Noosa Council Watch

An independent, unofficial record of Noosa Shire Council — what council decided, what they closed the doors on, and why it matters. About this site

Noosa Council meetings since 2014: papers, decisions and recordings, and from April 2023 the video cued to each item.

General Committee Meeting - 15 November 2021 Transcript

Monday 15 November 2021 · 4 hours 44 minutes of recording · 4,258 lines · 13 voices, 3 named

This is a machine transcript of council's recording, produced by automatic speech recognition and not checked line by line against the video. Councillor and place names are corrected where a human has approved the correction; everything else is what the model heard. Quote the recording, not this page — every timestamp below opens council's own video at that second. Recording © Noosa Shire Council; the transcript is ours, made from it so the meeting can be searched and read.

Speakers: the machine separated 13 voices and names 3 of them — only where the recording itself establishes who it is (they introduced themselves, were called on by name, or their voice matches meetings where they were). The others stay “Speaker N”. Hover a name to see why it is there.

Start of recording

00:00:00

00:00:00 Speaker 1: Okay. Welcome everybody to the general committee meeting on the 15th of November 2021. We have an absentee in terms of, or an apology for the chair, Councillor Frank Wilkie, so I'll open the meeting and then we'll elect a chair for this particular meeting. But before we start, I'd like to acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to their elders past, present and emerging. So, from an attendance and apology point of view, as I said, everybody is in attendance except for Councillor Frank Wilkie, who is the chair, so we now need to elect a new chair for this single meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, I'll make the mayor, Councillor Clare Stewart, be the chair for today's meeting. So, seconded. Speaker 1: Can we put that to the vote? All in favor? That's unanimous. Councillor? Thank you. Mayor Clare? Thank you, Councillor. Please take your call. Speaker 7: Thank you.

00:01:00 Councillor Finzel: The next item is item two, minutes of the last meeting. Can I have a move with the confirmation of the minutes of the agenda committee? Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Seconder? Councillor Lorentson. Okay. All in favor? Thank you. There are no presentations, no deputations. That brings us to item five on page three of the agenda, which is the report referred from the committee. Item one, minor change from existing approval for multiple dwellings at 6-80-86 Hilton Terrace, Noosaville. Patrick Murphy is our coordinator development assessment and is here if you'd like to, Patrick, would you like to give a quick background or overview of this? Speaker 2: Okay, so this relates to an existing approval for a property at unit six of 86 Hilton Terrace. That unit was part of an approval that was issued in 1997 relating to multiple dwellings. There's been some work that has been done on that unit relating to an additional 15 square

00:02:00 metres of gross floor area and additional 12 square metres of site cover. It says the work's recurred. They're seeking retrospective approval. It was a previous application for this site, which was refused, which to the tribunal. It was determined that the tribunal wasn't the relevant authority to determine that appeal. The applicant has made an appeal. Subsequent application to seek approval again, and as you'll see, the recommendation, please could the application be reviewed. Thank you. Speaker 6: Can I have the answer? I'd like to move an alternate motion that council note the report by the development planner to the planning and environment committee dated 9th of November 2021 regarding application number 51997.2283.03 to make a minor change to an existing approval for multiple dwellings at 680 to 86 Hilton Terrace, Noosaville, and request staff to prepare a further report for the ordinary meeting dated 18th November 2021, including conditions for approval

00:03:00 of the application. I'll second that. Council's recommended a refusal due to non-compliance with the Noosa claim requirements for building bulk with the existing building already exceeding the scale of surrounding buildings. Council's recommended a refusal due to non-compliance with the Noosa claim requirements for building bulk with the existing building already exceeding the scale of surrounding buildings. I'm taking a different position to council and argue that the minor change application be supported. My reasons are as follows. The proposal is for a minor change application. A unit seeks to make minor modifications and those alterations include enclosing a three square metre area of terrace, which is already under roof, and enclosing a 12 square metre of an internal courtyard, again, which is already under roof for the purpose of expanding a bedroom area. These changes result in an additional 15 square metres of gross floor area and the alterations would result in an additional three square metres of site cover.

00:04:00 We're talking about closing in an area that is already there. Therefore, these proposed changes to the external appearance of the building will be very minor and will not be noticeable from the outside of the building. In fact, I could argue they're not noticeable at all. Likewise, the expansion of the internal courtyard area, again, will not be visible from the outside of the building, given that both the terrace and internal courtyard have an existing roof and eave line of the building. These changes do not contribute to an increase in bulk and scale of the development. And once again, I could argue they're not even noticeable from the outside of the building. The application, therefore, complies with Section 78 of the Planning Act. That is the proposed changes.

00:05:00 It's by sight. For these reasons, this minor application should be approved. Speaker 8: Patrick, how did you find out about this? Well, you found out about it because they made an application because they'd already done it and they were looking for a retrospective. So that's how it came across your desk. It wasn't a complaint, sir. Speaker 2: That's great, Tom. That's my understanding. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. So just to clarify the points raised by Councillor Lorentson from there and what I'm seeing in front of me, all of this area is under the current roof line? Speaker 2: That is correct. Councillor Jurisevic: There was mention of an internal courtyard. Was that exposed to the elements?

00:06:00 I mean, it opened to the sky, or was it under roof line? Speaker 2: Well, I don't know. I haven't been to the site. In the original plan? From my understanding, it's under the original roof line. Councillor Jurisevic: So it was internal and under roof. So all of these are essentially internal changes. So if that's the case, how does that increase the footprint by 15 square metres? Speaker 2: It increases gross floor area because it's enclosing a space. So if an area was unenclosed, then it's going to contribute to the gross floor area. The report does state that it's increasing the site cover by 12 square metres, which would suggest to me that that part of the area wasn't previously roofed. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll reiterate the question that I asked first. The internal courtyard was under roof line. Speaker 2: Correct? As I said, I haven't been to the site. This is... Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'm going by the plans, Patrick. I mean, was the internal courtyard under roof, or was it exposed to the elements?

00:07:00 I mean, if it's under roof, it might as well have been incorporated as gross floor area in the first place, mightn't it? Speaker 2: No. Why not? Because if something's under roof, under the previous scheme, the first three metres, if it's like a veranda external to the building, were excluded from gross floor area. And so an area that could be under roof, but it didn't have walls to it, was essentially excluded from gross floor area. And that's what would have been the case. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, it's... It's a non-habitable area to be considered as gross floor area. A habitable area versus a non-habitable area? No, it needs to have walls and to be roofed. Well, the courtyard being internal would have walls and a roof, according to what you've just told me. Speaker 2: Well, not going by the plan, it's not being enclosed onto the site. Oh, I'm confused then. Speaker 6: Can I step in? My understanding is both areas are already under roof.

00:08:00 And they were closed in, and this is what the application's about. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I'm saying, clarification. That's what you're saying. But I'm trying to clarify whether that's correct. Speaker 6: Well, this is according to the track documents on UC Council website, Jane. Speaker 10: I just wanted to see the aerial photo. The aerial photo's here. Speaker 6: I've actually got here, if this helps, the town planner's drawings here. Joe, again, all this information's available online. Speaker 2: I think if you refer to page five, and you can see the aerial photo. Councillor Finzel: That's page five of the planning and... Oh, sorry. Speaker 2: The planning and... Yes. Apologies. There is an aerial photo, and there is a courtyard. And that's an open courtyard? That's an open courtyard. So that's why site cover has increased. Councillor Jurisevic: So that's contrary to the way I understood it from Councillor Robinson's description there.

00:09:00 That's why after clarification, it appeared in the diagram that it was an open courtyard, and now we're talking about fully enclosed area, which would, therefore, increase the GFA. Speaker 2: It increases site cover by putting a roof over it. And it will increase GFA if it's a roof that has walls around it, or if it's like a veranda, a four and three metre building. So the fact that it's a roof is the same as the previous scheme, and the new scheme is the new scheme. Speaker 6: Oh, I haven't seen that. No, this is available online. I've got some very clear pictures here, Patrick, if anyone wants to have a look at them. So that's before and after. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the before, and that's the courtyard. That's closed. Councillor Finzel: Patrick, the changes. It doesn't change the external look in any way, shape, or form of the building? Speaker 2: Only if you view it internally, because if you go to, again, to page six of the Planning and Environment Committee meeting report, you'll see the existing and proposed perspective, and that curved wall almost comes out.

00:10:00 So it's slightly larger now there. Councillor Jurisevic: So with regard to other components of building design and that, by having an open courtyard area that would encompass natural light into the property, that would encompass part of the design with natural light into the property and other things along those lines. If that roof line is enclosed now, how does natural light get into the remainder of the property? Well, if I had a roof line and I had a roof line, I would have proposed that that was part of the concept of the design to allow natural light into the property. Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean they do diminish the extent of their private open space by utilising the area for growth pool area, but it would also impact on the amount of light that they would receive for that courtyard extension. Councillor Jurisevic: Although what I'm seeing here in Figure 3, the areas shaded in pink are the extensions.

00:11:00 So the courtyard remains and it's still open. Speaker 2: There is some... They have decreased the extent of the courtyard. Councillor Jurisevic: The extent of the courtyard has decreased. That's right. It hasn't gone completely. It's just decreased in size. That's true. Okay. Okay. So that's something else. Councillor Finzel: Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: On a different topic, obviously there's two... We have to consider each planning application on its merits, but we've identified in the report that this was done without approval. Is it possible... Is there a remedy under either the Planning Act or the Building Act to also fine these people? Have a... On the spot, you've done the wrong thing. Because I think one thing is doing the retrospective approval, but it sends the wrong message if you're also not doing the enforcement. And so while there's arguments about this one, I think the practice of building and seeking forgiveness for other permission is growing, and we have to put a stop to it. So is there other mechanisms we can use? Speaker 2: There is a capacity to issue a fine under the Planning Environment Act. That can be appealed.

00:12:00 So if Council were to issue a fine and approve it, it might be problematic for Conservatives to be appealed. Councillor Jurisevic: And typically what's happened in the past where people have done this sort of thing, they do put in a representative application for the changes that have been made. Speaker 2: That's right. I mean, it is happening from time to time. And maybe some certifiers seem to do it more than others. In this instance, my understanding is the certifier didn't realise it needed an approval and issued a building approval. However, it's quite clear that when you've got a unit development, there will be an existing approval for it and that if you're making a change, then it needs an approval from Council. Councillor Jurisevic: One would think it also requires an approval from the Council. I would anticipate that as well. Do they have approval from the body corporate? Speaker 2: I would have to – the application, if it was seeking to expand into the common property

00:13:00 area, would have needed body corporate approval. This doesn't appear to be going into the common property area. So it's not unlikely that they've provided that as part of this application. Councillor Finzel: So – No, good questions. Just a question. Can you just remind us, did they get reported to the QVSA or – The QVSA. Speaker 2: No, the building certifier hasn't, at this stage, been reported. Councillor Finzel: They haven't been reported. If we proceed with this proposal, this amendment today, do they just get off scot free then? They just get approved and – Speaker 2: That could be the case, yes. Councillor Finzel: They could be approved. If we don't vote for this amendment today, what's the process? What happens next? Speaker 2: Well, if you seek to go with the Office's recommendation to review it, then the application

00:14:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak to it. Obviously there's that concern about the retrospectivity and it clearly, as in the report, doesn't meet certain elements of the new planning scheme and that's particularly around performance outcome 10 about site cover development does not exceed 40% of the site area. But as the discussion on the motion by Councillor Williamson points out, it is quite minor in nature. So then you look up and you say, well, PO9, does it offend that which is of a scale compatible with stranding development in particular circumstances of the site, does not represent appearance of bulk for adjacent properties, roads or other areas in the vicinity of the site. And to me, I think both these minor additions, so then if we're going to approve it despite the conflict with the new planning scheme, we can't look at those.

15 minutes in

00:15:00

00:15:00 We need to look at the next level up and that's 6.3, 2.2, 2.3, it's in page 8 of the report. And it says development makes a positive contribution to look into your residential neighbourhoods by maintaining a low scale character with well-designed buildings and means of street stretch. So we have to make an assessment. Does these additions offend that? Would it be argued that it is no worse than what has been approved? And we might not approve what's there if it came to us today. Of course, it probably is bigger and bulkier as the report identifies, but it's probably that all intents and purposes, people who will see it will be on a boat in the river and they may notice that instead of having a curved glass window, it's got a straight glass window. To me, it's not worth the potential for an appeal costing roadpayers money to defend that that's more overreach.

00:16:00 I do think we have to have a look process-wise about retrospectivity. And my feeling is that if as a council we start starting with the enforcement and compliance and fines more quickly, then there may be a greater vigilance on behalf of private certifiers to make sure they fully understand the requirements for paying things. So I will agree to this motion based on my view that it's likely then back up in an appeal situation and that's likely to cost us $10,000 for what is a minor overreach. Councillor Finzel: I'd like to speak to that. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Stockwell talks today about what offends.

00:17:00 What offends me is ethics. What offends me is debates in retrospective about someone that has gone ahead with no approval. Is that correct, with no approval? And proceeded forward and now seeking a retrospective decision from us. Thank you. You know, we're talking about moral principles that govern a person's behaviour and the conducting of an activity. I just feel we're sending mixed messages. You know, we're following the plan and we're not following the plan. We're regulating. We've got the local laws. We're regulating for amenity outcomes. We've got to choose one or the other. Are we regulating everything or are we just going, oh, we'll let this one off. This doesn't offend me as much as the other one. I won't be supporting this today. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Hitchcock. Councillor Jurisevic: My concern is more around the certifiers. We've got a situation here where building approval has been given, approved, undertaken

00:18:00 with a certifier that then doesn't bring the changes that actually breach the current planning scheme to council for approval and approves the expansion of the plan. This wouldn't have, had they gone through that, they wouldn't have been approved, and I dare say that's the reason they do this, retrospectively, is because, well, it's too late, what are we going to do, demolish the bloody thing? It just doesn't work that way. I agree that the points that Councillor Stockwell raised, from a Vulcan visible perspective, because it's essentially internal, and Councillor Lorentson is not, you wouldn't notice it. It is a shame that the curved front wall is gone. I actually thought that was probably one of the most redeeming features of the property, rather than the square form that it's turned into. But my opinion doesn't matter in what it looks like. It's the beauty in the eye of the person that's going to be living in the bloody thing.

00:19:00 Look, reluctantly, I'll be inclined to agree with Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Lorentson that it is a minor change. It's probably not worth pursuing. I don't think we'd have a great deal of success in pursuing this, or any changes. There's certainly no order to demolish the, that I could see coming through, and rather than waste ratepayers' money, I'll agree to approve the application of the day. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Woodman. Speaker 8: A question. So, can we ask the CEO to put notice on the authorities that the contractor has done this, that the private certified, has done the wrong thing here? It seems that we should go to the certifier and say, we're going to make a complaint against you because you've led this person astray. You put us in a bind here in council by building this.

00:20:00 I would like to see a complaint made. Councillor Jurisevic: It wouldn't be the first time. A number of councils have done it. So you just notify the relevant authority that oversees the building certification. So do we need to add anything like that within the motion, or is that just part of the due process that we can? Speaker 2: It probably wouldn't hurt to put a small part in your recommendations, but council takes the necessary action to notify the relevant authority. I'll do that in the report. Speaker 10: Do it for Thursday? Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: If we could do that for Thursday night, that would be cool. Councillor Finzel: Is there a dispute with this cancellation? Speaker 8: Yeah. I would like to. This is one of these victimless sort of crimes, pretty much, and of course, staff has to bring this to us and recommend a refusal, but is this a sort of cancer that's going to grow, or is it just something that's very, very small where the cure may actually be worse than the illness in this case, which is the illness not following procedure?

00:21:00 Yeah. It's going through the certifier and bringing some sanctions against the certifier is the better thing to do, and so we'll be supporting Council Amelia's motion. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Yeah. I, too, will support this motion. I think none of us are happy with the way it's come to us, but it is a small internal change. It's under the current roofline. It's internally focused, and it doesn't offend in any of PO9 and any of the other things that we've talked about, as Councillor Stockwell talked about, and if we do face further legal challenge in this regard, it will cost our own pays. So, I'm prepared to support this today. Speaker 6: So, Councillor Lorentson, would you like to close? Yeah. I do. I think we're blurring the lines here, guys. We're talking moral principles, acting retrospectively, someone that's done something wrong.

00:22:00 The applicant hasn't done anything wrong. The applicant went to a certifier. He gave approval. After the fact, the applicant realised he didn't have approval, and he came to Council. Talking about moral principles, I would say that the applicant has acted morally and ethically. So, I'd like everyone to actually understand that. So, what in front of us we have is minor change to an approved development that's not worth $10,000 to $20,000 to have contested in the Court of Law, in the Planning and Environment Law. Guys, we need to stop splitting the small stuff. Those changes here constitute a minor change to the approved development. The changes to the external appearance of the building are so minor, they're not even noticeable outside the building.

00:23:00 It's regrettable that the approval wasn't sought, but that is not the fault of the applicant. I hope, I support this application to approval. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. We'll put the matter to a vote. All in favour? That's Councillor Jurisevic, Lorentson, Stockwell, Wegener, Stewart. Against? Councillor Finzel. That is carried. Speaker 10: Second. Councillor Finzel: Item two. This item is referred from the P&E meeting for further report, which we will deal with later in the meeting at report number four. And item three, this was an item which was referred from our S&O meeting for a further report, which we will deal with later in the meeting at report number five. So we move then to report four. These are reports directed to General Committee. Report item number four. Application for a minor change to development approval for 140 multiple dwelling units and

00:24:00 associated facilities, shop, restaurant, multi-function room and gym. At 75 Resort Drive Noosa Heard Heads. There are a number of conflict of interest or declarable conflict of interest. I'll declare mine first. I, Councillor Stewart, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Alton Constructions. I have a close personal friendship with Lee and Rob McCready who are associated with this applicant. As a result of my conflict, I will now leave the meeting room while this matter is considered and voted on. Which means that I'll leave it to the CEO to appoint a new chair. Speaker 1: So before we appoint a new chair, we need to go through the additional conflicts of interest. You might not have it here. That's right. Rather than whittle it down. Councillor Finzel: I, Councillor Finzel, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest

00:25:00 in this matter in relation to the application by Alton Constructions. Lee McCready, who is associated with the applicant, was involved in a volunteer capacity with my 2020 election campaign, where I was one of three candidates that ran as a group known as Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and voted on. Thank you. Speaker 1: Councillor Scott Waters. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I wish to inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter in relation to the application by Alton Constructions. On the 24th of February 2020, I sought a review by the independent council election observer as to the public claims of the Future Noosa team of which Lee McCready was publicly identified as a campaign manager. Lee McCready is associated with the applicant. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person

00:26:00 could have a reception of bias because the ITO review was an advisory service, not a statutory process, and my queries at the time were in the public interest and neither I nor Ms. McCready could personally gain or lose from that advice. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room, however I will expect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Speaker 1: Okay. Do we have a mover? We'll appoint a chair. Speaker 5: Do we have a mover? Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'll move to Councillor Orenst and the appointment of the acting chairperson of the meeting for the year. Speaker 6: Oh, this will be my first time. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, you might as well have a crack, Jane. Speaker 8: I'll second it. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Orenst. Speaker 1: Okay, so we... Councillor Jurisevic: No need to discuss it as far as I'm concerned. No, we've got to talk about it. No, we've got to vote on that, so...

00:27:00 Speaker 1: So we need to vote, so... We have three councillors. All in favour? That's unanimous. Number three. Councillor Orenst and the chair. Speaker 6: Okay, I'll ask for someone to move that Councillor Stockwell and determine whether or not he stays at the meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, Madam Chair, I'll... I'll note in the affirmative there that Councillor Stockwell... Councillor Orenst has declared a conflict of interest by Councillor Stockwell and determines in the public interest that Councillor Stockwell participates and votes on this matter because Councillor Orenst believes that Councillor Stockwell does not stand to receive a personal benefit or loss in relation to this matter and does not have a close personal relationship with Alton Constructions and therefore a reasonable personal trust that the final position is made in the public interest. I'll second that. Okay. Speaker 6: I'll put it to... Councillor, has anyone got any questions they'd like asked to Councillor Stockwell?

00:28:00 Councillor Jurisevic: No, that's the full extent of your relationship in this matter. It's just the fact that there was a complaint raised during that election campaign. Speaker 6: Can I ask a question? Sure. Councillor Stockwell, in previous decisions in council when we declared a conflict of interest with Alton, what was the decision of council in all those instances? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, in the very first interest, it was decided by majority of councils that I should be outside the room. Yeah. I then sought advice from the integrity commissioner and then the department and provided that advice to councils on each subject and found I stayed in the room. Thank you. Speaker 6: I'll put it to a vote. All those in favour of Councillor Stockwell staying in the room? Speaker 1: No. Move on to the...

00:29:00 Speaker 6: Okay. I'll move on to the recommendation that council note the report by the coordinator planning to the Planning and Environment Committee meeting date of 9th November 2021 and the further report to the general meeting date of 15 November 2021 regarding application 132005.113.15 to We agreed to make a minor change to an existing approval for 140 multiple dwelling units and associated facilities, shop, restaurant, multifunction room and gyms situated at 75 Resort Drive, Noosa Heads and agreed to change conditions 2 and 83 to read as follows. Councillor Jurisevic: You won't be reading as follows because you've been reading 27 pages. Are you moving it? Speaker 6: It's red. Speaker 1: Can I move it please? I'll move it. Speaker 6: I'll just draw it to Patrick Murphy if you can just give us a summary. Okay. Speaker 2: So, Council may recall that this part of the Park Ridge development had been considered before Council previously in relation to the facilities building and particularly the restaurant.

