So rather than asking the same question, the question I'm going to pose is, do we need to be more explicit in setting our legal risk appetite? And is this sort of a discussion or workshop for council to understand or manage our legal risk? It seems that we're underestimating or how much we should be setting aside for legals. Sure. Speaker 5: We'll be able to go further on the brain actually. It's a strategic discussion. Speaker 3: Yeah, good question. Legal costs cover a range of things. Obviously, a lot of the attention gets on to the Planning and Environment Court matters because that's the biggest chunk of it. We do have other expenses that come up, Kin Kin Cooroy would be a good example, which we didn't budget for and anticipate at the beginning of the financial year. It's come up during the year. And I think that expenditure so far is around about 65,000 dollars. So that would make up part of that.
02:19:00 I think a couple of things, we're doing it already. One is where councillors might be aware, we're doing a review of our governance area, which includes a review of how we manage our legal costs and legal areas. And that may, depending on what the review finds, result in an in-house lawyer to help to manage this better. We don't have one of those at the moment. That won't necessarily change the amount we spend because ultimately that comes back to decisions that council makes about what do we want to depend on, what do we want to spend on, what do we Councillor Wegener: can do better to perhaps work out what's avoidable. What are the things that we don't need to end up in some sort of dispute. That's, I think, where we can do some more work around that. Fantastic. Sorry, Joe. No problem. When it comes to legal expenses and so forth, that is the cost of protecting what we have, which is the town plan and the regulation schemes and so forth. Would you say that as our assets become more valuable,
02:20:00 we'll actually have to put more money into protecting those things that we have? For example, the planning scheme that, you know, if people are going to make twice as much this year as they did a few years ago on a particular property, that will push the limits to make every single, to push the limits on what our planning scheme says they can do. And so we need to push back with raising the battle funds, basically. Speaker 3: Is that accurate, do you think? I'll answer that one. Yeah, look, sure. The question for me has always been that all the flat, unencumbered, flood-free, unvegetated land is being developed. So what's left is the more marginal, more difficult land. And it's becoming more and more at stake commercially that if you can, you know, go to eight and a half metres instead of eight, you're going to have higher value. Or if you want to get five units onto the block instead of four, you're going to get more commercial value
02:21:00 So it is inevitable that the boundaries of our planning scheme are going to get tested. We're talking about just planning scheme costs. And the question for Council is, what do we want to do about that? Do we want to negotiate or not negotiate? Or do you want to hold tight? And that's a policy question, ultimately, for the Council, as you consider the tramification. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, three quarters of the way through the financial year, it's always interesting to look at the annual budget percentages of spend. And when you see something above the 75% mark, sometimes people ask questions, commissioners paid over the 34%, over 100%, well over 100% of the three quarters of the way through the year,
02:22:00 why are we at such a great amount of commissions paid over budget? Speaker 5: Holiday Parks, Councillor. So our Holiday Parks are operated under a management agreement. So obviously, during the budget process last year, when we assumed that the parks will be closed and there's no revenue, at the same time, we've assumed a reduction in the actual costs to pay commission for the management fees associated with the Holiday Parks. So you'll see in the previous agenda in BR3 that the revenue is being reflected. We've got an increase in revenue for Holiday Parks coming through the budget review. And that's partially offset by an increase in cost as well for those commissions. So with the next month's report, you'll see that will have smoothed out. Councillor Jurisevic: The other two items here that are nearing, that are 100% or nearing 100% insurance, we, is that to do with insurance claim payouts or insurance premium costs, or both?
02:23:00 Speaker 5: Both, Councillor. But in terms of timing, we actually have paid our premiums earlier in the year. So we actually hit 100% earlier in the year. And then it's a case of obviously the frequency, the occurrence and value of the premiums. So we've got a very good overview of any claims during the year as to whether that then starts to reach the point where it consumes our entire funding allocation for the claims. Councillor Jurisevic: And I'm sure claims are one of those things that you can't anticipate. You can only sort of budget an amount for and hope that it doesn't exceed that amount. Speaker 5: Correct. Councillor Jurisevic: The third one there, contribution, donations, sponsorship and prizes at 98% or not a significant. Sorry, this is a significant amount. Why are we, what page are you on, Chair? That's on the same page before all, 43rd. Materials and services, summary of key materials and services expenditure. Speaker 5: I do believe that is in relation to community grants. I'll take that on notice, Councillor.