30 minutes in

00:30:00

00:30:00 There was an indoor and outdoor area and the applicant sought to use both areas until 12pm, seven days a week. That wasn't supported. The outdoor area wasn't supported. The outdoor area was considered to have the potential to resolve an amenity impact to nearby residents and therefore that was limited to 10pm. Since that time, they've now done some further acoustic reports and those reports are based on enclosing that outdoor area so it has the capacity to have a dual function with the door to be open or to be closed. The report supports the use of that area until midnight. Is it always closed? That's been reviewed by our external acoustic consultant. So, we're supportive of the proposal. The original report that went to the planning environment meeting also proposed to have a condition that sought to limit the use of the cooking classes so that it wasn't associated with the restaurant.

00:31:00 Subsequent conversations with the developer have clarified how they intend to use those cooking classes with the department. We see that as being a positive outcome for the restaurant, but we also note that there's a capacity that multi-function room could go back to being, I'm sorry, that cooking class could go back to being used for the residents of the facility as a multi-function room in the future. So, we're supportive of removing that condition from the recommendation. Councillor Jurisevic: Question, Patrick. The enclosing of the area, are you aware of that? Other areas such as Noosa Junction and outdoor dining areas in that area, or other outdoor dining areas where...

00:32:00 Speaker 2: Yeah, to have where you've got potential for immediate impacts on nearby residences, it's consistent that we would limit if that was to be outdoor area, but now that it's in close, we've seen things that would be used in the night. Speaker 8: I noticed that it said that the restaurant area can't extend past the windowed area and can't move out, extend outwards. Is that correct? Speaker 2: That's right. So it says that there's no outdoor dining area. It reworded one of the conditions, so they cannot expand outside now. It can be used under the roof of the building, and that door can be open or closed, but it certainly has to be closed after 10pm at night. Speaker 8: But say during a Sunday, a Sunday brunch, and the restaurant's at capacity, could they move out to the patio area to pass the windowed line? Speaker 2: They would bring breach of their approval. They haven't sought to use that area. Before it wasn't said that area wasn't used?

00:33:00 No, there was an outdoor dining area, which now they're in close. Speaker 8: Did the applicant bring up that, or is that just not an important point? Speaker 2: In terms of bringing it up, they haven't proposed it on their plans to use that area. Speaker 1: I'll talk about that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are you going to put, I'm just saying we're actually in breach of Stephen's rules, because we're asking questions after notions have been moved. Councillor Jurisevic: We are. So I'll talk to you with regards to the motion. Madam Chair, I'm quite happy with the change that I made here. These are the ones that were suggested, in fact, when the proposal was originally brought here by 5.0. I'm glad to see that we can resolve the issues of the cooking class as well. I thought that was a minor point that just needed clarifying, and so I'm happy with the staff recommendation to approve the minor changes herein.

00:34:00 Speaker 6: I'm about to ask the question, Patrick, in regards to most complaints. It was an existing restaurant. In the complex. Do you know whether, or how many noise complaints, any noise complaints? Speaker 2: I'm sorry, Mila, I'm not aware, so I could clarify that four years between now and the ordinary days. That would be great. Thank you. Speaker 6: I'll speak to the motion. I support the recommendation. It's a minor change application that seeks to enclose existing outdoor area with the provision of folding doors. I've had a look at the noise management plan, and it clearly says that it's not going to be able to do that. It's a suitable area to be used past the previous time limit of 10 p.m. up to 12 p.m., provided that the new doors are closed. Councillor Jurisevic: Nothing further? I'll close, just to clarify those points again, and yes, and the other point raised is that this is consistent with other dining establishments in the area, so it doesn't do anything that we don't facilitate with other internal annexations.

00:35:00 Speaker 6: I'll put it to a vote. All those in favour of the staff recommendation? It's unanimous. Thank you. I'll call Tom Collender. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I thought you needed a deep end. Speaker 1: No, no. Councillor Jurisevic: I didn't think it was a hard one to handle. Thank you very much. Well, you didn't nominate me, so I thought you did first. Thanks, Larry. Who's the top nominator? You have to do that. Councillor Finzel: All right.

00:36:00 Councillor Jurisevic: All right. Thank you, Councillor Laurickson. Well, I would have nominated you, but you had a conflict. Councillor Finzel: All right. Councillors, okay, we are now at item five, further report, tourism funding agreement and the due process. So, Larry, would you like to give an executive summary in this regard? Speaker 1: So, this report. In a further report, there was a question at our committee meeting regarding destination management, which I've sought to provide some information there around the fact that destination management is a broader piece of work, with tourism and Noosa actually into that piece. So hopefully that satisfies the question.

00:37:00 The bigger piece is with the tourism funding agreement means that it currently runs until June 30 next year. And the proposal is that we extend that for a following year, one year, while there's some changes with our CEO, there's changes with tourism versus constitution and board arrangements. So while that's happening, it's considered prudent to, rather than trying to launch into a long-term arrangement at this point in time, is just to extend it for another 12 months. And during that period, if we then go into the following negotiations for a further, future longer term arrangement. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Do we have a second at the back? Okay. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Okay. Okay.

00:38:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy to support the staff recommendation here. I know that we proposed to bring after some discussion around the funding agreement and the changes that were made during the budget to facilitate the concerns of members of Tourism Noosa to bring the process of looking at the funding agreement forward. But given the fact that we've had some changes and there's a constitutional change being considered by Tourism Noosa and the like at their AGM coming up, I think it's prudent that we undergo a period of grace there and extend the funding agreement for another year to facilitate better negotiations on the outcome. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Smith. I'd like to move an amendment, so add an additional

00:39:00 item D, and that is request the CEO... ...to ensure the agreement is in line with the proposed process outlined in the Tourism Funding Agreement Review Process Report to the General Committee, date 12th of July, 2021. Do I have a seconder for that? I do this, and it's just, it's not overly contentious in any way. And the addition of the words, reaffirm our commitment, that are featured in our July 2021 General Committee meeting, which we all supported, that is reaffirm our committing, reaffirm our adherence and our stipulation that the contract is transparent, has legal review, good governance, and financial management. And this is all under proposed timing and process for finalising a new funding agreement. This gives the community the comfort with the addition of these words that these

00:40:00 elements will be adhered to. They're not mentioned in the... ...report before us today, so I thought it prudent to include them in the addition to the agreement. As I said, it's all something we agreed to. This isn't contentious. But those words, transparency, legal review, good governance, and financial management are important aspects to any contract, and highlighting them and reaffirming them, as I said, shows the community that all of those things will be adhered to. And it also gives comfort to Tourism Noosa and ourselves, because as the report on pay in July stated, these reviews are designed to ensure Council and Tourism Noosa have comfort that the right governance and financial controls are in place, that public funds are well managed. So I think that's really important. So I hope you support me in my amendment today. Thank you. Speaker 7: I just have a question. Larry, from memory, we took it on notice that you'd come back

00:41:00 Councillor Finzel: to us and give us some insight into the wording around Destination Management Act. Do you think that's part of the agency and how you see Council today? Speaker 1: Yeah. So that's the further report that's part of this. So the Destination Management Agency is probably not the right term, but that's where we would control and we would look to do further work on what Destination Management means. It's a broader term. Tourism Noosa fits within that group. So we manage that side of it. Tourism Noosa is an agency or is a supplier of the marketing in particular. Councillor Jurisevic: To clarify, that means that Tourism Noosa may or may not be the provider of those services, depending on their desire and appetite to undertake those activities. Speaker 1: Yes. So this has managed this in order to control by Council. Speaker 8: Can I speak to the motion? Yes. It seems to me that we've put a lot of effort into understanding the proposed changes

00:42:00 to the constitution and lots of questions have been raised about whether or not it's going to be implemented. I think that we've been working around that. Point of order, Madam Chairman. Councillor Finzel: Yes. I think we're specifically dealing with the amendment, which is looking at the proposed process outlined in the Tourism Planning Agreement dated 12th of July and ensuring that process as per D is reaffirmed in our new agreement. Speaker 8: Okay. I'll save it for later then. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Do you want to speak to this amendment, Councillor Whitton? Speaker 8: No. I approve it. It's a really good kind of safeguard that's put in there. I think it's really important. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Whitton. Would anyone else like to speak to this amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: Just to reiterate the points you raised there, Madam Chair, I would have given that as read, but given that we went to great lengths to highlight the fact that there was nothing to add toward in the process and we were looking to be open and transparent through those

00:43:00 and all the points you raised. So I think it's fair enough to add it here. Speaker 6: Thank you, Councillor George-Rich. I'll speak to it. I'm happy to support the amendment. As Councillor Jurisevic said, I think also it's probably superfluous, but necessary to add comfort to, as the Mayor stated, the Tourism Noosa. I do want to sort of just bring to everyone's attention the existing funding agreement. If there are any concerns, please feel free to ask. The existing funding agreement, which we're agreeing to extend over 12 months, it's actually very clear in what it requires in regards to its reporting requirements. And I've just sort of listed a couple of things. The existing agreement requires that Tourism Noosa provides an annual report, including audited financial statements, to provide an annual business plan.

00:44:00 We can detail financial information. Twice a year, Tourism Noosa is to provide counsellors on their progress in relation to their activities. So what I'm saying is the existing funding agreement has some proper governance and serious financial controls already in place. So that's covered under A. But again, for comfort, I'm happy to support the mandate. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this? We'll put it to a vote. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Cathy. That's all part of the original motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I'd also like to move an amendment. And that's including within A the following additional words. Noting that council's funding is aligned to the delivery of, one, guiding principles one and two, champion the brand, influence and improve technical development of our visitor experience, and deliver marketing and promotion which drives propensity for

45 minutes in

00:45:00

00:45:00 high-value visitation, regional and regional. And I'd also like to move an amendment to the development of a sustainable destination accredited along the lines of that envisaged in priority four, elevate sustainability of the Tourism Noosa strategy in 2017-2022. Councillor Finzel: I have a seconder for this. Speaker 8: Can I take it? Can I borrow a second? Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, you can. Speaker 8: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Council, when you did mention this before, some uncertainty is a result of the current changes to the constitution. We've got no interest or no involvement in that constitution. It's our business. Some of the objects that have been taken out, some people have raised concerns, others have not. So it's about that tourism is trying to refine the extent of their constitution and a lot of what has been taken out are probably one's strategies that should be in plans like this.

00:46:00 So to me, it's important that if there is that uncertainty, that we do make it clear what we want to happen in this next year. We have got a budget allocation for destination management. Destination management is something where I believe that council is the lead, but it can only happen if we have tourism, Noosa, the industry and the community actively involved in developing that framework. So it's really important, I believe, to send a message to tourism, Noosa, we want them involved. However, what our money is also for is both that protection of the brand. There's a range of things that we do. To ensure that why people come to live here is also the reason why people visit here. And that's what the Noosa brand is. And it's really important to say that in their guiding principle, you notice that there isn't a statement about attracting daytrippers.

00:47:00 That's in their document. And probably as we've recovered now from hopefully the worst of COVID, it's probably something we do say in the next few years. Because we don't necessarily just want our marketing to focus on daytripping. We want it to go back to some of the core principles. I do think it is important to be clear in the next year that we will be establishing a destination management framework. And that will establish a whole range of approaches, potential management approaches, which either can be implemented by councils and by the community, or implemented by the tourism industry per se, to make sure that the asset that we have here, that's driven so much wealth into this community through visitation, is maintained for the long term. So I just think this amendment just helps clarify why we invest in tourism noosa for the broader public,

00:48:00 but also for tourism noosa for the self-disabled. These still are what council's interests are in providing these dollars as part of what we do to maintain economic activity within our local community. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anyone else like to speak to this amendment? Speaker 8: I think it's actually a question. We'll say that the Board of Tourism Noosa doesn't like what we're doing, and as time goes on say, well, no, we're not going to participate in destination management. And the Board does that, and we're funding tourism noosa, but the Board says we don't want to do that. Speaker 1: That's the position, that's part of what I think Councillor Stockwell is proposing here, is that if that's the case, then we've got the ability to do more influence. That's it. Okay. That's what I was looking for. Speaker 8: Can I speak to this? Sure. Give this time. So this is, in my opinion, it's caused quite a bit of kerfuffle about the change of the

00:49:00 constitution, the proposed change of the constitution, or even that it's such a big deal. And I think that, to analogize, council and tourism noosa are like a married couple. And the change of the constitution is almost like going back and changing the marriage vows. And they could change the marriage vows, but it doesn't really change the arrangement. It doesn't change the marriage, it doesn't change the history. Everything still moves forward. The body's still going to move forward regardless of the changes of the constitution. So really what matters is if the Board is going to do what it needs to do. If it's going to do whatever they do, but that's beyond Thursday night. So the one concern I have is the value of the asset of the volunteers. The volunteers, what they do, all 120 of them, are incredibly valuable assets to us. And that is an asset that I think that we have to keep an eye on and maintain because if that asset is threatened by the actions of the Board, then I would really very quickly

00:50:00 circle the wagon. And that's why I asked the question. If the Board is acting in a way that threatens that asset, can we move in quickly and withdraw funding? And it sounds like we can. So that going forward, I think I also support the motion. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Councillor Finzel: Would anyone else like to speak this morning? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll support the amendment. I think it's crucial to Tennessee. And Councillor Wegener alluded to something earlier. One of the changes proposed in Tourism Noosa's constitution, I think there's some elements of disappointment there to see that Tourism Noosa would think about steering away from some of the programs that they've been operating around like Econeusa, Welcome to Noosa, the plastic free elements and refreshers. I think they're important elements and they are part of the destination management things that they've been delivering and delivering well, I think, to this point. So I think it's important that we note the guiding principles.

00:51:00 They do champion the brand. There's more to this destination of Noosa than just marketing and wanting people to come here. I think to be part of the promotion of Noosa, you should be part of the promotion of the ethos of Noosa, and try to ensure and instil that that belief and those values are part of the destination marketing and delivery. So I support this amendment wholeheartedly. Thank you, Councillor Cr Wegener. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I think I support this amendment. I think it's fantastic. I think planning destination tourism plans is the way forward. The destination tourism plans are being developed by Queensland's regional tourism organisations with RTAs in consultation with key industry stakeholders to reflect the shared vision and direction for the destination. And that's exciting.

00:52:00 We're in these times. But our council is, you know, it's not just about the destination. You know, we're not doing anything different to other councils in Queensland in support of creating these destination tourism plans. I think it's timely where we want to move forward to. And I think, yes, outside of our scope today is any decision making around constitution to do with tourism Noosa, who I'm sure will, you know, sort out their own business in due course. And I look forward to everyone coming to the table to work together in partnerships, to come up with partnerships. Agreements that will head us towards our tourism targets and to build a sustainable and competitive tourism destination. And that we'll find a balance between our residents and our visitors alike. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. You're welcome. Councillor Ryanston. Speaker 6: I like half the amendment. First amendment, again, it's of purpose, but important in noting because, you know,

00:53:00 the existing funding agreement clearly states that it's linked to the Noosa tourism strategy. But I think for purposes of clarity and comfort, I support A1. Number two, I'm a little bit nervous about. I think we need, in planning our destination management framework, we need to collaborate with all stakeholders. And I think we need to do that. It's government, industry, business and community, not just tourism Noosa. So I'm thinking perhaps we add some extra wording, all stakeholders. I'm also concerned that we as a council, we don't even understand the exact role we're going to be playing in this framework. And I'm wondering whether we're just going ahead of ourselves by adding number two. Surely we need, as a council, to first understand the role that we play in this framework.

00:54:00 So I'm going to vote against it, although I do support the intent. Councillor Finzel: I think I will support it. I think it's important. Certainly, you know, re-mentioning, just reiterating. Point one. Point two. I agree with Councillor Lorentson. I don't think we yet fully comprehend or understand our part in the destination management. I think we need all stakeholders involved in that. That would be a very important piece of public policy and a very important document. I'd like to see, perhaps, once this is passed, that we make an amendment, perhaps, to include other stakeholders around that. And further, I guess, down the track, we will have a further idea of what we're going to

00:55:00 do and what our role will be, guiding that destination management or being involved and at what level. But I will support the motion as a whole that stands re-amended. Speaker 6: Councillor Stockwell, do you want to finish? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I'll close. So there's only this one point of difference amongst us. It's clear that this motion only relates to Tourism Noosa. As councillors may recall, a model that we've been working on for a very long time, and it's a model that I put out last year about the varying levels of leadership in destination management. There's a significant leadership of council and the community because it's about protecting our place. What point two does is just say we want to keep Tourism Noosa in the tent. We don't want them just to be over there marketing us as a destination without being involved. And councils, remember, they won a recent award, which will bring money to the table

00:56:00 So, different sustainable destination accreditation systems all do the same thing. They have a set of criteria that they go and assess the whole community to say, well, this is where you're at. These are the areas where improvements can be made. The Park CEO was very clear. He thinks how we shouldn't talk about destination management is managing Noosa's success. It's about what do we need to do to maintain the success into the future. It's about, the classic example is, we know that the destination of camping and driving on Noosa North Shore is causing deaths. It's causing driving on Turtle Nest and it's causing huge backlogs of traffic along Morinda Strip. That's what destination management tries to avoid. They're the real issues. Destination management is about getting the people to the beach refreshed and relaxed, not frustrated they've been sitting in a traffic jam.

00:57:00 And it's important that we communicate to tourism nursery as the lead organisation for that industry that their involvement is crucial to its success. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. We'll put the amendment to a vote. All in favour? Thanks, Councillor Jurisevic. Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Stewart. Against? Councillor Lymston. That is carried. That forms now part of the standard for motion. Speaker 6: I'll move an amendment. Okay. Just to... Repeat what I just said before. Include after the words, collaborative involvement of tourism Noosa. I'll change the word in collaborative approach between all stakeholders. So, collaborative approach between all stakeholders, that is government, industry, business and community. Does that work? Yes.

00:58:00 Okay. Good. Good. Good. All stakeholders, that is government, industry, business, and community. Government, industry, business, and community. Do you want to say including tourism, Lisa? Including tourism, Lisa. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Before it's seconded, it's probably a tricky question. This is a note regarding the terms and conditions of a funding agreement to tourism Noosa that's reliant on the involvement of stakeholders including government and the community which is outside their control. Would that make it a motion that's unable to be implemented? Speaker 6: Well, it's not, possibly. Because we're talking about a funding agreement between the two.

00:59:00 That's right. Because we're asking the community to be involved in the agreement. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, that's fair. Speaker 6: Okay, collaborative involvement. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The suggestion may be to leave the word as is, but afterwards tourism as one of the stakeholder entities or something like that. Speaker 6: Oh, I love your recommendation. As one of the stakeholders. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: If you go back up to my original one. Speaker 6: Collaborative involvement of tourism Noosa. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As one of the stakeholders. In the development of the destination. Yeah, so afterwards tourism Noosa as one of the stakeholders. Speaker 6: As one of the stakeholders in the development of destination management framework. Yeah, that's good. And that's great. Councillor Finzel: Seconded for that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I can second it, can't I?

60 minutes in

01:00:00

01:00:00 No. Yeah, no, because mine's been passed, so I can second it. You're on your right. Speaker 6: Councilor Lime. I just think it's really important that we understand that residents and visitors both use infrastructure and services, and as part of our destination management framework, we need both their input in developing a strong and sustainable destination. So I just wanted that highlighted. Councilor Stockwell, just a small change to your amendment. Councillor Finzel: Can anyone else like to speak to Councilor Lime's amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll say that. I wasn't prepared to support in the form that it had taken, because it is a substantive motion regarding funding for tourism Noosa. But as with this change, I'm prepared to support it, because it brings in the essence of what Councilor Stockwell has said. And Councilor Stockwell was trying to do, and adds more clarity to acquiring as one of the

01:01:00 state offices. So I'm prepared to support. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councilor Russell. And I'll stop speaking then. Councilor Wilson, is that a sigh? Speaker 8: Oh, I just, for some reason it doesn't make sense to me, and I'm trying to just keep it together. Speaker 2: Because we're working with tourism Noosa, looking at this agreement with tourism Noosa. Speaker 8: Should we be talking, as one of the stakeholders, well, it's almost redundant, and it's too prescriptive. Yeah, it's a good thing. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I, since, I'll actually answer your question. To me, it clarifies what role we would like to see tourism Noosa play in the destination as a stakeholder. It doesn't. It doesn't give them any, you know, they're not the leader, they're not just a partner with Council, we're going to do it on our own, it just says, you're one of the stakeholders,

01:02:00 we'd like to get involved. Councillor Jurisevic: But I would suggest it also clarifies that they're not the only stakeholder that we'd be communicating with, which is what I think Councilor Lawrenston was trying to allude to when she didn't approve the wording previously. Councillor Finzel: Anthony, do you have something to add to this? Speaker 5: Thanks, Councillor. Certainly in line with my thinking, we are heading, and obviously we'll get into a detail here, but just in summary, just to update everyone on where we're at, because I've been pretty silent trying to run a couple of things, but a destination management project on finalising and securing some resources for this to happen, and this is really just functional resources so that we've got someone and a way forward. So, with this agreement. I think obviously we're clarifying the TN's role, they are of course a major stakeholder, a stakeholder but a major one and so important, and destination management framework to me, I like Brett, we're looking at it managing success, but managing the pressures created

01:03:00 by success, I think that's kind of maybe a wide statement. So, I guess this is where you get into. I think these words, you can probably live with any of these words, but I think it's really good to invite you, acknowledge the stakeholder role of tourism. Yeah, yeah, thank you. Thanks. Thanks. Councillor Finzel: Would anyone else like to speak to this? I'm happy to support it as it, to reiterate what Andrew said, as tourism Noosa is one of our key stakeholders. And yeah, we don't want to get too much down into strategic pillars and details today at this table, but yeah, we will be looking at performance indicators and overall objectives for our community in a sustainable way moving forward. So, as it sits, I'm happy to support it. I don't think we need to be drilling down too far into this today, but seeing as it's

01:04:00 been raised, I'm happy to support it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Drisswitch, you're the only one who's spoken to the original motion. Would anyone else like to speak to the motion we have before us? Speaker 6: I'll speak to the motion. Thank you, Councillor Armstrong. Just quickly, Tourism Noosa was established 20 years ago and it's due for an overhaul. Tourism landscape, it's changed significantly over 20 years. And Noosa needs a new approach to tourism and a new tourism model. A skills-based board rather than a historic representation model. Seven directors instead of 13, possibly a new chair, a new constitution. What is happening to Tourism Noosa needs to happen and it's called change.

01:05:00 And with change comes great opportunity. In the meantime, I am confident that the very capable Tourism Noosa CEO, Mel Anderson, and her capable and outstanding staff and volunteers will not only survive this period of change, uncertainty and volatility, but they will thrive as they have done so over the last 12 months. As the saying goes, diamonds are born out of difficult situations. Thank you, Councillor Armstrong. Councillor Finzel: Anyone else? Speaker 6: Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Armstrong has just looked at the reason for deferral. I think it's important for us to look at the reason for deferral for the next year before we enter into a fully new plan agreement with Tourism Noosa from the perspective in the first report from Tourism Noosa's perspective. They're going under change. They're not locked in on what their role is going to be in the future if there is a change.

01:06:00 I'll argue from the other perspective of why it's important from a council perspective. And this was also outlined in the original report. And that is, there's two things that we haven't locked down. We haven't locked down the economic development strategy, which is under review, and we haven't locked down what the Destination Management Framework. For me, the economic development strategy is about, we've got this much money to spend in economic development, where do we best invest to get the maximum outcome for our local economy? So it's a bit of, we've got to, when that is, we start to say, well, this is all different slices of pie, and we start to see where the priority is for allocations and how the pie is sliced. Then the Destination Management Framework is, that is the overarching one, which will say, you know, this is what all the different management activities that need to go to to manage the success or the pressures that come on our community as a result of success. And to me, that will also start to identify different roles and different investment options. And we'll probably have to have a decision about, you know, what part of our investment in tourism industry goes towards marketing versus other management activities.

01:07:00 So it's, and do we want to grow the slice of the investment pie to make sure that marketing is about the same, or do we think that it should shrink or grow? So these are decisions that need to be made once the strategic decisions of our direction are done. So to me, having the deferment for one year should allow us to get to the point where we're much clearer, both in terms of what Tourism Noosa as an entity would like to deliver, and be the different roles and the priority of different investments that we want to get to a form of tourism in Noosa that maintains a brand. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor. Go for it. Speaker 8: Good. Is change... Is change necessarily what we want because we've enjoyed so much success? We're the top tourism town in Queensland because of Tourism Noosa, largely because of Tourism Noosa.

01:08:00 They have promoted us in such a fashion that it's just unbelievable. We're the second best tourist town in the country. You cannot overlook that. A rush towards change, I don't get it. I mean, you don't change something that's really, really, really perfect. You don't change a really, really, really good relationship and think it's going to get better when it already arguably can't get any better than it is right now. So I worry. Again, I don't want to talk about the proposed changes to the Constitution. So I will not talk about the proposed changes to the Constitution, but I'm not so excited about change. I think we could make things better, maybe fine-tune things in the future, but I don't... I think this actually embraces fine-tuning change in the future, continuing on with what we're already doing, and that's what we want to do.

01:09:00 Councillor Finzel: Yeah, Karen. Yeah. Look, I love change. I think change is good, moving forward. And I think, as I always say, we're fundamentally changed by COVID. I think we're fundamentally changed by COVID. I think this is an opportunity to be agile and responsive. We want to achieve economic and social outcomes based around strategic performance and opportunity. So I think this gives us a great timely opportunity, as tourism needs is undergoing their changes, to also respond to change, given it's the current unknowns. We don't know about the variable economic conditions. We can all... You know, relate to that with what's happened in COVID. We've got changing consumer expectations and competition. We're coming to the point where we have to protect our uniqueness, and we're coming into a region that's growing. And we've got to be really strategic about how we look at this in the broader picture,

01:10:00 and how we're going to look after our visitors and our residents alike. So I think, you know, we've got to look at strategic performance and opportunities. We've also got to evaluate strategic risks. If we don't make the changes, if we don't all, you know, take each other by the hand and take those steps forward, however tentative into the unknown, COVID has pushed us there. So I think we've got to work together with all stakeholders across, you know, our Shire and the regions around us as we build strategically for a sustainable future, where we take into account the social impacts, the climate change impacts. Everything around us now is change. So I think we need to just get on board with change and work together, get all our feet under the table, engage all the stakeholders, including our residents and our ratepayers,

01:11:00 to make these decisions and work towards a sustainable future. We want to involve, you know, our Indigenous partners with that. We want to include aviation. We want to support visitor economy and growth. We want to support technology and digital advancement. And we want to look after our people on the journey. So I'm happy to support this today. Thank you. I too will support it. I'd like to reiterate that Council has and will continue to have a strong and collaborative approach with Tourism Noosa. Any changes that they are making are changes that they are making, and it's a decision for them. And as Councillor Lange said, they're very capable CEO and staff, and any changes to the constitution is a matter for Tourism Noosa. What we have faced over the last 18 months is unprecedented economic pressure. None more so than in our tourism industry and our accommodation sector. They have borne the brunt of it. Certainly with change comes opportunity.

01:12:00 This is an extension of 12 months that gives all stakeholders, that gives Tourism Noosa, that gives Council an opportunity to reassess and realign going forward. And I look forward to working collaboratively as all Councillors do with Tourism Noosa, not just over the next 12 months, but over the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years. Tourism Noosa, as Councillor Lange said, tourism is so incredibly important to our Shire. And they've done such a great job, as is evidenced by the recent awards. So I'm looking forward to a stronger partnership and one that is being driven. As I said, those changes are being driven by their choices. And I'm looking forward to working with the outcome of those choices and the decisions made by them and their members. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic, would you like to add? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, please. Change can bring opportunity. Change can bring concern. Turn around the table. There's elements of it everywhere. My concern is that this funding agreement continues on for 12 months and that we see

01:13:00 a, as I iterated to the Tourism Noosa CEO last year when she delivered her presentation to us, that there wasn't a mood to continue on with the great work that they've been doing in some of the programs that they've been delivering, as I alluded to what they were earlier. So I said, I'm happy to support this, but I do have concerns that there may be some, if there's any dropping of programs, I'd be disappointed in the least, to say the least. But I said, I see that this is the way forward and that the elements of tourism destination management and funding will be scratched out over the next 12 months. Councillor Finzel: Thanks, Councillor Jurisevic. I'll put the recommendation to a vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you, Karen. That brings us to item six, which is on page 17 of our general committee agendas.

01:14:00 Planning and Environment Court Appeal Number D116 of 2021, refusal of an application for reconfiguring a lot, one lot into two lots at 2030 Jirrima Crescent Corrida. Jirrima Crescent Corrida. Jirrima. We have Patrick here to give an overview and to answer any questions. Thanks, Patrick. Speaker 2: You may recall this site, 23 Jirrima Crescent in Corrida, is a reconfiguration of one into two lots, which was recommended to be refused. Subsequent to the refusal, there was an appeal. Through the appeal process, the council has engaged an acoustic ecological consultant. Sorry. Acoustic? An aquatic. An aquatic. Just so you can listen to that. Did I hear that correctly? Sorry. An aquatic ecological consultant who's done some review of the area that was covered by the riparian buffer under the Noosa Plan 2020, has identified an area that is lesser in area

75 minutes in

01:15:00

01:15:00 that is of more significance to be protected, and accordingly, we've been able to mediate an outcome with the applicant whereby a re-vegetation management plan is provided that incorporates some rehabilitation, a building envelope, and all sorts of other things. So, we have an area of control protection in the future of the area. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Stockwell. Speaker 2: I was just going to move it. Speaker 1: Oh, so you're going to. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And, oh, sorry. Move it with one minor typographic correction. Oh, sorry. In 21D, if I can get any, condition 21D. Councillor Jurisevic: Did I miss a typo? Did I? No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. In the words, eucalyptus conglomerata. And I did identify that because obviously the key part of this approval is will the overall biodiversity benefit from this development compared to refusing it and previously I argued quite strongly there's an opportunity by doing the revegetation concept based along what is now proposed including

01:16:00 Eucalyptus chondromerata which is a, I think it's vulnerable or endangered, and by doing the majority of the planting not necessarily in what is a highly disturbed aquatic ecosystem but to create that link downstream and within what is identified as a potential koala corridor as well so I'm quite happy that in this case that the level of non-compliance is overridden by the potential benefit for both the community and the environment of rehabilitating this area and linking to some significant corridors in the area. Councillor Finzel: Thank you Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Morrison did you have a question? Speaker 6: I did. Patrick, I always ask myself what have we learnt from this case and what lessons can we take to become better at making decisions?

01:17:00 So can I ask, can I throw that to planning and throw it to councillors? To me, I sit back and look at this case because this is a case that really I was on the fence with and I think Councillor Stockwell pretty much summed it up just now, actually you've sort of just given me the answer to the question I was going to ask, is that we need to understand that if the social and environmental benefits outweigh the prescriptive or compliance requirements of the NUSA plan, then that should be given some weight. Sorry, is there a question here? It is. So my question is, can I throw it back at Payne? I don't know, maybe you can come back to councillors and let us know what questions we need to ask to make maybe,

01:18:00 better decisions so we don't have to unnecessarily go to Planning and Environment Court if we don't have to. So yeah, I'm not sure where your question is in that. I asked that question five to five minutes ago. Okay, I've got a question, I've got a question. So does the information, does the information that we've garnered over this case, can it present, can we bring it forward? And can we give it to Rowena so that she can perhaps look at making some planning changes on the NUSA plan? Councillor Jurisevic: Can it guide our planning staff in their decision making about the future? Speaker 2: I think that's the outcome in this scenario is that we've been given some information from some further review of the right area in that area and we need to share that with our strategic team to see if they need to refine the mapping or some wording, I'm not sure where that might go. Councillor Finzel: Patrick, I've got a question. This was a really close one, it was 4-3 from the council, but how much money did we have to spend today on this?

01:19:00 Speaker 6: I'm not aware. You're not aware of that? We can let you know. I'm not, I'm actually aware that the applicants spent $20,000 from a council perspective, so I'm interested in how much we've spent. I'll clarify that. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, thank you. And is the, I guess there is some mediated, the mediated outcome is certainly better from, I guess, an environmental perspective than what was on the table originally. That's correct. Speaker 2: The extent of the area to be rehabilitated is more intensive in the agreed outcome, and the extent of the covenant area is more intensive as well. Thank you. That's all of it. Speaker 8: This is a pretty unique property. This isn't a template that could be copied by anyone. This is a template that could be applied by the neighbors next door. Well, every situation is unique. Speaker 2: Yeah. It has to be interpreted at the time that an application is made, and that's put forward in some of the material that the application provides around the ecological assessment and our review of it.

01:20:00 But in this locality, we probably have an awareness of the extent of the riparian buffer in terms of what the ecological consultant has advised is probably more reasonable. Councillor Finzel: Thanks, Patrick. Thank you. Would anyone like to speak to this motion? Yep. Come for your speech. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. I'd like to reiterate the point raised by, that long-winded question raised by Councillor Morrison that, yeah, there's opportunity learning here. I think the outcomes here are those that Councillor Stockwell and I essentially argued at the time when this was put before us, that there were opportunities here to get better environmental outcomes on this property without necessarily going to the extent that we had in refusing the proposal. I'm hoping that, yes, we can look at what we have in our planning documents and outcomes and results of outcomes such as this as to how we can do it better and smarter without having to necessarily go to court and all mediation in the future to achieve a mutually

01:21:00 agreeable outcome that benefits the whole community and the environment as well as the applicant. Speaker 6: Okay. Nice. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Councillor Stockwell? Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think Councillor Lorentson did, when she got to the question, went to the right place, didn't she? Give me a break. Councillors may remember that I might have got a little bit frustrated with this original decision, and I actually went through and proposed a scheme, what could be the scheme of amendments, which would take away the prescriptive nature of a right prior incoordination, which was 100 metres, versus if we do more work, can we actually map across the whole of the child, particularly in areas subject to development, what is the best outcome from a rehabilitation perspective in an area that combines multi-species, recovery, a whole lot

01:22:00 of things. And I think that's a bit of work we could do, but time is something obviously that I've done in the past for others, is actually instead of just using this bar away from a map water course, is you say, well, this is what we'd like to try to look like, and then as development comes along, they fit their piece into the puzzle. It is a bit more work, but there's a lot of expertise in our community already about that, and I think this is a good case where a little bit of flexibility would probably achieve a better outcome in the long run. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Patrick. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. We'll put the recommendation to a vote all in favour? Unanimous. Thank you. Thanks, Kath. That brings us... Thank you, Patrick. That brings us to item seven, Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan and Second Round Community Consultation Submissions. I believe we have some declarations. Can I run away now? Yes. Oh, dear. I'm going to get a cup of coffee. Councillor Lorentson. War and peace. Okay, let's go. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to get a pillow.

01:23:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I have a question to the CEO. Councillor Finzel: Can we take it as read? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I believe this declaration is probably one that's been made before. It is. I understand under legislation that we can acknowledge the previous declaration and avoid the need for Councillor Lorentson to read the whole thing out. Is that correct? Speaker 1: I suspect it's the first time. I think so, yes. I'll trust you on that. Take that under advice then? Yes. Speaker 6: So, I, Councillor Lorentson, informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter, as previously stated on any... Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Speaker 6: In regards to all matters relating to the chat. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. Speaker 10: Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel.

01:24:00 My Councillor Finzel informed the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in this matter as on 5th of March 2020, Mr Peter Butt, who is an executive member of the Eastern Beaches Protection Association, donated $1,666.66 to my 2020 election campaign, where I was one of three candidates that ran as a group known as Future Noosa, which is no longer an entity. Although I have a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because I believe that I do not have a close personal relationship with Mr Butt, and I believe I can consider this matter impartially and in the public interest. Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room. However, I will respect the decision of the meeting and whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Thank you. I'll move that, Councillor, that Councillor Knight.

01:25:00 I move that there be a declaration of a conflict of interest by Councillor Lorentson in the term that it is in the public interest that Councillor Lorentson remain in the meeting room for this item, on the condition that she does not participate in the debate nor vote on issues regarding the private estate along the Eastern Beaches and Mooson North Shore, because Councillor believes that Councillor Lorentson could provide valuable input to the discussion on such a significant Shire-wide matter, and therefore a reasonable person would trust the plan position is made in the public interest. This is a statement that has been previously made. Thank you. I won't. I won't speak to it. This is with consistency, and this is what we have agreed to and voted on in the past, so it is prudent to continue to do so, and I believe it is in the public interest of Councillor Lorentson to stay and provide valuable input. Thank you. Anyone else like to speak to this? Okay. All in favour? Speaker 7: Unanimous. Councillor Finzel: And noting that Councillor Finzel may not vote. Poor white. I'll move to say that Council note the declarable conflict of interest by Councillor Finzel, and determine that it is in the public interest that Councillor Finzel remain in the meeting room for this item, in the condition that she does not participate in the debate, or vote on issues regarding the private estate along the Eastern Beaches, because Council believes that Councillor Finzel could provide valuable input into the discussion, on such a significant Shire-wide matter, and therefore a reasonable person would trust that the final decision is made in the public interest.

01:26:00 For the same reasons, this is consistency. This is what we've always voted on and agreed to, and it is in the public interest that Councillor Finzel remain in the room and provide valuable input into the discussion. We'll put the matter to a vote. All in favour? That's unanimous, noting that Councillor Lawenston did not vote. Speaker 10: Nor did Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Nor did Councillor Finzel, yes. So we have a staff recommendation before us on page 25. Does anyone have any questions for Bec? Who's here? Hello, Bec. Speaker 7: Hello. Councillor Finzel: Do you want to provide a summary? Yeah, that would be great. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 7: This report brings to council a revised coastal hazards adaptation plan for Noosa Shire, following a second round of community consultation last month.

01:27:00 The chat looks specifically at coastal erosion risks for our open beaches, as well as inundation. It looks at coastal erosion risks from storm-tide inundation and permanent inundation for our riverside areas, and in particular, it looks at the increased risk to public infrastructure, people and property as a result of sea-level rise. So the first round of consultation on the chat raised some concerns relating to the mapping and modelling and whether it appropriately represents the hazards. Also, the need for more local monitoring of coastal hazards. The need for greater emphasis on dune management and revegetation in our coastal reserves to build resilience. The need to make it clearer that council will take a stepped pathway approach to managing risks, based on a careful monitor, manage, review approach. So staging responses over time as risk profiles change, and considering local monitoring as being key to it.

01:28:00 And finally, the need for more clarity around the linkages between the chat and any future amendments to the planning scheme. The changes were made to the chat to help address these concerns. And... A revised chat was released for further community comment. We received 53 submissions on the second round of consultation, and we received a good amount of support for the changes that we made to the chat. A number of improvements have been made as a result of the second lot of submissions, including relating to the mapping, that council will investigate methods and prepare further mapping of other future erosion scenarios. To provide a clear picture of the range of low, medium and high scenarios for coastal erosion along the open coast beaches. Councilors will recall that we're using the guidelines set by the state, and the methodology is quite clear around how, where to map and model coastal erosion.

01:29:00 So this change would allow us to look at other coastal erosion scenarios for our beaches. And secondly, clearer map disclaimers will be included on our online interactive mapping system to describe the maps more fully, and to describe the various data inputs that have been used to prepare those maps. And finally, around community involvement, that council wants to ensure that community groups and coastal communities continue to be engaged and are engaged in the development of these maps. This will be updated as part of the CHAP implementation, so that will be key to ensuring that we prioritise the right actions coming out of the CHAP and continue to engage with the community on localised issues and matters. And that includes the related coastal foreshore management plan that Council is in the process of developing at the moment for the June area.

90 minutes in

01:30:00

01:30:00 Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Deb. Any questions for Rebecca, or would anyone like to move the staff recommendation? No. Thank you. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Rebecca, one of the points raised by the business with regard to the colours used in the mapping, and I noticed that, I'm going to go back and have a quick look, I just remembered about it. We've used one colour, whereas in the past we had used various colours based on the 2040, 2070, 2100 scenarios, and the like. How have we addressed that concern of the level of extremity of risk, and how do we address that in the colouring of the mapping? Speaker 7: I think there was some concern that the maps would be misinterpreted by having traffic lights for the mapping colour system of red, orange, yellow, and that having a consistent range

01:31:00 of colours, in this case in the purples and the blues, takes away any misinterpretation of what the mapping is trying to do. Councillor Jurisevic: So we've gone to, the concern was that the red was at the wrong end of the spectrum. It should have been the other way around, closest to where the greatest hazard was, and the lesser danger colour towards the foreshore. We've just gone with one colour now. Speaker 7: Yeah. Just gone with one colour, and then it takes away that potential confusion. I think the key there was to show that we've mapped three different times. We've just gone with one colour, and then it takes away that potential confusion. There is a 5-year period, the 2040, 2070, and 2100. And that for each of those time periods, we need to consider what the appropriate management action is. And the CHAT has set those out for each of the locality. Councillor Jurisevic: Second question. In the language, and I'm talking about the tracked changes version as page 24, the word

01:32:00 affected with an A has been changed to affected with an E. And it seems to have two different iterations of the word affected with an E. The last question was something I sent you in an email. I don't know whether you have time to do it because it wasn't long this morning. In effect, the last element that I'm wondering is there an opportunity to be proactive in what can be considered in keeping with the CHAP with the identified means of dealing with climate change. One of the things we talk about in the CHAP is sand replenishment as a reaction. Is there an opportunity for that to be a proactive measure and actually increase dune and beach protection in areas that are most likely to be impacted, or does that become a Coastal Foreshore Management Plan?

01:33:00 Speaker 7: I think it's that Coastal Foreshore Management Plan is the key to prioritising the dune management and revegetation efforts along those high-risk areas. That will slow erosion and build that resilience of the dune system to help with erosion impact. For the sand nourishment option, we do need to do a lot more investigation in that space to understand what potential sand supply sources there would be, how feasible that would be. Do we have that information that's difficult to comment on when and how that could be done? Councillor Jurisevic: Well, the reason I ask that is that we look at the sand replenishment capability now and know what it is now. If there's an opportunity now that we could look at whether there's, rather than hard walls and hard structure, we agree that dune and sand is an effective or a preferred method of protection.

01:34:00 And that if the opportunity actually exists, whether there is a scope to use sand that's available now rather than once it's been removed and it's gone, then we then have to go looking for it. So I'm trying to be proactive rather than reactive. Is there an option to be proactive in our process here with these soft dune measures? Speaker 7: Yeah, I think all those things are worthy of exploring. Councillor Jurisevic: I said the reason behind that is I was at Harvey Bay recently and I've seen some of the hard infrastructure they've put in, and they don't get anything like the wave action wood yet, around the Uranian Piers. So I can see councils to the north. I mean, Bundaberg have used rocks for many, many years, and they're quite hard in bay. I've seen hard infrastructure in place, and we're not in favour of hard infrastructure,

01:35:00 even though there are other areas where we've implemented hard infrastructure in the past, or eco-bags and things like that for protective measures. But whether they get, I'll say that's a scope that we can possibly put into the Coastal Portual Management Plan. Councillor Finzel: Thanks. I'll move the motion with the addition of B. So the new B is amend the description of figures four and eight of the CHAT as shown in attachment two, which is the track changes copy, to correctly reference the design event rather than simply the 100 average recurrence interval. And amend the related footnote that appears on pages 22 and 39 to describe the various components of the design event upon which the erosion and storm time mapping were prepared. Anyone second that?