02:24:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Can you clarify that for me? Can you clarify whether there's more to come or whether we've gone to the point of, if it is to do with community grants, have the grant rounds closed and that's the end of that, or is there more to come? I'll confirm that point. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. And for those who may be interested, Trent, in the capital works program reporting, can you just explain why there always seems to be a lag as to how much is actually built and how much is reported as being built and why there is that lag? So for instance, an asset can be completed, but it may only be reported as being 75% completed. Sure. Please. Speaker 5: Yeah. So for the most part, it's primarily just about timing for the invoices and payments for the contractors. So if you've got a major project for a piece of road infrastructure, it may be practically complete that the road is actually being resealed. It's community driving on it. It's actually physically in use. So it's practically complete.
02:25:00 So it's in terms of infrastructure reporting, the job is complete. But it may not be at a point where it's completely completed. The reason is that we're actually paying the final progress payments on the, to the supplier because there could be outstanding issues they still need to resolve before they get their final payment. And they may not have invoiced you. Correct, they may not have invoiced us. But more often than not, it's related to that signing off on that final payment and have all the requirements being met before they can actually invoice us. Councillor Wilkie: So the reporting we see in relation to capital works is how much has been paid against the Councillor Lorentson: Trent, one last question from me. How can the community work out whether or not Council is delivering against its adopted strategies? Is that information available online? The question is how does the budget reflect on our operational strategies and financial plan?
02:26:00 And how can the community access whether we're in alignment with all our strategies? Speaker 3: I can probably answer that. Once a year in July, I might recall last July, and I'm getting ready to do it again this year, I report in quite detail about all our strategies, where we're up to with each of those, what progress we've made, what we've achieved on each of those. So that's actually a statutory requirement that I'm required to report that once a year. So you'll get another update report in July. And then on a three-monthly basis, I report against the operational plan about where we're up to with our operational plan projects, which are on track, which are behind, where we're up to. And that'll be coming up in the next month. Councillor Lorentson: And that information will be available online on our app in NISO? Speaker 3: It always is. Councillor Lorentson: Excellent. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I've just got a question following on for that through the Chair. It might be for Brett to answer. I've just got people out in the community contacting me.
02:27:00 With regards to their roads, there's a rotation for the re-sheeting program that should have been undertaken in December. Where does that reflect in the budget, the expenditure going out, and why is that behind? Where do I identify that for the cost? Speaker 3: I'll have to take a second one on notice. I'll have to talk to the guys about where they're up to with that schedule. I wasn't aware it was behind. But we normally have $410,000 in the gravel re-sheeting program, which is in the capital program. So that hasn't been changed from previous years. That's the amount we've had in for a number of years. But I'll have to take a notice where they're up to with the program. I'm not familiar with that off the top of my head. Councillor Finzel: If I was just a regular customer out in community and wanted to look that up because my road was in poor condition, where would I find that on these reports? Speaker 5: So the capital planning manager prepares a report quarterly that comes through the council on the status of all the capital works projects. Now that report itself won't break down to the individual roads.
02:28:00 It will just talk about the re-sheeting program or the road reseal program, if it was sealed roads, as a total line item. Because obviously within that, there's quite a long list. So there will be a question to put through to that report when that comes through to council. Speaker 3: And that quarterly capital works program comes to council. A copy of that's also put online in our open Noosa page. So people can have a look at where we're up to with all of our capital works. But take that one for example. If we have $410,000, which is the normal allocation for gravel re-sheeting. If at that particular time of the year we've done $250,000 worth, it'll show up for $250,000 of the $410,000 that's been spent. So I'm just trying to find very quickly what the last one said. Councillor Finzel: That's okay. I can take that on notice. That's fine. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: I guess to follow on with Councillor Finzel's question, if a resident had a specific inquiry about their road, their specific road,
02:29:00 the best way would be a customer request to find out when's it due to be re-sheeted or upgraded or whatever. Speaker 6: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors with respect to the motion? I'll put the motion out of favour. It's carried unanimously. Thank you, Trent.