01:36:00 Thank you, Councillor Fizzell. Look, I do this, and this is, I have spoken to Bec and staff, and this seems to be the best way to be clearer in the document. The figure on page 22 says underneath, erosion prone area during 100 year average recurrence interval ARI. To be clearer and more factually correct and for greater transparency, the CHAT needs this to be amended for further clarification. What this figure actually shows is the effects of a combination of two 100 ARI events, a 0.8 metre sea level rise and using a 40% margin of error. It is a combination of all of these things, thus making the scenario, if we look at that, less likely and certainly far less likely to occur than what is currently stated. Similarly, the explanation on page 22 at footnote 16 and at the footnote on page 39,

01:37:00 this should be referenced and seek further explanations in exact terms as to the make up of the design event. This is critical to the accuracy and transparency of the document. So, as I said, I believe staff is supportive of these further explanations and wording around these areas to ensure further and greater accuracy and transparency. And as such, the amendment put up today will help seek to address this in this regard, in regard to this figure. Speaker 7: I just have a question. Am I able to second that? Councillor Finzel: No. I don't think I can. No. Because it's a bit involved. Councillor Jurisevic: It's about the whole, not about the specific. It's not specific about Eastern Beach. Councillor Finzel: Is it? Speaker 7: But if it includes anything to do with the... Councillor Finzel: It's a conflict. Yeah, if that's a conflict for Eastern Beach. Yeah, just probably for prudence.

01:38:00 Yeah. Can I have a second seconder? Councillor Jurisevic: Second seconder? I'll secondly second that. Okay. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, councillor. And for... Thank you, councillor. That is already raised and discussed. Oh, okay. Can I ask a question, Rebecca? Speaker 6: I would love the definition design storm clearly defined. You talked about the pop-up box as being something that's going to be included in the interactive mapping. I would love that definition clearly spelled out in that pop-up box with all the interactive mapping. I think it's really important that people understand what a design event is. So can we include that? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Speaker 10: I'll ask a question as well. Councillor Jurisevic: I think it's along the lines of where I was going with the changes in the mapping to

01:39:00 being... Yeah. ...multiple colours to one colour now. It still can... It still essentially is the worst-case scenario in the mapping and the diagrams that are provided, whereas this, I think, is what that's trying to iterate. Is that, as I understand, what the mayor's amendment or the addition in B alludes to? Speaker 7: I'm not sure how it would be interpreted by each individual, but it's really just to make it clear that there was a bunch of changes in the mapping. There's a whole list of inputs that determines the modelling and the mapping and that...and then to just describe those. And...so this...the scenario that we've used to create these maps are based on state's guidelines. So there's further recommendations or proposals within the report that reduce some further

01:40:00 mapping and modelling scenarios as well. That would also show... I suppose you can also... This is part of the feedback that's come from the community is they would like to see the range of potential futures. Councillor Jurisevic: That's where I thought that changing the colours around it and doing that may be a way of capturing that in colour scenarios and having more than one event on the one diagram. But does the word design event cover what you've just been saying there? The design event based on the state's conditions clearly iterates that it's in that scenario based on all those figures that we've presented. Speaker 7: Yes, just that single scenario. There's three different layers for different time periods for that particular scenario. Speaker 6: Okay. So by way of clarification, Rebecca, a design storm event, for a design storm event to occur,

01:41:00 you need a combination of two types of one in 100 AP major storm events. Can that somehow be included throughout the pop-up box and possibly even in the amendment? And I know I can't make the amendment, but I'll just think by way of clarity, design storm event needs to be really clearly articulated. Speaker 7: Yeah. It already is described within the CHAT document in the wording. But I don't know. I think what the Mayor is hoping for is that it is again described within the footnote to these figures so that someone who's looking to the figures, for example, would be able to have a quick look and see, oh, right, so this is the scenario that they've mapped here. It has the design event. It has a particular wave height. It has a sea level rise factor. And it has a 40% safety factor. If they were to then go to the mapping, they would see that disclaimer again as a result

01:42:00 of the suggestions we're making here. So I think that covers off on all the areas that people would potentially want to be looking for that information. Speaker 6: Cool. Okay. So my question is that given what a design storm event is, which is this combination of two types of one in 100-year events happening. Yeah. Should we then look at our terminology? So we've referenced a design storm event as being highly unlikely. Shouldn't we be referencing or using the terminology rare? And have we sort of legal advice as to whether or not we use the correct terminology throughout the CHAT? Speaker 7: Well, we've used a risk assessment method that's in accordance with the Australian standards. And our consultants performed that risk assessment. So we've used a risk assessment method that's in accordance with the Australian standards. And I've identified the likelihood risk categorisations.

01:43:00 And that's been signed off by the state. It meets the technical requirements for risk assessment. So the terminology we've used is correct for the process that we were following. You'd note, however, that as part of the revisions to the CHAT that we went out the second round of consultation on. This is a result of some concerns from the community that they might be either misunderstood or a suggestion that they might be overstating the potential risk or that there's a level of uncertainty that we need to perhaps temper the wording in some paragraphs of the document to better express that uncertainty that exists when we're doing this type of work. And so I think some of those wording changes will receive good support back from the community

01:44:00 on doing that. So I think it's sitting there at a good level of description now. Speaker 6: I would still, to me, just as a layperson reading the document, highly unlikely and rare read as two different things. If something's highly unlikely, it means it could happen. If something's rare, it's a rare event, it's very, very, very, very unlikely to happen. I actually think they're two very different things and I think a design event should sit under rare. Again, something that just raises a red flag and I would love to just ask that perhaps we get some little advice as to the terminology. I understand it's past the state test. It may be just included in our documents for the layperson so they aren't mislead or they don't misunderstand the terminology. Yeah, highly unlikely is for an event, a design event, to see the wrong word.

105 minutes in

01:45:00

01:45:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to ask a technical question because I believe there's a natural assumption being made in some of those. And I'll have to try and explain it because it is a question. In flood modelling, the 1% AEP is based on statistics that go back sometimes to the beginning of the records 100 years ago. So it's a statistical average based on historic trends, not current climate. So if you were to do flood modelling with more accuracy, you probably wouldn't take any event before 1980s at the moment. So in terms of coastal hazards, are the 1% calculations similarly based on historic events of

01:46:00 climates that no longer exist? Speaker 7: No, they are based on a model design event. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. But is that design event based on the 1% change in climate? Is that based on our current climate or is it based on events that have curved over the history of recorded events? Because it'll be a... I'm saying you probably... Speaker 7: So you know that we have the different math layers that show present day, 20, 2040, 2070, 2100. So they all factor in climate change out to those time periods. Sure. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So I'll speak to the event then. I can add to that. Speaker 4: I can add to that. So Australian... Sorry. Thank you, councillors. My name is Sean. I recently came on board to do climate change and the chat. So Australian Academy of Sciences has a report recently released and they say that in many

01:47:00 places of the world, including in Australia, those one in 100 year events by 2100 will occur annually, are likely to. Right? So they... Taking in climate change as a factor, those one in 100 year events, those historical one in 100 year events, as you mentioned, will change. The probability will change later on because of climate change. So the ones that were historically, that took historic information to be a one in 100 year event will be changed. Climate change in the future. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Can I just ask Becky a question before you speak? Just this amendment to the motion, or addition to the motion, is specifically looking at particular maps. I think it's 4 and 8 in the chat, in the amended, in the attached document. It's stipulating that, and it's for greater accuracy, exactly what this represents. So this represents, as the footnote should then be amended to represent, a design event,

01:48:00 which is a combination of two 100 ARI events. A 0.8 metre sea level rise, and using a 40% margin of error. That is all the amendment before us is seeking to do. It's seeking to clarify that that's not a 100 year average recurrence interval. It's actually what is put forward in the amendment, or the motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry. Can I, whilst talking about the motion. Now looking at it, reading it, rather than simply the 100 average recurrence interval, should that be one in 100, or 100 year average? I mean, is there something missing in the description of the 100? Speaker 7: You can add 100 year. Councillor Jurisevic: Technically, it's 100 year ARI. As it reads, does it read correctly, is what I'm asking. Speaker 4: It should say 100 year average recurrence interval, and which is 100. That's what I missed on the first reading. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, we can no longer amend it under the extending orders.

01:49:00 Unless you're ready to do it. No. But we know it's 100 year average recurrence interval. That's what you're talking about. Councillor Finzel: I assume report. It's stipulated in the chat. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. It's clear. So I'm going to speak to the motion. I actually have no problem with the motion. It is clear and it's accurate. I have problems with councillors making assumptions about what that means in terms of risk. And I do so because we know that, as our new officer Sharianne has pointed out, but I'm going to quote from someone else, not myself. Hugh Roberts, the Chief Executive Officer of the Ward Institute of the Gulf, who worked with the Army Corps to design the defences after Hurricane Katrina. He said, the reality is that the 100 year flood levels today are going to look far different 20 to 30 years from now. And engineers must factor in that likelihood. The fact that what we're claiming for is the risk now is the risk now is the risk

01:50:00 now is going to increase over time, such that in the life of the properties that we're seeking to protect, that that risk isn't going to be there. Most likely it's going to be something that if these events occur, and yes, it is about two different events, but these are linked events. If we get a one in 100 year storm event, a cyclone event, it's highly likely that it's going to be contemporaneous with tidal surge. Because tidal surge is built up by strong winds pushing it, and these can be considerable. So it's really important to understand the two aspects is yes, it's good to be accurate and concise and for people who can understand. That's good. But it's not good to say, oh, we need to change the plan to make it rare because it sounds bad. The risks as identified by experts as put in the plan are very, very high.

01:51:00 So it's really important to understand what we as councillors should accept and be aware that downplaying the risk is not a wise thing to do with decision makers. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Does everyone want to speak? Speaker 8: I've got a quick question. So calling it the design event and saying that that's a mix of two different factors, or four different factors. Could you say those four factors again, Rebecca, please? Speaker 7: I think you've mentioned that. And it's also a storm surge, one in a hundred year event as well. So that gives us the wave height calculation. It also includes the sea level rise factor of 0.8 of a metre by year 2100. It also includes long term erosion rate and short term erosion rate, which are calculations used to project potential erosion over those time periods. And then the 40% safety factor as well, because we acknowledge that there is uncertainty around

01:52:00 modelling such as this. And it's important to have that. And that's a requirement of the state grid and guidelines to include that safety factor. Speaker 8: I would like to, I'll speak to this, because I brought this up at the chat at the round table, where a surge, and we're talking about a surge, and we're talking about a wave, a high wave, are the same. They're not two different events that are highly unlikely to fall in the same time. They're two events that are together. It's like two sides of a coin. You've got one, you've got the other. So I don't know if this design event actually confuses. It's more because it's just going to happen. It's an inevitability. There's going to be a storm. There's going to be a storm surge. They're going to happen at the same time. And there's going to be sea level rise. And that's going to happen as well. So I don't know if this is called a design event. I'd rather say it's a totally predictable event that's inevitable. So I'm not quite, I don't quite, is that, so are my concerns reflected in the amendment?

01:53:00 Speaker 7: Yeah, I believe they are. I think when we can more fully describe something that could otherwise be confused, I think it is useful to have that extra description in there. So you have to have a scenario which to base management decisions on. So this is presenting a set of maps that allow us to prioritise areas that might need to have new actions, new investments, new resources put to them. So we have to have mapping like this. I know there are concerns about what it might mean for future planning, if you remember, and we've tried to allay some of those concerns. But I don't think it's going to happen. I'm going to start by committing to an extra set of scenarios as well to show what if you put different inputs into the model what that could also provide and this is also normal for when you're doing natural hazards management to be able to do sensitivity testing.

01:54:00 But what happens if we had more emissions? What if we had less emissions into the future? What if we used a more frequent event, a one in 20 year event rather than a 100 year event? But at some point you need to have something to guide you in your decision making, in your prioritisation and management actions. So that's the point of the map. Speaker 8: You're happy with the amendment? Councillor Jurisevic: Which I think the point that was raised by the people that commented on the chat. They wanted, understanding this was, I think design of that action works better in that way. But that's what this is based on. But the actual activities that Council undertakes in the future are based on evidence and better data management and gathering which is what's been included in the chapter as I understand. Is that correct? Speaker 7: That's right and I think you need both. You need to have something that presents you with a potential scenario that you can then for example look for funding to be able to do more dune restoration and re-veg work.

01:55:00 That if you didn't have that there then you wouldn't have a basis on which to see that investment. And then you also need to look at your local monitoring and that data helps you inform whether we're on the right track. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah clearly as that data then reflects the level of change or the rate of change expected or not. You can then apply and say well we've got a great need because this is actually occurring faster than was anticipated or the reverse. Councillor Finzel: That's right. Anyone else like to speak to this question? Yeah the administrator in me is like going oh. I just need a surety and I did raise it last time with regards to this large body of work.

01:56:00 The changes, the everything that's gone with it. I'm just seeking a surety. I'm sure we're doing it. Good code of conduct around council's administrative practice. And is this all being put in one like depository and file that can be accessed given this impact down the track. People's insurance, the changes, all sorts of things. We'll be looking at this information. How are we ensuring that we've got strong and robust effective administrative practices around the enormity of this information. Speaker 7: Yeah it's a good question. So council has a project page for the Coastal Hazards Adaptation Plan that we've been using during consultation that will remain there as a source of information for the community to be able to access the CHAT document itself as well as all the supporting documents that sit with that. And there's easy links to the online mapping as well so people can interrogate those maps.

01:57:00 So it is a single repository there with information. We'll be able to build on that over time with more detail around implementation actions as well. Councillor Finzel: So is it anywhere else that it's stored apart from the project page? Would that load it into our record system or is it somewhere else? Yeah most definitely. Speaker 10: It would be in the electronic map. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 1: All of the work is for that as well. It's covered in this one. Speaker 6: Councillor Ellsworth. I just want to go back to Councillor Stockwell's comments about. My suggestion to look at the terminology. Highly unlikely to rare. I'll just respectfully want to just correct you. The purpose of me highlighting terminology was not because quote unquote it sounds bad. I think you took that out of context. My purpose and I thought I clearly articulated it Councillor Stockwell was because I was concerned of the legal ramifications.

01:58:00 Whether we have overstated. Or understated a risk. I actually asked whether we could go and seek legal advice. The document we have in front of us and I won't go through the objectives. It impacts everything. And that's why I'm still sitting in this room. It impacts policy and guides planning. So to me it's a red flag. I don't want this to be challenged in court. So. No. I didn't make reference to terminology because it sounds bad. I made reference because we have a statutory obligation to ensure that ratepayers money is not spent unnecessarily in courts. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Finzel would you like to speak to this motion? No. I'm not going to say anything. Thank you. You have. Yes. I don't think I have.

01:59:00 Yes you have Joe. Have I? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to move an amendment. Councillor Finzel: We'll just deal with this one. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, this is the original motion. You put your amendment as an original motion. Councillor Jurisevic: That's right. I was viewing it in the wrong light too because of the red here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And so my amendment is that approve revised Coastal Hazard Adaption Plan and forward the State Government the final adjustment with the following change. The following paragraph on page 3 in attachment 2, track changes, copy to read. Page 83. Adopting to... Councillor Finzel: Page 83. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Did I say page something else? You said page 3. Sorry, page 83. Adapting to coastal hazards is a shared responsibility for all State Governments.

120 minutes in

02:00:00

02:00:00 It is to address the issues of coastal hazards and to ensure that these changes affect the future. Councillor Finzel: Anyone second when it comes to stop the amendment? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do say it's a minor change and overall I think all the changes made in response to submissions are quite valuable. This one is where we had proposed to change the wording to talk about and respond to and overcome the challenge we will potentially face in the future involving sea level rise. This document actually is one that guides our policy decisions right now. I'm challenged already by rising sea levels. Now the rise currently is not great, but the decisions we make today about infrastructure with design lives of up to 70 to 100 years offer significant challenges.

02:01:00 So what this adaptation plan is about is giving us the power to work with others to adapt to change, which is on decisions which are challenging now. The example I give is one in the last term, where we have to make decisions about multi-million dollars worth of stormwater upgrades along the river. And the modelling shows that if we don't adapt to change, we're not going to be able to adapt to change. If we don't adapt in our design of that stormwater system in the future, they will more quickly take river water and put it into the street than take stormwater off the street and put it into the river. So we have to make, that's just one example of a very challenging dynamic that we as decision makers have to cope with. There's going to be lots of areas, and it's probably particularly in the most low-lying areas, where we're going to make decisions about public infrastructure. And what this plan helps us do is to make those.

02:02:00 So that we design them so that the impact of sea level rise in the future doesn't mean that our investment of today has not got to diminish life. And it is designed in a way that it will ameliorate some of the impacts. So along the river, it's going to be the more frequent over-topping of the banks at high tide. And if we can design our future pathways so that they act to maintain the parkland behind the pathways, then that will be one way to adapt to the rising sea levels. So for me, it's just a statement. There's not potential challenges in the future. The challenges are now, and we're making decisions to try and reduce the impact into the future. Councillor Finzel: I've got a question, Bec. I've got here in my hand, Queensland Tide Tire, Maritime Safety Queensland, Queensland Tide Tables. And on this page, it says an allowance of 2.5 millimetres per year for sea level change has been made in the mean sea level estimate.

02:03:00 2.5 millimetres per year. This is from Maritime Safety. This is a Maritime Safety Queensland document. This is a Maritime Safety Queensland document, Title Unit, Era of Meteorology, 22nd of September 2020. This is the monthly sea level rises at Malula Bar from the period of 1976. through to estimate of 2024. So, Bec, you've seen these documents. Would it be fair to say that what is currently, because this is a very different scenario, I mean, if we look at rising sea levels at 2.5 millimetres per year to 2100, that's in 79 years, that's 19.75 centimetres if we go by these. So I understand where Councillor Stockwell's coming from. But is it safer? Because this is information that has been documented by the government and government organisations. And there's other information out there that the word, potentially, is prudent.

02:04:00 Because there's so many variations. I mean, if we listen to this, it's going to rise by 19 centimetres. If we listen to other scenarios, it's going to rise by 0.8 of a metre. So is what's already standard in the document, with the word potentially, more prudent? Speaker 7: I'm happy with the wording that Councillor Stockwell has proposed. I do think it more accurately reflects the challenge that we face. If Shane would be able to speak to some of the sea level rise comments that you made. Speaker 4: I can, yes. So MSQ's current sea level rise, 2.5 millimetres. The calculation that you presented assumes a linear trajectory to 2100. And sea level rise over the globe has been anything but linear. From 1900 to about 1970, global sea level rise, the average rate was about 1.1 millimetres per year.

02:05:00 And in the past 15 years, since 2006, it's risen to 3.7 millimetres. And so Queensland government, state government, uses the IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections for sea level rise. And we're using 0.8 metres by 2100 because that is what the Queensland government has required us to do in this case for the CHAP. And that, to be honest with the IPCC's most recent report, they've increased the higher end of that to 1 metre by 2100 of sea level rise. And so it's basically saying they don't assume a linear trajectory to 2100. Councillor Finzel: This is quite contradictory. I mean, this is the Department of Transport and Made Roads at the top, you know, MSQ. Why would they put out this information that is quite contradictory to what they're saying otherwise? Speaker 4: I wouldn't see it as contradictory. So those are our current tide levels, sea level rise tide levels, right?

02:06:00 But they don't project in that document, do they, to 2100, do they? I believe that... No. Yeah. So I believe that... Councillor Finzel: Well, they do in this graph. I'm sorry. Pardon me. It projects up to 2024 in that graph. It shows there's been minimal change since 1976. Speaker 6: Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. So in speaking about future sea level rise, the rate of growth is non-linear and it will increase. It has increased historically significantly and it will increase significantly. I mean, the IPCC in its latest report has projections of up to 1.5 and there's if ice sheets, collapsing glaciers start to melt at a more rapid rate, which we're already seeing in West Antarctica. So there are scenarios that it would be even worse. Councillor Finzel: But if... I mean, and there's been so much in Glasgow recently. If the world... I mean, everyone's making such a, you know, concerted effort to increase risk, you know,

02:07:00 as a result of climate change. I mean, it's not going to be as bad as what they have been. It might actually improve. Speaker 4: That's true. It could go both ways. That is true. But all evidence currently is that we're not on track with where we need to be. And that tipping point in the global climate system will start to kick in after we pass the 1.5 degree threshold. Which we're likely to pass in the 2030s. Right now, given all current ambitions from every government around the world, we're on track for over 2 degrees centigrade warming rise. And at that level, the best science predicts that there will be tipping points for each and that there are... There's the possibility of ice sheet instability, which would mean sea level rise way past what

02:08:00 we've projected. Councillor Finzel: Is that based on what we're doing now? Speaker 4: That should be... Yeah. We're rising above 2 centigrade. Councillor Finzel: That's based on what we're doing now. So that's not based on what the world will do and what they'd sign up to agree to now if Glasgow... Oh, no. Speaker 4: Sorry. Yeah, no. When you said what we're doing now meant what all the ambition and current policies were put forward at Glasgow. So they released that last week and they said that given everything that the government's announced, we'll be a little bit over 2.2 degrees centigrade. And so the ambition needs to increase, basically. And that's why they're putting Glasgow as a failure, is that it has not gotten us to be... To make any significant... Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. What's that? To make any significant difference to the projections that are currently modeling. Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, it will make a significant difference. When going into Glasgow, it was higher. And so it has... It will make a difference. But it's not the level that we need to be to avoid... Full time, one and a half degrees. Yeah. A little bit of a catastrophe. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Speaker 6: Councillor Macdonald. Speaker 8: Question, though, to Brian.

02:09:00 Do you think that many Pacific Island nations would support your amendment? Councillor Finzel: Is that a rhetorical question? Speaker 6: All right. Councillor Finzel: Would anyone else like to have any questions or speak to this amendment? Councillor Wegener. Yeah. Speaker 8: I will support the amendment. You clarified the statement. Absolutely make it clear. And then Rebecca, secondly, you know, reflected that. So, yeah. I support the change. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Schuster. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Looking through the wording, I just tried to see where the differences lay. And I wasn't completely clear. I can see why Councillor Stockwell has changed there. And I will acknowledge there are current challenges faced by rising sea levels. It doesn't refer to what the levels may be or anything other than that or any modelling. So, I'm quite prepared to support the wording change there. I think it does acknowledge that rising sea levels are a challenge that we have now and

02:10:00 that we must look to reducing the impact on them in the future as it stays there. I'm quite happy with the change at that point. Speaker 6: I'll speak to it. I actually like the wording that you've put a lot of time into changing in the document on page 83, which is will potentially. It's not a denial. Sea level. It's . What will potentially states is it's a collaborative recognition of sea levels. It's a round table series. We have a community that no one denies climate change, but a community that wants reflected in this document the uncertain nature of what we're dealing with.

02:11:00 And I think will potentially reflects that better than post. That's definite. That's not. And to start changing the wording to post, we then have to re-look at the entire document. And again, defeats the purpose of nine months' worth of good collaboration. Speaker 7: Can I talk about that? Yes, sure. I think the difference in this statement compared to where we've made the wording changes before is in the other areas where we've made the changes, where we're trying to assign a risk categorization. We're talking about a high risk of something occurring, a high likelihood or just a likelihood of something occurring. In this particular statement, it's more about acknowledging that there is a current challenge. That means, as Councillor Stockwell said, we are challenged by it at the moment. That's why we're doing a chat. And we identify that sea level rise is something that we need to manage.

02:12:00 So I think it's a bit different. It's not suggesting that we have assets that might have a level of risk attached to them. This one's more general about the process of needing to meet the challenge, to address it. Speaker 6: Sorry, Rebecca. It doesn't conflict with the other changes of terminology that were used in the document? Speaker 7: Yeah, correct. It's less about trying to assign a risk rating and more about just acknowledging the challenge. Speaker 6: I respect that. Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, I've gotten a feeling not much further. So I think it's a bit different. I think it's about the fact that we're going to be able to contribute. I like the idea that we're going to be like, make more of a cursive, you know, move that it's not just locked in. That we're going to respond and change just like a river and the rising waters. I think that's a really important part sitting at the centre of this.

02:13:00 Especially when we engage community and try to identify the risks and the hazards as these things change. It's affecting all of us, including the South Sea islands in the Pacific where we live. And it's affecting local economies across the region, across the world. And I think it's timely. Again, it's a good starting point to keep the narrative going. And as we get research feeding into that as we move along, that we've created provision to adapt to that and form that and certainly make the changes as we move forward to try and find solutions. So thank you for the work you've committed. Thank you. I really like the first part of this. Adapting to coastal hazards is a shared responsibility for all stakeholders within the Noosa community. I think that's right. It requires community council and other key agencies to work together to respond to and overcome the current challenges. I do like the word potential because, and I appreciate the clarification you've made, but this is a 48 year document.

02:14:00 This is 48 years of tracking. And there's not much that's changed. Now I agree that, and I appreciate the comments made around this, and that we do need to take climate change seriously. But I think the word potential is more reflective of what we're currently seeing, I'm not saying what we currently will face, and it could be worse than before or it could be better. We're unsure. So I actually like that wording, potentially. So I won't be supporting this amendment today. But I appreciate Councillor Stockwell's sentiments and the stemmer he's coming from. But I think we need this. We've got a document that is measured and reasonable and balanced. And I think that exhibits that word that was already in there, and that's been Councillor Stockwell. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I think it's good to clarify a series of questions from Councillor Lawrence. And this amendment, I'm not trying to change all those ones where we've removed them

135 minutes in

02:15:00

02:15:00 lightly. I think that's quite reasonable to do. But if you look at this statement, it's a statement to measure your impact of adopting this strategy. You can't measure it if it says potential challenges. You can't say whether we did it well or not if we think, what are these potential challenges? What you can measure is, did we take action with the community and other key agencies? So I think that's quite reasonable to do. But I think the impact statement is that the predicted impact has been reduced. That is the impact statement for this whole plan. It is about taking action now to reduce the potential negative impact of a changing climate. And that's what I sought to achieve, is to say it's a positive statement. It's a statement about commitment to work together to get a better future for our community.

02:16:00 Councillor Finzel: Noting that Councillor Finzel and Lyons did not vote, that is carried and that forms part of the substandard motion. Now the only person who has spoken to the original is myself. Would anyone else like to speak to the motion that is now before us? Speaker 6: Can I ask a question please, Rebecca? Throughout the submissions during the second round of community consultation,

02:17:00 there's a lot of people that just wanted, some acknowledgement that, and please I'm guided by CEO and myself if I'm overstepping with my conflict of interest, but there's a lot of questions asked in reference to the planning restrictions. Can you tell me what page we actually detail what the proposed amendments may look like? You mentioned it in your summary. I'm just trying to find it in the document. I, have we got anywhere, just some details about whether integrating the state interest requires adverse planning changes, what the proposed amendments may look like. On page 12, I've got guiding principles, long-term planning for Noosa Shire,

02:18:00 but I just can't find that level of detail and I just note that it is, quite an important matter, and raised throughout the roundtables and again in the second round of submissions. Speaker 7: Okay. Probably the key statement relating to the planning scheme, if we look at the locality of Marcus Castaway, page 52 as an example. On the cap changes version or? Councillor Finzel: On the cap changes version. Speaker 6: I think all references track changes, isn't it Bec? Sorry, I've got a conflict of interest with Eastern Beaches, can you reference anything in Noosaville, Noosa Hills, sorry for the boring point. Is it Noosa North Shore? Speaker 7: The changes relating to the planning theme, and this is where most of the concerns arose, were relating to Eastern Beaches, so yeah.

02:19:00 Speaker 6: So should I refrain if I'm asking the question? I'll ask the same question. Thank you. Sorry, I don't want to get in trouble, thank you. Speaker 7: Okay, thank you. So the wording change talks in the management response table for each of the localities. For example, I'm looking at Marcus Beach and Castaway from page 52. The land use planning response says, amend the Noosa plan 2020 to ensure it aligns with the state planning policy requirements regarding coastal erosion risk. So these have not been addressed. This wording has not changed since the second round of amendments, but it did change as a result of the first round of consultation. It changed as a result of the first round of consultation, not as a result of the second round of consultation. So what you're looking at here in terms of changes to the chat is the same as what went out to the community when you first looked at recommended changes after the first round of consultation.

02:20:00 So it originally, I'm just trying to think what the wording said now. It wasn't so specific around the lining for the state planning policy. Does it amend the planning scheme to mitigate risks or something to do with something for that effect? I can't quite remember now. Speaker 6: Sorry, I'm correct. There's been no further detail to that. Speaker 7: No further detail. Where we've sought to explain the linkage for that, there's been no further detail. I think the link between the chat and the planning scheme is more so in the report to council. We've spoken very specifically about existing use rights and that they are protected through the planning act, but if you have any existing lawful established use, then that is maintained irrespective of any changes to the planning scheme.

02:21:00 So that is critical in that the chat cannot take away anyone's existing use rights if they have any existing lawful established use. And that's protected through the planning act. And then there's further mention about that linkage between the chat and the planning scheme in the chat and in the report to council in that it talks about the process of what would be required to do in order to meet the need for a second community consultation process. And that the chat can't dictate land use. So that's something that we've looked at. And it's very clear that that's not a requirement. It's used to inform management decisions. Speaker 6: So is there an opportunity to have that included as part of the chat, Rebecca? Speaker 7: I did look at that as we were reviewing the submissions and finalising this document for your consideration.

02:22:00 There wasn't anywhere in particular for a document like this that that would sit to have included. Can you give me that? Speaker 6: Page 12 under Guiding Principles. Could we not have planned it in there? Long-term planning for Noosa Shire. I just think it needs to have some clarity or just full disclosure. We're committed to transparency and I think that would be a really great step forward if we could have a little bit more detail concerning just proposed amendments to the Noosa plan, whether the state interest requires adverse planning. Just information already in the report included as part of the CHAP document. I would need some time to be able to think that through. Sorry, I don't want to throw that, but I just keep going back to the crux of the matter and why community and residents were unhappy was what did this mean to them if they had businesses, industry, and just

02:23:00 people that just, you know, or property. And that information would be great. Or even a statement as clear as the CHAP seeks to protect life, property, infrastructure, beaches, dunes, and foreshores. And then that covers or makes clear the intent that it's not, there's no unintended purposes or unintended consequences of this document. Again, just seeking Speaker 7: clarity and opportunity for community within community. We do need some time to be able to prepare anything, any sort of changes like that. From staff perspective, we felt that that information was appropriate to be in the council report because the CHAP can't be directing anything along those lines. It can make some statements to clarify, but I think the right

02:24:00 place for that is in this document and isn't publicly accessible. It's a statement of the council's position. So I do still feel that that is the right place to make those sort of clarifications about the linkages there. And that the CHAP be there as a risk assessment document that includes those requirements for integrating state planning policy. I do feel that that's as far as it needs to go. Councillor Finzel: And if, I'm sorry, we talked about this last week about obviously putting them in, in the, as Councillor Anderson's talked to today. But if, and as you alluded to last week, that if it's in the report, that is as good as if we ratify and certify this report today. Is that? Yeah, that's right. Yes, yep, yep. You're noting this report, you're approving the CHAP and the process forward. And in your final document, you'll refer to the council

02:25:00 Speaker 2: resolution and date and number and so forth. It's a very different juncture. Councillor Finzel: Can I just raise something just around this conversation of including, you know, community and community clarifying statements. I mean, we haven't even looked at like broad issues around integrating gender issues around climate change. Is that a question? Question? Yeah. So are we, how are we going to include any of that in this statement? When we're talking, even if we're looking at floods and the prevalence of waterborne diseases coming on to the increase? We're looking at sustainable food security and water security. Where are we as a council making a statement in those spaces to minimise our risk and maximise opportunities for, you know, a life well lived for everyone? Despite the economic situation or social housing or, you know, their gender, where are we making a statement around that? Is that a risk document?

02:26:00 Speaker 7: Earlier in the year, council endorsed the climate change response plan, which has a broader look at the range of climate risks that are prevented for our local community and across different sectors of the economy and households and agriculture. Biodiversity and where council sits in terms of wanting to be a leader and an advocate and to a partner for the community on dealing with some of these really big issues. And so those types of matters that you've mentioned there are built into that process, that broader climate change response plan. This chat is very specific around erosion and inundation. So just one of the potential climate risks of many. Councillor Finzel: But with inundation, wouldn't prevalence of waterborne diseases come into that?

02:27:00 Speaker 7: There's definitely a link there if we have increased areas of inundation where you potentially have more water there on the land than you did previously. But it's not the focus of this chat itself. It is related, but it's not within the scope. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. We have a motion on the floor or a recommendation, but does anyone want to speak? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak. I think the response to the second round of community input is good. I like the little tweaks we've made. I do think it once again boils down to the issue that is of uppermost in a lot of people's mind who are impacted by potential coastal hazards in respect to how that may impact future climate changes. I think it's important to repeat that the information in the modelling regarding sea level rise and storm tides

02:28:00 is not likely to result in any changes. It's only important to report notes and that the current risk from captured flooding is greater than storm surge. I do think it's important that the reference to the state climate change report, the planning policy, if anyone wants to know what the planning scheme amendment may look like, they should go to the state government's state interest guidance materials on natural hazards and resilience coastal hazards. And there's two state interests that are really clear. One is coastal protection work in erosion-prone areas undertaken only as a last resort where coastal erosion inundation presents an imminent threat to public safety or existing buildings and structures, and all of the following apply. So building or structure cannot reasonably be relocated or abandoned. Any erosion control structure is located as far landward as practical and on the lot containing the property to the maximum extent reasonable. Any increase in coastal hazard risk for adjacent areas and coastal protection works is mitigated.

02:29:00 And they say that include assessment benchmarks in zone overlay clades applying to land in erosion-prone areas which require coastal protection works to be located wholly on private land unless it can be demonstrated that it is not feasible to locate the structures on private land. So really clear guidance about what we're supposed to do in our planning scheme amendment. State interest policy A, erosion-prone areas within coastal management districts. This is about new development. Development does not occur unless the development can feasibly be located elsewhere. And is A, coastal dependent development, B, temporary, readily relocatable, or A, able to be abandoned, or essential community infrastructure, or D, minor development of existing permanent building or structure that cannot be relocated or abandoned. So there's the guidance. That's what we have to come up with based on the new modelling about where the erosion-prone area is. And as we've previously said, our modelling actually allows us to suggest an erosion-prone area that's less than what the current state planning policy mapping is,

150 minutes in

02:30:00

02:30:00 because we've done more detailed modelling. So in terms of what's likely to change in the planning scheme, I think people, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to work out what it's going to be. So to me, the document's strength is about having now a structured and strategic approach to how we address the increasing risks from the current coastal hazards we've got. And I recommend it. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Does anyone else want to speak to this? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I commend the work of staff in hearing the community's concerns for the first draft of the coastal hazard adaptation plan. And I commend the work that's been done to bring the second iteration to us. I think it's addressed a number of concerns in the community. I still see that the greatest response I've had on the draft is that we're overstating the impact.

02:31:00 And I'll reiterate that we aren't overstating the impact. It's the impact that's been... It's implied upon us by the State to respond to and to put into practice here and to clearly articulate in the Coastal Hazard Adaptation Plan. Again, I think we've addressed a number of concerns. I think the language and the changes, particularly with regard to the images within, have addressed a lot of the concerns that were raised in that first draft. And I think our staff have done a great job on this one. Well done. Absolutely. Speaker 8: I definitely commend staff, and especially Rebecca, for her persistence and continued wordsmithing of this. I find that you must have learned quite a bit about phrasing things, because there's so many phrases that were good before, but now they're just spectacular. I'm just bailing. Yeah.

02:32:00 Speaker 7: That's Deshaun's credit. Speaker 8: That's Deshaun's credit. I see it. Thank you for your work, you've really improved, you know, both of you have improved your ability to deal with this and to be able to respond to relentless scrutiny from everybody on all sides. And so I'm sure you're a much better, much more valuable part of our team because of it. So thank you very much for your massive effort and for your persistence. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor O' Oh, what do you mean by that? I just want to reiterate the great work the staff have done and counselling, responding to the community, extending the period of time for consultation. I think it's brought about a really good, valued contribution to the work. Speaker 6: Firstly, thank you Rebecca and staff, Sean and staff. A mammoth job putting a document like this together and trying to appease and unite community. That's our job, so first-hand I know it's difficult and I think you guys have tried your best.

02:33:00 I still have a few questions. I have a few concerns about the revised CHAPs and I'll just raise them. I'm still concerned a little bit about the mapping. I'm still concerned a little bit about the terminology. I'm a little bit concerned about the details regarding the proposed amendments. And I'm mostly concerned with whether we've overstated or understated the risk and what that may potentially mean if it's been really challenged. Having said that, thank you for your efforts. I do also want to take this opportunity to give council a heads up that I will be bringing a notified motion to council in the coming months. What I would like to do is ask council if it would consider undertaking a comprehensive study of the economic and social value of our beaches and waterways.

02:34:00 A study designed to provide the necessary information for council to properly assess the economic impact of our beaches and waterways. In particular, the impact of different coastal management alternatives. I raised this at our last meeting, that I met, I asked the question, how do we know what's the most appropriate management response to projected climate change impacts and how do we know whether, how do we know what the most appropriate management response to projected climate change impacts are. If we don't know the value of the risk and the cost of protection. And I've been a little bit in this space and looking at what other states and Gold Coast Institute, what they do in this space. And we simply need to understand what the impact, what's the impact if we partially or totally lose our beaches?

02:35:00 What would that look like for the property market, for our rates revenue, for tourism, intangible cultural amenity values? And how are these factors affected by different adaptation options? So I think there's also an overlap, understanding economic impact in tourism. So I hope that when this motion gets brought to council, some serious consideration is given to it. Because I think that the study is critical to the check. You can't have one without the other. You need to understand the economic value of the risk to understand what the most appropriate management response is. Thank you. Question for Rebecca on that. Councillor Jurisevic: You're nodding your head there. Didn't we do an economic impact assessment when determining which of the methodologies could and couldn't be applied with regard to the value of the beaches?

02:36:00 Speaker 7: Yeah, that's a good question. We did do a cost benefit analysis that looked at the damage costs. That could be avoided as a result of different adaptation responses, as well as what are the benefits that could be expected by undertaking certain investments. It looked at amenity benefits, recreation, tourism benefits of those different responses, and also the impacts that might occur as a result of recreational uses, tourism values, the protection of the beach, protection of assets. So all of those things were considered. But a more detailed economic study would give us further detail, and that's always useful for our economic development team. It would be useful for their destination management planning and responses, so we'll certainly be looking at that. Councillor Jurisevic: I may insist in what I asked about before, being proactive in some areas and whether there's actually added benefit of putting money in ahead of schedule, as opposed to a reactionary answer.

02:37:00 Absolutely. Naturally, Gretchen. Speaker 6: OK. If I can use some numbers. I had a look at some numbers there. USQ had some numbers on the number of people that actually use our beaches, and I don't know whether those numbers were actually considered in the cost benefit analysis that was prepared initially. And this is the deep dive that I would love Council to consider. And again, it's been done in other councils, and I'll provide that information to you that evening. I'll close if you haven't spoken to it. Councillor Finzel: I'm going to give a quick overview, because this is the last of the chat. So I want to thank Bec and the team very much, too. You've done a tremendous amount of work, and certainly since January, since the first draft went out, you've been heavily involved, and you've been open to collaborate with the community, and I really thank you for that, Bec. Really, it's been wonderful.

02:38:00 January 21, we adopted a draft CHAP, and it was funded by the state government. We received 233 submissions. A number of responses came in which had concerns. We instigated a roundtable shortly thereafter, and six meetings were held between Council and various stakeholders between July 2021 and September 2021. This process helped with discussing concerns, sharing information, and clarifying details set out in the CHAP. Since that time, the draft and the proposed changes shown in Attachment 2 included a pathways approach, protecting Council assets and more monitoring, and clearer clarity on the decision-making process. The new draft makes it clear that Council will take a step-monitor-manage-review approach. The second round of consultation proposed the following. It ran for a period of three weeks, from 8 October 2021 to 1 November 2021, with a total of 53 submissions received. These submissions focused on Eastern Beaches erosion issues and ongoing concerns relating to modelling and mapping.

02:39:00 This resulted in the following key improvements being made to the CHAP as per page 26 of our agenda. This included more mapping for other potential future erosion scenarios. Council will continue to investigate and undertake further work to determine best modelling approaches to provide a clear picture of the low to medium. So this is a good thing, you know, it looks at all scenarios, low to medium, best to worst-case scenarios, the coastal erosion hazards along the open beaches. It's fair, it's more balanced, and it's more reasonable, it makes sense. Clearer map disclaimers and more detailed information will be added to mapping to describe the maps and various data points. Ongoing community involvement. Noosa Council is committed to working with interested community groups to manage the potential coastal hazards risk based by existing coastal communities. This will include regular consultation and updates with property owners and foreshore reserve neighbours to help input into beach management and monitoring.

02:40:00 And most critically, on page 27, we, as I've said and I'll reiterate, there is, in regard to mapping, modelling, local monitoring for coastal erosion, Council acknowledges concerns the modelling inputs are uncertain and presents only one possible future scenario as outlined by state government requirements. Council will continue to work with the state government and other coastal experts to determine modelling approaches that provide for a clear picture of the range of low to medium, again, best to worst-case scenarios. This will be supported by the Council. The State Government will also continue to offer the support and best practices for local monitoring and assessment of foreshore. This is really important. We will also continue to lobby the state in regard to a review of their guidelines that they have put forward that we are mandated to follow. And we will, as I said, take the community on the journey. The Round Table was the first of all the feedback we've received and was the first of the engagement. And along with that continue with all community groups who are interested in being involved.

02:41:00 And again, thank you, Bec, for your hard work. Thank you, and the team. I'll put the committee recommendations for vote all in favour. Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Stockwell, Wegener, Stewart, noting that Councillor Islonson and Finzel didn't vote. That's passed. Thank you. Guys, we'll be going for two hours and 45 minutes. We might have a 15-minute break. Three to go. Yeah, we're having a break. There's four to go. We've got four to go.

165 minutes in

02:45:00

02:59:00 Welcome back, everyone. We are now up to item number eight. Speaker 3: It provides the tender evaluation summary and a recommendation to award the tender for traffic control services. The current contract expires on the 21st of November, and we've followed the procurement policy and procedures. And it went out for an invitation to tender. We've got 11 responses to 10 that were considered compliant at the assessment. As you know, this tender went out previously and was actually the second time in two months we've been counselled for this.

180 minutes in

03:00:00

03:00:00 And through our process, our meeting process, the company that was originally preferred was sold and renamed, and therefore... The company does not exist, so we could not award it to them. And therefore, we revisited the tender process and got advice, and we were subsequently able to provide our second option of verified traffic. Proprietary limited is the most advantageous for council and present just date of the month. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to clarify, that's all we did, Brian. We just went out on the second option? Speaker 3: We went reconvene and checked. Yes. But we did pick... So we didn't do it? Yes. Councillor Finzel: Was there much difference between first choice and second choice? Speaker 3: There wasn't a lot. It's based... I couldn't actually give you a figure because it's also done on unit rates on the different

03:01:00 services. But the scenarios we put in there, there was very little difference. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. That was pretty close. It worked out well. Happy 11th, Madam Chair. Speaker 10: Thank you. Speaker 8: I think we should do a few second and first before... Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it. No, no, no. Ask your question before second. Speaker 8: Otherwise... What was the name of the old contractor? Speaker 3: They were called the Traffic Management People, which is what they were referred to. But the company was called ATF, the Abrahamson Family Trust Traffic Management People. Councillor Jurisevic: I looked at page 38 of 58 in the report. They're actually still listed there, but just with the evaluation against them. Speaker 6: Can I ask a question, Brett? Sure. Big money, traffic controlling. The tender is... Council's annual expenditure in 2020 was $738,999. And in the six months to June 30... The 30th of June 2021, it was $402,666.

03:02:00 Speaker 3: We haven't done a full analysis of it in recent times, and because actually legislation has changed as well in the last 18 months, and it's actually got more difficult to... Well, when I say more difficult, the safety element of it has increased, and we require additional resources around that. It's a tough one. It's a tough one. It's a tough one in regards to evaluating, because it is people power and the availability of those. And we've found that contracted services are able to probably get good value for money

03:03:00 on that space. But we haven't done a full analysis. So to answer your question, no, we haven't considered in-house for a number of years. Speaker 6: So would that be something that... I think this contract's two years, isn't it? Two years plus three year option... Three years. Speaker 3: Single year options. Speaker 6: For the three terms up to 12 months. Speaker 3: It's definitely something we would consider. We're doing a review of our civil operations area now, and everything's on the table to be considered what we can do in the future, both in and out. Speaker 6: Fantastic. Just to have a look at, is there a cost saving example or not? Yeah. Sure. Thank you. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that something we can do? Is that something we can do in-house and actually do a review when the tenders come up for review to see what the in-house cost would be versus the external cost? Speaker 3: We tend to do that generally, too, in regards to mowing and the like, and whether what would be the investment of land. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I was alluding to, yeah. Speaker 3: And one of the reasons that we get away from providing a service like mowing would be the

03:04:00 cost and the initial outlay and maintaining of equipment. So for us, that's, yeah, we see that it's better for that risk to be on a contractor than ourselves. Councillor Jurisevic: Council did the mowing, things like mowing, and had all the equipment, but we gave it away, so we'd have to retool now. There was obviously a time when that calculation was made to give that facilitation away. Speaker 3: And I think we did that about 15 years ago. Yeah, it's a while ago. Councillor Finzel: Anyone have a question? Yeah. Thank you for the report. On page 35 of 58, we've got the tender evaluation with Council's weighted attribute evaluation spreadsheet. I'm going to be talking to Environment and Sustainability at 5 per cent. This weighting seems fairly consistent across the organisation, and I bring it up on every

03:05:00 procurement that goes out. How are we measuring the business that we're engaging, their environmental impact? And I think that's really important. What's our checklist for that? Do we get, like, an environmental audit from their business? Do we ask them to set up an environmental management system? Do we ask them to report on their impacts, check their government requirements, and find grants and awards so that they can identify the environmental impact of their business? How are they reaching their objectives and targets? How do they provide for emergency procedures on environmental issues? Outlining responsibilities. What are their reporting structure? And identifying areas for ongoing improvement. I'm just trying to work out how our Council does the weighting, and these are top questions that are asked when it comes to procurement. Sure. Speaker 3: In regards to looking at that environment and sustainability, we tend to look at whether they've got an environmental management plan, whether they're certified or not, and whether

03:06:00 they're aligned to the standards in regards to that. We don't actually go to another layer of saying, well, you know, all... Sorry. We do go into this and ask about whether they've got any environmentally friendly equipment they may use or choose to provide in that space, whether it be electric vehicles or family-operated devices or whatever it may be. But essentially, we pick that up in what they provide in their submission and what supports their environmental plan and whether they're actually... So, we look at whether they're actually accredited through a certified third party or whether they've just written a plan and have a policy, an environmental statement essentially that they're using. And that's how it's assessed, and particularly in this case. Councillor Jurisevic: Do we actively ask what measures are you taking to implement further environmental and sustainability practices in your business? Speaker 3: It would depend on the contracts. In this case, no. We look at what practices they're doing.

03:07:00 We're talking about a fairly low school and a little more focused on the safety and value of the money elements of this, because it's essentially setting up signs, putting people powers, traffic lights at temporary works situations. So, yes, it's a little bit different to whether we might be delivering a product like awarding a grader, for instance, where we've recently purchased a product. We've purchased a grader, and we've looked at a lot of the environmental elements of that piece of plan that we've purchased. Councillor Jurisevic: I certainly hope when it comes to a bridge, Ken, that we look at quality of better than 5%. Speaker 3: I'd have to look at what the probity plans are, because we do have probity plans on all our contracts, and they would look at what... I was taking Chief Bryan. Councillor Jurisevic: I was just hoping the bridge doesn't fall down. No, no.

03:08:00 Speaker 6: And my understanding with investment funding that we only invest with ethical, not so a little bit different to where Karen was going through, but I actually think council have already been in place and it will only invest with companies that are ethically and have green credentials. So can you explain to me? Speaker 10: The council's policy of investment of ethical funds policy contains a number of requirements for how we invest our funds. The first element is about risk and return. So there are standards that define the risk of a bank. So we talked about standards before with triple A and double A rate of investment institutions. So from a risk perspective, we are inserting this into how much we invest in higher risk forms that are paid at banking institutions.

03:09:00 That ensures that council funds are great paid money starting to be at risk for banks or institutions that foreclose in the future and will lose those funds. The second part obviously is then consideration of everything down to fiscal. So the policy contains a threshold. To compare events in terms of if we are getting a return that falls above or below that threshold for an ethical investment, so it's a non-ethical or more commercial institution, or an investment property in the Supreme Court, if it falls within those bonds. If it falls within those bounds, when we consider if it falls above that, we're getting a greater return than we don't. Every time we go out to market, we consider that. The challenge we have right now is that obviously interest rates are so low on the board.

03:10:00 Differential is challenging. Councillor Jurisevic: I guess that's what you're alluding to there, Councillor Morrison. That Councillor Finzel is essentially adding environmental sustainability as our ethical behaviour in contract awards. Councillor Finzel: And then you have that risk because it does end up, it translates back to value to money and safety if we adhere to best practice. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm just looking in this realm, and while the footprint will be small in case of this supplier, that will be driving the cards to site. So what we did in the mowing contract, we should probably do with this one as well, which will say that when we come to review and want to see your trajectory, so that at 2026, which is your end date, that day two are carbon neutral. So I won't try and move an amendment right now. I'll have a look at the wording we did for the mowing contract and do it on Thursday night.

03:11:00 Thank you. Councillor Finzel: We're still waiting on the second of this. I'll answer. Okay, Councillor Finzel. Okay. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm happy I said that. This is not the first time. This is before us. We've had a situation where the lead contractor is no longer available to continue. So the second choice is the knowledge for one. But I take the point of councillors that we start to look at with tenders and tender evaluations like this, carbon footprints, environment sustainability measures, and look at, I guess, a level of ethics and environmental sustainability measures that contractors have more closely in future tender evaluations and how that can be implemented across the board. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Busich. And NSF State, please. Speaker 8: Yeah, I'd just like to follow in that. And lend my support to Councillor Finzel. Thank you. And I just want to add that, I think, 5 percent, that we, I think all of us around the table here are saying that we'd love to see that ratcheted up a little bit and know that every

03:12:00 time it comes forth, you know, we're going to ask the same questions. So it's just where this council is driving these contractors so far. Councillor Finzel: Anyone else have to give this. Yeah, maybe. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, it might be the 13 contracts we have. And I think in some ways, I think it's also a measure of carbon neutrality or something along those lines, some carbon offset or the level of impact on the environment as a factor in there. And we actually see that across as one of your evaluation factors in your tenders so that we can see that we're not dealing with someone that doesn't care for the environment. Speaker 3: Yeah, I guess we'll probably just need to have a universal measuring measure of that. Councillor Jurisevic: And how we get the measure, so we might have to look at what the parameters around that might be. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Even asking in the tender, I'll have to put this as a question because I've already thought.

03:13:00 Would it be an option to, in the tender, have you calculated your carbon footprint? Yes, no. If so, what is it? Because even just asking that question in the tender, that'll push the companies. Would you suggest that might be a way of handling it? Yes, it would be one way of considering it. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Drismidge has actually closed the open room, but I believe that I think CEO wants to... Speaker 1: Look, I think this is a particular contract and the Directives Commons design is probably a little unfair because this is a bigger picture exercise for Council, something that we take on board as finance and procurement as an organisation. So it's happened a couple of times in recent times that I've been sitting here that we've made this comment about our potential contracts and tenders. So I think we just need to address that, understand them a little bit better, and come back to you with some further ideas. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 10: Do you want to add something? Just to add, that sort of framework change, we've fallen into, if you do want to volunteer in a framework change,

03:14:00 the procurement current is 50 months, which is obviously been in their action plan and their strategic plan over the last few years. So you will be on that feed turnover in the long run. Good job. Councillor Finzel: That's unanimous. Thank you, Brian. Thanks, Brian. That brings us to item number nine. Welcome, Adam. The free bus, free weekend bus trial. Adam, good morning. Speaker 9: Yes. Good morning. I was going to say good morning, but it's obviously been a long morning. Been a long morning. Good afternoon. Yes. Adam, would you like to give us... Councillor Finzel: And Trent, we've got Trent. Yes. Speaker 9: And I've got Renee also in support as well. Yes. There's a lot of people involved around this. Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm worried, mate. No, not at all. This should be a really good thing. It should be a really good thing. So you're all familiar with the free holiday buses, the success we've had for that, the support from the community, et cetera. And we've talked about that's our peak period, but we also have peak periods on the weekends.

195 minutes in

03:15:00

03:15:00 We also have car parking challenges on the weekends. We also have trouble getting people access to our busy location, congested coastal areas on the weekends. The free weekend bus idea, the idea has been around for quite a while. And we've just thought, let's push this now. We are getting feedback from key stakeholders that we really need to do something for the weekends. And we thought, well, rather than delay this into next year and having more longer consideration, let's push this now because we still have to work with transit. There's still timeframes ahead. Let's try and get this thing in now to try and get an improvement on the weekends, not just the holidays. Free weekend, free holiday buses is synonymous now with Noosa where we go Noosa. Let's try and now make that for the weekends as well. There's other places around the world, like Aspen, who do this. They're just known for their public transport services on the weekend because they get inundated and their local character can't be impacted by more roads, more car parks.

03:16:00 We know that we can't build that many car parks for super demand. Our best opportunity is with public transport to move people. And so this is a way that we found through the trials, through the free holiday buses. This gets people onto buses. It reduces their barriers and actually changes that behavior. And the long-term goal is that change of their behavior through Monday to Friday, not just the weekends as well. So this, we are pulling in the trial. There will be lots of measurements that we will take as we do with the holiday buses. And let's put this in a trial, measure it, evaluate it, financially assess how that all stays up and go from there. So it's just the next iteration on a series of things that we're going to do. So that's not that process. My thought is purely on this idea alone. Councillor Finzel: Adam, I've got a question. A lot of us have received emails about the omission of the route 620.

03:17:00 Yes. The 620 route. Yeah. I got on the Haddletip Translate. There's 47 stops from Noosa through to Maroochydore. And out of those, 18 are in our Shire. Yeah. Why was this not included in the free bus trial for weekends? And do we have any data on how many people in our Shire use the 620 route? Speaker 9: So it's not included in the trial because it's an ongoing operational issue we have with TransLink where they can't split the service over a boundary. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the reason we have a bridge and shuttle. Speaker 9: That's the reason why we have a bridge and shuttle. So for example, a cost estimate to run that bridge and shuttle is about $140,000. Okay. So in terms of our number of stops on that route, when we look at our past patronage from the previous holiday bus period, unfortunately the prison service does rank quite low. Councillor Finzel: That's why I wondered what the data was. Speaker 9: Yeah. So the data is that it's quite low. In particular too, compared to those 626 and 627, those ones that operate in that core

03:18:00 busy area, we're getting 70,000 people on some buses and down to like $15,000. Okay. So it's not included. A, we would like to include it, but we can't because of TransLink operational issues and fare evasion concerns. And we've been lobbying with them for years and years. And examples, we've said, we will pay you a proportion just for that leak. Just make it that anyone who gets on a Prigion and they get up to Noosa and they get off, if there's going to be any leakage, we've said it's likely to be very minimal. We'll even consider paying a premium for that for some leakage. Not interested. Councillor Finzel: So we can't do it. Speaker 9: We can't do it. We have tried and tried for years and years since I've been helping with transport since 2018. We've travelled down to Brisbane and we've had them come up here and all sorts of things. And I guess for them, thinking about a state context, they wonder what impacts this could be broad term across the state. If we do it, what do other local government areas do?

03:19:00 And what sort of initiatives does that create for them? So in the past, Sunshine Coast Council used to do free holiday buses as well. It was a much simpler time when it did go across the boundaries. So in thinking about it long term, and I haven't collaborated with our Sunshine Coast neighbours to the south, that would be the ideal scenario. They've got their objective. I see they're doing bikeways and busways and doing great stuff as well. But whether we can collaborate with them in the future and just see whether there's an opportunity that 620 comes in. But in the short term, rather than go to that long-winded approach between state government and other councils for a lower proportion of the service, rather than hold everything up, we've just thought, look, let's start the trial. We can keep working on those issues, operational issues on the previous service. Ideally, we work at how well this works. Then we work at how well this works. And then in some ideal future, we can bring in a service for Prejean and that works for

03:20:00 all of us. There's no attempt to discriminate, alienate. None of that is intended. It's purely an operational issue that we haven't been able to work through yet. But we haven't held up those other services that we're trying to bring in. Thank you. Speaker 6: So who was consulted? Adam? You've got on page 40. Speaker 10: Yeah. Speaker 6: Staff have been in consultation with the Hastings Street Association, who are supported by the Noosa Chamber of Commerce, Cooroy Chamber of Commerce, Noosa Junction Association, Noosaville Business Association. And then on page 42, under external consultation, Hastings Street Association are the only associations identified as being consulted. So has it only been Hastings Street Association or has it been that whole group that I've just called out? Speaker 9: So we have... Yeah. We workshop this through the steering group. There's a number of groups on that. So not this report. But the pre-weekend buses has been in multiple steering group discussions.

03:21:00 So it's not a new idea that's never been proposed. But this report specifically has been limited to the Hastings Street Association. And they have then on consulted with their groups. That's great. Speaker 6: So Interland Business Reps and Peregian Beach, Marcus Beach, Castaway Beach. Which residents association, Pomona Chamber of Commerce, Kin Kin associations, were they excluded? Speaker 9: There was no exclusion purpose. It was basically bringing a rapid report based on an urgency. It's a known idea. We've had some urgent requests from our core stakeholders. So we brought a rapid report to council with no intent to not consult. It's just, here's an opportunity. The timeframe's a limit if we want to get that up this year. So let's consider this in this council report now. So there's no intention to discriminate or alienate. It's just in the rapid nature of the report. That's who our focus and intention is. Speaker 6: So given the sense of urgency that I'm sensing, Adam, what are the implications if there is

03:22:00 a deferment to bring this, just move it forward to the next round of meetings? Speaker 9: We probably won't see it until the following year. Speaker 6: Okay. So there is a sense of urgency. We probably, yeah. Speaker 9: But if there's a delay here, and obviously if we delay now, I expect because there's a workload that comes with it, not just another needs council meeting. The workload will take more than just the four weeks. And that will then push us after Easter. And we will probably line up with the next financial year. It's really difficult. I appreciate it's difficult because the consultation has been limited. The time is of urgency. And it's a challenge like that. Councillor Finzel: All right. Council Finzel. That's fine. Thank you. Councillor Stockwell, you have been running patiently. Oh, yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So mine refers back to that previous discussion about our many years of advocacy to TransLink about their ticketing system. Now, one option that came up two or three years ago was they were suggesting they were moving to a smart ticketing system and we were pushing that we should be a trial area for

03:23:00 that. Has there been anything more happen with that other than... Speaker 9: Yes. It's always been one of those, it's one or two years away. We have a great relationship with TransLink. And I think they're bringing in the ferries first. And it's quite a challenging process to bring in ticketing systems. But ideally, it's within two years. So it will be a game changer again when they bring in smart ticketing. Getting go cards is challenging. Whereas if you just tap on, tap off, just with your credit card or debit card, you will be so simple. And the idea is that we change behaviors, not only on holidays, but now the weekend. And so come the week, it's a really simple process for them to just use their smart ticketing. Councillor Jurisevic: That's not the issue at the moment, as I understand it. You can tap on, tap off with your go card. It's just they can't discriminate to not charge you within the area as it currently exists. They can't put in zonal...

03:24:00 And this is odd, because they do it in Brisbane, that they can't create a zone of Noosa and tickling those three services that go outside of Noosa to create a zone that they can put charges on and take charges off. Speaker 9: Yeah. So Brisbane's run by their own transport system, not by a state and TransLink. So then we're moving to a smart ticketing system with TransLink. And again, when that zonability comes, that's when it will be so much easier to bring in, not just only the pigeon one, the one that goes to Nambour by the two routes of Cooroy and Cooroy. But it's, do we wait for that, or do we trial it now to go, actually, this is going to work? And we're always trying to bring new things to council to say, what else can we trial? Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel, you had a question before. Just a question around this compelling urgency that's brought us this rapid report. What's contributed to that urgency?

03:25:00 Speaker 9: Well, to the dialogue with HSA is, obviously, there's a parking supply issue, which has always been around for that, and also a staffing issue. So anecdotally, we're hearing that staff are having challenges actually getting into work in Hastings Street. And so when they're having that issue, and again, anecdotally, we're hearing that they're having trouble staffing the jobs that are down there. And some of them are citing that car parking is an issue. And so does this also help that section of the community who are struggling with many things, including access to their workplace? Councillor Jurisevic: Probably again, buses would also facilitate staff anywhere, not just anywhere. Speaker 9: That's right. Exactly. We're just, I know this isn't just a specific area. It's just anecdotally, again, of many areas that would benefit by this. Speaker 10: Good. To the Chair also, this made, obviously, 10 years of good business on the roadway. It was a tremendous work. So we are going to have traffic and transport implications for the precinct over the next

03:26:00 four months. Good point. Good point. This potentially . Yeah. Speaker 9: Thank you. So I've actually mentioned that in the report as well. But yeah, thanks, Jess, for . Councillor Jurisevic: You mentioned something there, Adam, and I don't know whether I need to put the bit in here. Yeah. Why haven't we talked to social and cash staff about them booking free holiday buses? We've got to save us a small fortune on a routine shuttle every so years ago that Speaker 9: conversation was had but I think their their direction changed so from the free holiday buses and things so they used to do it dropped out but it is an opportunity for us to work with them again go you know broader context of the Councillor Jurisevic: region. Considering they just had their mass transit and all the rest of it, is this an opportunity to address or at least contact Sunshine Coast Council staff and see if there's any advertised on their side to look at this. That's right well it

03:27:00 Speaker 9: also brings in the conversation for the next you know kind of four years you know we've got some big things coming in the next decade and so this allows a collaboration with them you know in a very small operational area and does that then work further into other projects? That's the word, it's collaboration. Councillor Finzel: Completely. So certainly I think it's worth re-opening the conversation and having that dialogue. Speaker 9: That's right. Because for us having two buses one the way you pay and you know one where it's free it's just complicated it's you know every year we get why is this happening. The key is to have the one bus you know whether it be Crigion or out to Nambour, it has to be that and the way it's collaboratively changing I think it's something that's kind of important. I've got a question. With regards to the Councillor Finzel: transport strategy steering group and when you're referencing meetings back in August 2021 I've just noticed on the invitees on the list that we don't have anyone sitting on there from the hinterland and when we're talking about in your recommendation undertaking review of a transport-led pricing structure to accommodate the service as part of the 2022-23 budget process, for equity across the Shire I'm talking about broader regional impacts, where's the voice for that?

03:28:00 Speaker 7: We do have some reports from the hinterland going to come up in either the pilot program, where's Councillor Finzel: equity for their staff, everybody pays their transport levy across the Shire. So it is an equity issue as well as you know bringing voices to the table. Even though this is a rapid report we have to respond to that now because we've got sectors of the community A that have been completely overlooked and B groups that have contacted us going we haven't even had a say. How are we addressing that now given the urgency based on the things you've told us, but how do we address those issues?

03:29:00 Speaker 9: So in terms of the hinterland representation it also went through that steering group that we would bring Phil Moran from the hinterland group. So I've spoken with Phil. We haven't yet had a steering group since then that could formally include Phil yet since that one. So that's been agreed and I've spoken with Phil. We just haven't had that and I know you've mentioned other groups that are out there but the steering group that was the name that was considered in that meeting. So that's the name. In terms of broader access to transport to summarise the statement is that you know we have Kin Kin, CAB, like Boring Point Flex Link that is listed as a proposal. Not higher or lower than this one. It's just a bit of a proposal that's listed. I think we've got somewhere between $20,000 and $80,000 for that proposal. So it's just a little bit of a budget year mark. It's just I'd love to bring a report next round and say let's put this one up as well. With the same sort of discussions around the budget that needs to be considered. So there's no trumping of one over the other.

210 minutes in

03:30:00

03:30:00 It's just there's so many initiatives we want to trial. Councillor Finzel: In a community that's the perception in the emails that I've received. Speaker 9: Yeah, there's no intention out of any of that at all. Yeah. Speaker 10: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: That is, sorry, point B is Delegate CA to negotiate with TransLink trial specifics. Speaker 1: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: And we need to poke the CEO also while he's talking to TransLink to talk to higher ups instead of at staff level for about, you know, the elements of free bus trial. The fact that we're spending $100,000 on Christmas and Easter services to Peregian because we can't facilitate this and that our hinterland, you know, the Cooroys are not getting any of those. Speaker 9: We're all very happy to push this up the tree. Again, staff at the level we deal with are fantastic. We've actually got the executive director from TransLink contracts coming up next Tuesday.

03:31:00 They see this as a successful... Councillor Jurisevic: I said, do we need to go further up? Do we need to go to the minister and turn around and say TransLink can't deliver? Speaker 9: Well, I mean, I would approach it in a collaborative way because they are great partners and we do get a good... Councillor Jurisevic: I'm trying to work out what we need to do to try and make TransLink realise that these free buses are costing us a small fortune Speaker 1: because they can't deliver a section of the community for a free bus service. Councillor Jurisevic: Even if it's only, you know, from the time you get off the bridge and going in. The way I visualise it as well... Speaker 9: If you consider how much we spend on the Peregian Beach service, if we only paid, as per the other services, loss of revenue, which is a fantastic deal that we get from TransLink, a lot of revenue, that money can go and pay for all these other services, you know, like we're talking about, Kin Kin, other things. If we can get them to collaborate with us and actually, you know, understand the issues and we also understand the technical issues, we can then take those funds that we spend as an overlay of the service

03:32:00 because we have to pay the direct cost to the operator to run the bus with the Peregian Beach. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, correct me if I'm wrong, Adam. I'll come back and look at the figures. And for the five TransLink services for Easter and Christmas, it costs us $146,735. And for the A64 Peregian Beach service, it costs us $101,516. Correct. And how does the patronage compare? Speaker 9: It's the lowest two or three compared to, yeah, all services. Councillor Finzel: Councillor, we've got a motion before us. No, I'm sorry. I've got another question. And I've got some questions, too. Yeah. Sorry, Pam. Speaker 7: Yeah, sorry. Councillor Finzel: When you talk about funding, then, because really, in terms of equity around this rapid urgency, I do have to stand up for the people in the interland. You know, there's already a huge divide with regards to equity. You know, they're isolated. There's social isolation. There's impact around employment, housing, staffing, et cetera.

03:33:00 And I understand that. But, you know, I'd be remiss if I don't raise that today. And how this report has come to us with our engagement in those broader communities, I think it's, you know, we can't change it. We're sitting here now, but we can address it. On the 12th of November in 2021, there was $8.78 million in an Australia first with a federal government grant funding, it's called a Turbine Precinct, a collaborative network. When you talk about funding and things like we're narrowed right down now, I want to challenge it that we raise it back up. We include the whole Shire. We look at the broader, you know, impacts that are coming with a 10-year strategy around infrastructure, things like this. It's time to collaborate. We need to get around the table on how do we access other buckets of money. Instead, it feels like to me, I'm here on the council, but it feels like these have been ongoing for many years.

03:34:00 We haven't achieved the outcomes that we're seeking in terms of access to these free buses and trials. We've got the young people saying in their, you know, feedback that they want to see more public transport. It meets our climate change response, all of these things. To me, it's almost around fiscal management and how do we get to the point that we can tap into other initiatives like this that federal and state are putting up and how do we as a council, you know, not to come to another point where the voice of the broader Shire needs around staffing, employment, housing, access to water and all the other things. This inequity between the precinct down here and the staffing and economic impacts, they're the same for the people in the Shire. We have to start to look at the whole of Shire infrastructure side, a bigger region, and we do need to address those issues. I don't know where we're going to move forward from today. Councillor Jurisevic: Are we talking to the motion here or are we asking a question? Councillor Finzel: Well, yes, there's a question.

03:35:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does the pre-weekend bus include the 632 which goes from Cooran? It does. Speaker 9: Thank you, Chair. Councillor Finzel: I was going to say, Councillor Finzel, this does provide services Speaker 9: out to Cooran, Pomona, Cooroy. Yes, we have talked about Haitians for the Association, but that does not mean that it's where the services are limited to. Councillor Finzel: The 632 goes to Cooran. Speaker 9: It does go to Cooran. So the Hintland is serviced by these five services. Councillor Finzel: It's Kin Kin that's non-service. Speaker 9: That was my next question. Councillor Finzel: How do people from Kin Kin access this free service? Speaker 9: That's right. So obviously the council does not run the public transport network. We have tried loopholes everywhere to try and get that. Our only chance is to do a council cab-type flexi-link arrangement, which is what Boring Point does. Councillor Jurisevic: We've looked at progressing that. Speaker 9: How is that progressing? So we have endorsed. We have sort of in-principle agreement from TransLink. It's just, again, like Councillor Finzel said,

03:36:00 it's a funding process that we need to bring to council. So, you know, there'll be a future report to council that some states will say endorse the Kin Kin flexi-link with the budget process, and there'll be a condition on that budget process that we'll need a review of the levy or other names as well. Councillor Finzel: And how far away do you think that would be? Speaker 9: I hope to do it in the early new year, but again, we'll have to review the budget process. Well, I'm going to add it in here. Councillor Finzel: Hang on. Well, just to get things moving, and we can ask questions, I'm happy to move the staff recommendation. Councillor Jurisevic: I was going to say I'd like to move the staff recommendation with one minor change. And I don't want that one... I've changed my mind on that one, Kath. I'm going to add it into with Delegate CEO that goes out with TransLink on the trial specifics. So I'm going to change V. Speaker 10: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, delete that. And include... the inequity...

03:37:00 the inequity of current... delivery of current free bus... free buses to... the other TransLink services in the Shire. Councillor Finzel: Current free buses. Councillor Jurisevic: Delivery of free bus services to the remainder of the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You're referring me to the infra-regional bus services? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm talking about the... I'm talking about 620, the 610, and the 6... What is it? 635 off the... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 630, 631, and 620. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, 630, 631, and 620. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I'll second that. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, look, I think...

03:38:00 And I've been hearing, you know, as all councillors have, the calls of inequity, and Councillor Finzel rightly saying that areas of our Shire have been missing out, particularly the services that pass through, Cooroy, and... I mean, we've worked to deliver... I mean, we've worked to deliver... I mean, we've worked to deliver... I mean, we've worked to facilitate free bus services over Christmas and the Easter period to Peregian with an expensive alternative of a shuttle service, which, unfortunately, people with Cooroy don't get to enjoy, and everybody pays the transport living. So I think... Look, I'm very much in support of the free weekend bus trial. I think getting that underway as soon as possible, and getting data to acknowledge what the free weekend buses could deliver in the way of improved services and easing on congestion and parking, I think, ultimately, I think free buses should be endorsed

03:39:00 by the state government as a whole to take the weight off having to constantly upgrade roads and the like, but also to facilitate people onto public transport would be a great project. That's my opinion. The idea of a trial here and getting data to look at whether this free weekend bus is worth continuing and progressing further sooner rather than later, I support wholeheartedly. So bringing this to us now is a great issue. This has been talked at the Transport Strategy Group. I did think we did endorse it in a plan somewhere as well, but I can't remember off the top of my head. The evaluation of this will go a long, long way to us looking at addressing that further. And I think what we've had is a great effort with staff to negotiate with TransLink at the staff level, but I think we need to elevate that now. And if the CEO is going to be talking to TransLink on the trial specifics, I think we need to include the Christmas and Easter buses

03:40:00 for the entire network with those services as well as the trials specifics and where they're missing out and that elements of our community are missing out, particularly given the cost of providing those services. The offset of that Peregian shuttle of the 620 being part of the free bus network at $101,000 a year would easily offset the cost of the free buses to those other three areas or those other three services within the community. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Eastbridge. Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just to make it easier, I'm going to move an amendment to include an item F with the above. With item F reading, that the CEO be requested to review options for funding the free bus services more equitably. That more equitably shares the cost across user groups and between visitors and residents. There's a view of identifying cost-neutral models for expansion of free weekend and holiday bus services across all services within the Shire, including options for demand-oriented solutions

03:41:00 for hinterland areas outside the current public transport network. The Councillor says it will engage the community on a place-by-place basis as part of the identification or prioritisation of these options, further that the results of these investigations be considered as part of the 2022-2023 budget deliberations. Councillor Finzel: I'll accept that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so because this report's actually raised a whole lot of interesting comments and mentions and particularly obviously it's from people in south of Sunshine Beach to the border of Peregian who have raised a whole lot of observations that it's great that everyone's keen to maximise the public transport options, but in so doing their advocacy's highlighted some perceptions and some realities about how we allocate the transport levy and this is not something new to us. The fact that ratepayers are funding it means the people who can most argue about discrimination

03:42:00 are, as we've heard, people in Kin Kin, people in Ridgewood, when I met with them, were quite clear. You know, they've been subsidising bus services for others for many years. There is obviously one option we're aware of. There might be more. The transport strategy does have as an action paid car parking and it's the most obvious way to fund more equity between residents and the visitors. You know, we have been talking about it for a while. I think if we're going to do it in this term, we have to do it in the next budget. I think we have to... I do think it's important that we talk to people on a place-by-place, not just having a hinterland representative because how people look at the best investment will be related to their particular area. And I think it's, you know, this might place too much emphasis on staff to do this collaboration. I actually think the consultation might be better done by councillors in the place-by-place. So we start to look at what best fits your local area.

03:43:00 Yeah, totally. I think it's one where, you know, in terms of paid car parking, obviously the issue there is, is people going to pay a levy plus paid parking? Are we going to take the levy off and just have the paid car parking or are we going to have paid car parking with some levy but with a resident-type discount period for the parking set? Well, we are providing this for the benefit of our residents to reduce congestion. So what we want to do is for visitors, particularly day-trippers, we want to encourage them to come park in a park and ride and take a free bus. They don't want to do that. If they get to their destination in their own car, then we want to say, well, should you be contributing to the solution as well? These are the things we've talked about. I just think, like a few of you councillors, we've had them there for a while. To me, this budget is the time to make the decision and I think we can ensure that by doing something in the lead-up to the next budget where we're informed about what the options are,

03:44:00 what the priorities are of various communities and go from there. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I have a question. Speaker 6: Adam, and this has just been raised by the many emails that we've all received. It's in regard to transport levy funds and whether this is proper use of transport levy funds given that it only delivers a special benefit to some of the community, not all? Speaker 9: I mean, again, that probably leads to Brian's conversation today where, I mean, how do you spread every service to everywhere? It doesn't mean you can't access services at all. I mean, you can't. You can, you know, ride a bike and park and ride and still catch a free bus. You can still drive to the junction and use a free bus. As people from, you know, let's use the example of Kin Kin might drive to Cooran and use the free bus. The services are not exclusive. It just might mean that some parts of the community

225 minutes in

03:45:00

03:45:00 have to travel to actually access those services. It doesn't mean that they're excluded. It's just that there's... It's not on their doorstep. It's just not on their doorstep, which is, you know, obviously it would be ideal if it was, but that's not always the case. Speaker 6: So under Section 97 of the Local Government Act, which is very clear, special rates and charges, charges of the services, facilities and activities that have a special association with a particular land because it's specially benefits... ..because it's occupier... ..specially benefits from the service, facility or activity. So my question goes back to have we correctly... Speaker 9: Yeah, I mean, whether you want to add to that. Speaker 10: I can probably add to that. The key element of this activity or any others that fall under this limit is that we are implementing a program. So with each coming year,

03:46:00 we are not in steady-state operations yet. So this year, we're now talking about weekend buses. In our program, we're talking about extensions to Kin Kin, to fleet buses, so there's a range of activities to the paid parking. So in terms of benefits to the individual landholder, first element is to consider that with this program, it's different to probably some of the other levies, we are in a phase of implementation. So in terms of long-term, we will achieve that. The second part of the equation is about how you measure benefits. So now measuring benefit doesn't just extend beyond the direct benefit of, for example, this trial where those who are using the facility at the time are getting a free bus passport. There's also the benefit to the wider trial about connectivity, amenity, traffic flow through the region.

03:47:00 So there's a range of different benefits which we will need to consider if we went down the recommendations in front of us here, as well as how we measure that benefit and how we distribute that cost. And that will be the important part of this exercise with the specific activities over the next year. Thank you for that. Councillor Finzel: So just coming off the back of that, it's a question to Renee. I understand you run groups with the young people around transport. How do you see this benefits this group of people that we want to give representation at the table, and what's their feedback from the groups you're involved with? Speaker 7: Sure. So I've been out to St. Teresa's Catholic College this year Councillor Finzel: in Sunshine Beach High and delivered the sustainable travel presentation to the students there. We're trying to get everyone out of cars, on bikes, buses, and walking to school. And then I also attended the Youth and Youth Advocacy Group climate summit this year. Out of that, transport was a very hot topic.

03:48:00 They absolutely loved the free buses. And so we're saying, in a utopia world, what would that look like? And there were free buses every weekend, free buses every holiday. It's just a recurrent thing. So the youth are really... So they pay for it. So when they travel to school, mum and dad pay for it. So it goes a bit unnoticed. But on the weekend, they're given their $20 or whatever to go to the movies and go to the shops. So they see the free buses as a great initiative to help them get around town. And it's also giving them independence away from their parents. They're not relying on their parents dropping them on the door. So then again, we're reducing more cars in the areas because the teenagers are able to service themselves and make it to the destination that they're looking to get to. Councillor Jurisevic: And we're driving behavior change. We're getting kids to get on buses and use public transport.

03:49:00 Speaker 6: Adam, we're proposing to embark on an 18-month contract, a trial, at a cost of $286,000 amidst so much COVID uncertainty. Was COVID risk discussed at all as part of this decision-making? Speaker 9: It was considered. So I'm not sure if you recall, we actually, when COVID was at its worst in 2020, we actually put a proposal up. We were very nervous about it, putting free buses up. And we said, let's just do the loop bus, not all the services. And the reaction from the community was, you know, we just did not expect that. So we thought, you know, so we reversed that decision, which was great that council did that. And we actually had a good Christmas. We succeeded in Christmas. And so, I'm relying on that, you know, hindsight, to say, look, let's go with that again. Let's not err too much on the portion

03:50:00 and not, you know, put an impediment in for these services. Let's try it now. Maybe it does help when they need the help. And so what we do is we get it going through Christmas, because there often is a quiet period between Christmas, holidays, and Easter. You know, so this can help that. And then we have the 18 months of it. We have a full budget cycle. We've got through the initial period of, you know, when the borders open, because maybe it does impact on the numbers. But we don't want to have that as the reflection of the ongoing potential of the initiative. Speaker 6: No. So flowing from that, would the better approach be, is that part of the agreement with transit, that we just have provisions or clauses in that agreement that allows us to cancel, terminate, suspend the agreement, so there's no cost if at the, you know, the first outbreak, our Premier decides to shut down the state.

03:51:00 Yes. So can I highlight that? Speaker 9: And I guess that can be part of the item B, sorry, through you Chair. So off the trial specifics, that would be part of the, so that is of course what we've had in previous Council resolutions. Speaker 6: And we have a COVID safety transport group as well, don't we? Speaker 9: That's right. So through you Chair. So that's an item that we've had repeatedly in all the previous goings and holiday items. We would just, rather than having it here as an item of the recommendation, that's an operational call for business negotiation as part of that agreement. Councillor Jurisevic: So one would think that 90%, 80 to 90% vaccination rates, you know, in the wind that shutdowns and lockdowns will become less frequent and this will actually encourage people back onto public transport where they've probably been fearful of being on public transport. That's right. I agree. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: I just have another question. Renee, you work with the youth with their climate engagement.

03:52:00 How does, do you see the zero emissions strategy then being reached through this, like weekend buses and free trial? Yeah, so this is the biggest, probably one of the biggest ways that an individual can make a change to their environmental emissions. So, you know, I think if you can swap one trip a week that's roughly about 10 kilometres, that's about 104 kilos of CO2 in 12 months that that individual can save. So it's 30% of Noosa's emissions coming from cars roughly. That's a great way that people can make that change themselves. Councillor Jurisevic: If buses go to electric or hydrogen the impact will be even greater. Councillor Finzel: Well, you can move 9,000 by a bus. Speaker 6: Blowing on the joke, hydrogen buses, we actually have been living in our shire at Sunshine Beach, a couple

03:53:00 that I think have just changed over a fleet of about 120 buses up in Emerald into hydrogen buses. It might be worth connecting with them. How particularly? Yeah, and I'll talk to you in a minute. Speaker 9: That's through you, Chair. We are expecting next year will be some news on electric buses or, you know, zero emission buses in the area. So we just have to see how commercial negotiations are happening. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, we should only focus on electric. We should be focusing on Well, Speaker 9: that's right. And I must admit

03:54:00 Councillor Finzel: I'd also hope that the benefit back to council by seeing people engage and use the transport free will feed into the decisions around our zero emissions strategy, feed into our climate change response, feed into the social impacts to health and wellbeing around that, which is all really important given the mental health issues that, you know, have been impacted through COVID and social isolation, lack of housing, all those impacts, fire and, you know, climate change. So I will support the option, the amendment. I think it's really important that the CEO takes this opportunity to step up and advocate. I think it's fantastic because we have got, you know, the legacy issues before us, especially with,

03:55:00 you know, the infrastructure and I see transport and moving people, especially with all the people we're expecting for the Olympics, Brisbane and beyond are already gearing up for that. There's no reason why we can't be doing that either. I think that's a perfect opportunity to be doing that, especially given that the funding that is coming down, like if we could get a size of that 8.78 million, you know, surely that will bring value economically, socially and environmentally to our Shire. So I think if we can come together and begin to activate for change, look at how we can finance this better. It seems a big thing around funding. How do we draw down that funding that is not just predominantly weighed upon our rate payers and our residents and the impacts of visitors and transport needs to be looked at

03:56:00 from a higher level and that we're really good. We've got the policies, we've got, you know, the amendments, we've got everybody working hard together to achieve these outcomes and I think it's time, yep, I'm loving it, that the CEO can knock on that higher door and get in an advocate for us. So thank you. Can I ask a question, Speaker 6: what, how much do we pay for transport levy? What is our transport levy? $30. $30. Yep. So this is a great return on included dollars from weekend buses. Yep. Can I just raise, on the 12th of July, Adam, I think we've spoken separately, but on the 12th of July, Council ratified a decision to identify circle racks as end of trip facilities as a short-term priority issue. I am in full support of free buses. I am in full support of high urgency trials

03:57:00 because when there's a need, we need to strike. But I would like to point out that people that are going to be using these free buses are going to be, yep, are going to be doing three things. They're either going to be eating, shopping, or surfing. So my question to you, and I pose this, I'm, I'm, no. What happened Speaker 8: to the drinking? Speaker 6: Sitting on the beach. Lying on the beach. Lying on the beach. But I've phrased this with our CEO that given that it is, already been adopted by council, it has been identified as a short-term, it would sit perfectly with our zero emission and climate change response. It would complete this great trial that our, that we have high quality end of trip facilities including iconic Imagine St Kilda surf sheets through Noosa Woods, Noosa Police Suite, and, and I was once I told the board hawk that there

03:58:00 was actually. It's a long-winded question. There was actually, and you could answer this either. Yes. The board hawk, apparently there's a section in the board hawk that was actually designated for surfboard rats. Do you know anything about that? Speaker 9: No, not in that current scheme that we worked on. Oh, Speaker 6: okay. No one called me down. Speaker 9: So I'm going to point out that that's something I can work on this year with the Eleanore staff. Speaker 6: Thank you for answering my question. We'll come back to the amendment, Councillor Finzel: and anyone else want to speak to the amendment? I think we're done. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Close. Councillor Finzel: Close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can we stop while we're talking? Yeah, I'll close by following on in the question

03:59:00 It's on average, because TransLink does subsidise existing public buses, we only pay that extra, and it's costing, on average, across all those existing services where we're going to propose this free weekend, it costs about 78 cents per passenger ship. But if we have to put our own bus on, the average for Peregian Beach, the 064 to Peregian Beach Noosa Heads, is $8.18 per person trip. So that's more than it costs if people are going to pay TransLink. Probably two, three times as much. So we have to look at what are the best options to get the best value, and who should be paying for what, and I think that's what that part of this is. We did engage, you know, I think when the TransLink strategy was advertised in 2017, it had thousands or more responses.

240 minutes in

04:00:00

04:00:00 It had huge input. We've had it, and we've gone down, we've been drilled down, we've got working groups. But I do think it's time to go back out there, because there's a whole new community out there, and a whole lot of thinking. And I do think it's time for the face-to-face, place-to-place, let's look at what our best, to raise the revenue, and what the best options are to expand the service, to reduce our profit, reduce our contingency, and enjoy life in Noosa. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. We'll put the amendment. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell, to vote. All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you. That brings us back to the substantive motion. Councillor Stockwell, no, Councillor Jurisevic is the only person, I believe, who has spoken to the original. Would anyone like to speak? Speaker 8: We went to the Council of Mayors a few weeks ago, and I was most impressed by the people that were there, and the thinking that was there.

04:01:00 And transport was the second, environment was the first transport, was the second big issue that people wanted to address through the Olympics in 2022. So I love that we're starting off and charging, and I hope that we really document what we're doing, work in, and see how this can work as a template for a much bigger scale. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. I'll go first. Thank you very much, Adam. And thank you to the team for your hard work on this. There is, the advantages are highlighted on page 40 of our agenda, but they include expedited habitual change for local community to reduce car usage. Ensure that staff working in the precincts every weekend will avoid the need to drive, and will be able to utilise a safe and reliable means of transport. Permanent free weekend bus service would assist Council's ongoing issues with parking in local residential streets, especially Hastings Street, which employs 2,800 people. This is an initiative which resonates with our region and Council's vision different by nature, and it can be used as an attractor to promote visitation and spend in the precincts.

04:02:00 And it provides valuable connectivity for our community. It should be highlighted that this is a great first step. Adam, as you said, it's good to get something on the table. It's a moveable working document, and with the amendments that we've put in place, we'll ensure that all of those other aspects, such as equity across the Shire and advocating at a higher level, and I'm happy to get involved at that level too, to talk to ministers if we need be, or other state members. It's an opportunity. But this is a great, people are always saying, you know, what are you doing? Well, this is, we're doing something. These trials are fantastic. So thank you very much, and look forward to, as I said, this will only get better as time progresses. It's a great first step. Thank you. Speaker 6: Just quickly, I just want to say firstly, thank you, Adam, Renee, and staff.

04:03:00 I applaud your courage and boldness to bring such a great trial and a proposal to Council. I want to thank also Hastings Street Association. For their advocacy in this space. And thirdly, I want for the communities that were excluded in the consultation, and I want them to know that it's part of our learning. That in the future, they won't be overlooked. And if they are, we know they'll let us know. Collaboration and full transparency is the key to successful outcomes. So I'd like to apologise to those communities that have been excluded. But please know these amendments address those inequities, and hopefully an equitable outcome will result. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Arnston.

04:04:00 Councillor Stockwell. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the motion as it is, is really what we've always done with the free bus service, is we've looked at it. And we said, let's try doing extra. So it took a couple of times to get the free bus loop. The first time we did it, we added it on at the end of the Peregian service, and it wasn't that successful. Then we said, no, we probably need to do it on Standerounds Lane. So that's the whole purpose of the pilot. You don't start pilots in the most expensive area to deliver it. You start pilots in the area where you're likely to get the most success and to learn from it. And that's what this recommendation does. It says, let's do it. Now, what we're doing is amazing. Let's not forget that. Free public transport through the local transport network each weekend. That is what a sustainable community does. Speaker 10: Okay? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, it's been said, oh, we should be lobbying the minister harder.

04:05:00 Now, we have lobbied the minister in the past. We've got a ministerial delegation. I'm not a person. Only a year ago, where we were saying, look, why aren't you putting the electric bus loop in the Noosa network, and this is where the best place in the world to trial it? I know we've had this conversation about smart ticketing and all these other things. We're saying, Noosa is a little microcosm that TransLink can learn from, and we have to keep on hitting it. And I'm sure the more times we can get it at every level of the organisation, the more likely we're being successful. And it's interesting, because the community come up when they see that 624, or whatever it is, is excluded, they come up with a whole lot of potential solutions, and they're the solutions that we've looked at time and time again. And Council's fairly big, but TransLink is the mother of an aircraft carrier to turn around. And we're only one little chink in a very big network. So it's important to not pull back innovation, because there's some concerns that not everyone's

04:06:00 benefiting to an equal extent. As I said, if you want to go down that line, the people in Marcus Beach Bridge and Castaways are at the end of a reasonably long line of others who have been contributing towards pre-holdo buses for a long time with very little development. So it's important to have that opportunity to access if they don't get in their car. So we're not doing anything different to what we've previously done, other than to say, we know this free bus does get people out of their cars. We know that 60% of people in the free buses tend to come from our own community. So we know it's a community service. And I suppose the other big thing is, what we heard, is the youth really love these services. And no doubt, if you're a parent of a teenager, you like it equally as much, because the taxi service is not in operation on the weekends. And so to me, it's a great step-head, and hopefully it's something that stops being a pilot and starts being a normal way of doing business.

04:07:00 Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Finzel. Yes. Thank you. Speaker 7: First off, thank you to the staff. Councillor Finzel: Thank you for everyone's points that they brought to the table. It's all relevant. Rapid reporting and urgency. Yeah, I think we do need to look at that and try and minimise that that comes to the table, especially in terms of equity. But I think today has brought us together and raised some really good points around the table. We've been fundamentally changed since COVID. I think this is like a cultural change that we need to put at the top of our priorities, a new way of doing things, a new way of seeing things. I think we need to consider new ways of being, and new acts of cooperation, and a new story that can make cooperation among those who have not worked together before. And I think this is a really pivotal moment where we can look at leadership and provide

04:08:00 strong leadership for our community moving forward. Thank you. But that has to be inclusive. And everyone's voice has to matter at the table. The role of leadership into the future, in my opinion, should be one of facilitation with an inclusive participatory and collaborative model to include the issues of intersectionality sitting at the core of the decision-making process to build ecosystems with high levels of social capital gauged by trust, which I might add, engendering trust in our communities, one of our corporate things. We've got to bring the community along with us for the journey through involvement and social cohesion. Every voice matters. The influx of new people coming to live in Noosa Shire would suggest greater diversity. And what matters to residents collectively is mostly an unknowing. We don't know. We've fundamentally changed. Our demographics have changed. People are moving here all over the place. But this also brings opportunity and capacity to bring new insights into futures and the

04:09:00 future needs in our region, socially, economically and environmentally. So what I think is a positive about today, despite the inequity and the urgency and rapid response that we've had to make today, I think it can set us moving forward so that we can begin to value the diversity and the voices around the table and work harder to ensure that their voice is listened to and brought to the table. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Winfield. Councillor Driscoll. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, look, I'm a little worried about the use of the word exclusion. No one was intended to be excluded here. Staff were obviously trying to facilitate a trial where it could be delivered and trialled with the most expediency. We've identified this inequity in the current delivery of free buses in the Shire with the 630, 631 and 620 systems not being available.

04:10:00 We've identified this inequity in the current delivery of free buses and now we can do that. We see what we've got to do with the Christmas and holiday buses is provide additional services to try and make up that inequity, which isn't fair and it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be that way. So we need to work on that and I hope the CEO can break down that barrier with TransLink and if need be, we need to go higher. Let's do that because as Councillor Stockwell alluded to, we're the perfect place to turn around and show how free buses, day in, day out, can benefit not only the community but all sorts of elements. The CO2 emissions, the parking and transport worries that are around in the Shire but also getting people to and from in a safe and effective manner. We've alluded to the value for you. Kids can get on and off the bus instead of having to rely on mum and dad.

04:11:00 As I said, the fact that we can't do that for youth in Cooroy worries me more than anything or elements of the hinterland. Those kids want to get down to Hastings Street or get into the pictures and all the rest of it and they've got to pay. It's just not fair. What Councillor Stockwell has added in Amendment F I think is brilliant. We do have to review it and let's see if there is a better way and I think visitors should be contributing to the cost of the transport network if they're going to be the ones that are getting a significant benefit. $30 a year of transport levy isn't a huge amount to pay and this only adds a bit of value and a bit of bang for buck for the local residents to get what they can out of the system. I fully support staff's initiative here. I thank you for bringing it. I know it's one that we've talked about for a long, long time and trying to extend that for pre-holiday services to the next step. Long weekends and then weekends and of course particularly those sort of weekends when we've

04:12:00 got major events on. Trying to transport people around too and problems instead of having to drive their cars in. I think it's a great initiative. Let's go. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Jurisevic. That's the whole point. Can I put the motion to a recommendation? To a vote. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you. Can I raise my hand high? And I know 115 days per calendar year. Speaker 9: 150. Councillor Finzel: 150 days per calendar year being free to the public. That's right. Exactly. Speaker 9: You can almost visualise half of the year all free. Exactly. Councillor Finzel: And what that means to our business is to get people out and about. That's great. That's right. Speaker 9: And then, you know, the way we market this, we can collaborate again with tourism Noosa and others. There's a real shift here when you come to Noosa. So it's not that traffic isn't synonymous with Noosa anymore. It's, you know, pretty easy transport is synonymous with Noosa. Well done, guys. We can see it. It's just making it all happen. And a one-way road to a blue trial. Speaker 6: That's cool. It's going to be a workshop. Speaker 9: Yes, yes. It's going to be a workshop. There's three accounts. I guess that's outside of this council process. But yes, so we're on other projects.

04:13:00 We're looking at the traffic model. And we'll be getting a great model that we hope out of DTMR. And we'll actually be able to show how that works. Councillor Jurisevic: Adam, we should move you to our comms team. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. So Redland City Council gave me a call last week. They're looking to do the sailing over to the Great Island. Speaker 7: Oh, thanks. Fantastic. You should have raised that on the air. So we are being looked to. She's still here. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: So we are being looked to by other councils. Awesome. Councillor Jurisevic: Awesome. Good stuff, guys. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. So we're only on item number 10, Financial Performance Report, October 2021, and we've got Trent at the table to answer any questions. Thank you, Trent.

04:14:00 Speaker 10: Trent, I'm going to put it somewhere here. In summary, Council? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, in summary. Thank you. Speaker 10: We are in a positive financial position, primarily driven by a business. Building and development activity being above our initial conservative COVID estimates, as well as community facility attendance and usage. So you'll see that through the fees and charges, the waste charges, and the sales and business services. And holiday money? All holiday parts will fit into that. So both the holiday parts and the facilities, we assumed a level of COVID reduction in numbers. But I suppose we've got to watch this space. Everyone, do you know? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So question, in your executive summary, the capital expenditure, you've got the variance of $100,000 and 0.6% in red.

255 minutes in

04:15:00

04:15:00 Is that because we have very low levels of tolerance in what we think is acceptable, and we did spend a little bit too much, but that's related a bit to the extra work we're doing? Or can you explain why such a small variance is considered to be a red rather than an orange? Speaker 10: Well, it's partly red because it's slightly overspent. So it's not a bad thing when it comes to the capital works program. Being an accountant, we're sticklers for standard procedures and practice. That was 5% of the trigger or something to go red. But I will, a future improvement to the report, we might look at some year-to-date trends on the capital works expenditure so you can see how we are tracking quotes of the market and the body's report. That's a good question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Is that 5% or is that 6% or is that 0.6%? Speaker 10: That's 0.6%, but that is purely on the basis that it's over. It goes into the red. Okay, as soon as it's over, it'll... That's right, the 5% will change the status of being on track over both the thresholds we use.

04:16:00 Councillor Jurisevic: There's obviously a couple of decimal points missing there. There's 0.1, 0.1 of a variance in 8.6, and they actually, they're both 8.6, so... Speaker 10: Very, very close, very close to the mark. I think I've been working on the timing of the capital works program in a lot of detail this financial year, and it'll feature in the budget review too, which is about to come out. Councillor Finzel: Can I ask a couple of questions? On page 49, cash expense cover targeted three months, and we're at 11.9. That obviously means, you know, that we have that cash expense cover of 9.3. That's obviously, you know, quite strong in relation to what our target is and where other councils are. Speaker 10: Correct. So, this has been an important statistic that's not always mandated through high government agencies in terms of supporting financial sustainability KPIs. It's an important one, Scott. It's about the right balance of having conservative budgeting and sufficient fiscal flexibility

04:17:00 to accommodate the financial sustainability KPIs. So, we do allow for a share of the rates set aside each year for disaster funding, and that's because we have a disaster that's got volume. As well as what we call cash expense cover. So, if we do have a period of time where we're shut for a few months and that pay is cut pay, then that is set aside for financial support. Speaker 6: On page 46, Trent, can you just give me a little bit of detail and explanation in reference to the mayor and council support costs being $77,000 above the each-day budget, and the

04:18:00 CEO's office $95,000. Speaker 10: So, you can see you have quite a large budget annually of $8,000 between all of you support costs. It's a very extensive part of our budgeting program, but you'll note, you're obviously all aware that over the last month or two, you have now joined the S&P Council of Mayors. So, that gets funded through the activity of the S&P Council of Mayors. So you'll see that comes through budget with you too, we'll do that next month to recognise the additional costs. Councillor Jurisevic: CEO's office, we obviously had to get toilet furniture.

04:19:00 Speaker 6: Page 46, Tourism and Economic Development Investment, Trent, Tourism Musa, that's static, that's an agreed fixed amount. Correct. Economic Development, $950,000, that's an increase or am I reading that wrong? Speaker 10: That comprises a mix of what we call an LEP, or Local Economic Plan Implementation Programme, as well as the staff resourcing to facilitate the delivery of the programme. So that's our Economic Development offices, such as Carolyn Bullen, that work dedicated in that space for the Liberal Programme.

04:20:00 Speaker 6: I think, sorry, my question's more, so we've collected 3.47 million bond tourism and economic levy, and that's a little bit of an increase than what we did this time last year, and it would be great to have those numbers side by side. Speaker 10: That would be, sorry, I suppose this comes back off of services and organisations. The transit rate. Right. As well. Yeah. In terms of our annual budget, the total budget this year is $3.47 million. It is slightly higher than our expenditure budget last year. But remembering last year, we had, whilst we still had the levy in place, it was reduced by 5 per cent, so that increase has come back in. Also embedded in that is any other new programmes, so for example, the Declarations Management Plan, and programmes like that are now embedded within Economic Development of the branch.

04:21:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Recently media and community have had a bit of an interest in the rate of staff turnover, but nothing in the monthly reports has sort of given us any data. Is that data collected? Is there a proposal to look at that? And is it something we could think about in the future? Speaker 10: Yes, we do report on it. We actually reported on it last round of the quarterly operational plan report that was included in there. So now, yes, it is slightly higher than previous reports, and the rate of staff has been influenced by that. So what we can do to help unpack that a bit more for the council is we do have some workshops coming up both in terms of community and staff service. So we do have a section survey as well as a budget workshop coming up, so we can unpack that a bit more, and we can obviously reiterate that with future operational plans as well as the reports.

04:22:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it's the operational plan that reports on that, not the monthly or the annual? Yes. Speaker 10: Yes, thank you. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. Speaker 10: All these are all staff at mine. Councillor Jurisevic: There's one underemployee cost under expenditure and permanent staff will give an indication if there are permanent staff on board. Councillor Finzel: I've got a question, yeah. Risk and opportunities. Council's risk registry includes a number of risks that could impact on the ongoing financial sustainability. Can you talk to me about the couple of those main risks that you foresee? Speaker 10: Well, obviously, coming into upcoming deadline, September 17th, Now obviously as we've seen over the last 12 months we have our financial position given the way we consider the budget has meant that we as an organisation have weathered that quite well.

04:23:00 Obviously we've run a marginal deficit the last two years for the first time and this year being the first year that we've adopted again a deficit budget. So that is obviously the key one. Coming into or already into an early wet season, disaster events will always feature quite strongly in our key risk. And in terms of other finances, it's probably the other key strategic one is about affordability. Now that comes up from a financial perspective with the budget process and we start talking about pricing of fees and charges, rates and levies, shipping our ratings if it's sustainable. And that will remain sustainable. So that will again be another key piece, particularly coming into the next year's budget in 2022, 2023 when we start talking about the general rate with reference to land valuations. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Can I just have a question around that one?

04:24:00 We're looking at risk mitigation and affordability. Moving forward, I don't know when it's going to happen, but when potentially interest rates go up for these loans and then we get to the point where people are struggling to repay mortgages and they're potentially pushing out affordability. Are you planning for that when you look at risk mitigation and affordability in the Shire? Are you projecting forward? I don't know what could happen in that space? Speaker 10: We do obviously as part of our long-term financial planning, we do consider the potential risks and impacts of those sorts of things. So if I cast that to the previous year's budget, we were forecasting our cash flow impacts. One of the key risks that we are looking at is that we're not going to be able to do that in the future. If we have an increase in risk, with a $25 billion rate run for the year, that could

04:25:00 have $10 million impact to our cash balance, but that could then impact infrastructure services' ability to construct capital work. So we will consider that. Yeah. And that's why you'll see in the KPIs, even on a monthly basis, we do report that arrears to continually monitor, are we at risk? Yeah. And it may now be that as we come into the next cycle, the economic cycle, with potential rate rises, which have been in the paper over the last week, whether that's a gradual increase or whether it's a fast-moving contractionary increase, we'll have to continue to monitor that. And obviously, it might be a further discussion if it does start to impact our... Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: As far as our loans go, we're on fixed rate. Speaker 10: Correct. So from our perspective, council intended our own financial impact on our debt to be fixed, which is why the timing of the debt restructure and the loan pay down two years

04:26:00 prior, that seems to be quite good. Because now we're fixed in at a fine line rate for the next 20 years. Yeah. And obviously, our cash bank, our high cash cover will benefit from higher interest rates. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Just a question then on the arrears. When we're looking at the reports, what level does it need to get to before then we, like, a red flag alerts us from what do we need to look for specifically in the report? Speaker 10: Sure. Obviously, this covers off in Paragon from the last round of reports on the rate report. Yeah. That damage to our revenue service. But where we are quite at the moment is quite low. We're within or below the benchmark for a lot of other councils. Yeah. And more beneficially still, it's a small number of properties with an accumulating debt rather than a growing number of properties with low debt. So we are in that perspective as well, even though you don't see it in the percentages.

04:27:00 Yeah. It's quite a safe position. The key trend is for us to look at what it was doing this time last year. Okay. Which is why we could buy the 12-month cycle. So if we're seeing the peak when the rates go out and are overdue creeping much beyond the 10, 11 percent mark. Yeah. Okay. Then we get concerned that the low point starts creeping up beyond the 5 percent mark because that's the traditional trajectory of our arrears. Yeah. When it starts to move beyond that, then we need to start having a conversation about what we need to do and what exactly we need to do. Speaker 6: Thank you. On page 55, in regards to your legal expenses, it reports to 31st of October. So it's only the first four months. And if I've read right, we've spent 40 percent of our annual budget. Is that a concern? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm sorry? Sir, it's not a concern. You're going. Speaker 6: So legal expenses. We've budgeted 1.272 million and we've spent 509.

04:28:00 Speaker 10: Okay. Speaker 6: To be honest, we are 100. Yeah, we're under 124,000. Yeah. No, we're sitting at around. Excuse me. I missed reading that. Yeah. Speaker 10: Okay. But we will continue to monitor that. The other piece of work that we're figuring out is the legal process around the organisation, whether that's procurement support, legal advice, procurement data, and leases, etc. So it's not just, it's not a contract, so it's not just within development assessment. There's obviously a range of other areas that we don't plan and advance any much in

04:29:00 advance in the budget, for there to be a supply and capital matter that needs to be clarification, or a HR partner that needs independent advice and support on, but they're the ones that we come back to the project with you for some of the driver's time. Speaker 6: So back at how we can do things. Better. I've had, and we've had as a council, ongoing conversation about in-house legal consult. Where are we up to with that? Speaker 10: I might have to take that one, though. We have a good point of time. I think Diana might be able to answer that question. Councillor Finzel: Thank you.

270 minutes in

04:30:00

04:30:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Whilst that figures only 40% of the total year's budget, it's actually ahead of the current budget at this point of time. Is that correct? As your periodic budget, it's 386 to 509, 124 over. Speaker 6: So I do agree with that. 40% of the total year's budget. Councillor Jurisevic: No, no. Speaker 10: 40% of the total budget. Sorry. Correct me. I was just saying, whilst it's good year to date, it's more the share of the annual budget. That's the last thing you're going to be worried about. Councillor Finzel: I'm happy to remove the committee recommendation. Okay. Speaker 7: Thank you. Thank you, Tramp. Councillor Finzel: I think we've... Thank you, Tramp. Another good report. The risks, you've highlighted them. There's mitigation measures in place. Thank you very much. I know it's a tough time coming to the end of the year with all the additional things that you and the team have on your plate. So thank you very much. And I think we've hashed it all out in these questions, but I think the next one, I don't

04:31:00 know if it's something further. Thank you. Well, I've got a question still. I didn't get to answer that question. Councillor Jurisevic: But it's almost... It was a question, and I've realised the reason why. I looked at the rates and leaves. The general rate was 133k below, as Kelly alluded to, which is a bit of an extension of the year-to-date budget. We're still at 50%. I'm going, well, if we're below budget, how have we achieved 50% halfway through the year? But it's such a small proportion of the overall that it's only like 0.3 or 0.4%. So that's why it's rounded up to 50%. Initially, when I highlighted it, I went, how have we reached 50% when we're below budget? But yes, I realise there's a percentage of it. So it's irrelevant when you're rounding up your percentages. So apart from that, no, all good. As I said, good to see us in a strong financial position. And I didn't see anything, any red flags in there at all. I thought we were running pretty well. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, obviously, it's great to get these monthly reports.

04:32:00 And I had to reflect after I asked that question about the expenditure in the red. And then you realise, I think that I was thinking about it being the status track changes. And then I touched it and realised the reason why I wasn't clear on it is it's never happened before while I've been sitting here. This is probably the first report we've had, a monthly report, where we've been ahead in terms of our expenditure. And as Councillor Hughes has explained, that tends to suggest that we're actually proceeding well in terms of all our projects we've got on board. And doing that in a period of a very large capital works budget is a good sign that the intent of having a large capital works is to stimulate the economy with public funds as much as possible. So obviously, that's occurring, as well as all the arrangement of other services councillors. So that's a good news story. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Would anyone else like to speak to this? Okay, we'll put it to a vote.

04:33:00 All in favour? That is unanimous. Thank you. Thanks, Tracey. Thanks, Tracey. Speaker 1: Give us a good welcome. Councillor Finzel: Welcome, Diana and Deb. And now this is the last item on the agenda. There is a typo. It says item 12, which should be item 11. Mr Shire Council 2020-21 Annual Report. Diana is here. And Deb, to answer the question, you may provide an executive summary. Yes. Speaker 7: So obviously, in accordance with the local government regulations, we need to prepare an annual report each year, and including all certain reportable disclosures that we have to do to meet the standards, which is what this annual report has done. It's also gone a bit above and beyond that. And we've focused on expanding our transparency and our story, as well, through this annual report. So you'll notice from previous years, we've added new sections to the beginning of the report. Including a council snapshot and some useful statistics that maybe the community might

04:34:00 be interested in being aware of. We've also included our vision, values and purpose, which we think is important. It also shows to the community what our standards and integrity and what we strive and aim for as an organisation. As well as a bit of information around our corporate planning model, as well, so the community understands how these things work. At that corporate planning level. So yeah, apart from that, the rest of the content is normal, as per previous years. And yeah, we're hoping we've all enjoyed reading it. Councillor Finzel: And we've had feedback from our audit and risk committee in relation to the annual report Speaker 7: and its content, as well. They've over-viewed it as well. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. QIOs have a look at it as well. So we're all compliant with that. That's all there is.

04:35:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think we might have a title on page 10. Oh, yeah. I think it should read, message from bloke who used to work here. So we are in the process of adopting. I think we do either have to say from the outgoing CEO or just put a date underneath his signature. Because obviously, the report's only being adopted, even though it was written while he was here. Yeah. Yeah. During his tenure. During his tenure. I think it should be correct. Councillor Jurisevic: It was his tenure at the time. Speaker 2: It was his time. Yeah. But we're adopting it today. So we have to be very specific. 2021. Yeah, I know. But we're adopting it now. Excellent. Councillor Finzel: Does anyone have any questions? Other questions? Diana. No. All good. All right. We've got a huge amount of work and debt that goes into this report. And it is a really great summary and overview.

04:36:00 Just to look at the top 10 highlights. The commencement of the long awaited Tewantin bypass. The lobbying receiving over 23 million in funding from the state and federal governments. Establishment of Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee. Supporting the community through lockdowns and COVID through continual comms. And new events such as the Christmas Convoy, which we're all really excited about again this year. Yeah. Adoption of the new Noosa Town Plan. Construction of the beginning construction of the Hinterland Playground. Funding for Phrygian Digital Hub. Completion of major infrastructure projects such as Orealla Bridge. And the new roundabout at Hilton Terrace. And restructure of debt for approximately 22 million to take advantage of lower interest rates. Introducing a new online portal called Open Council to make Council more transparent. Additional things. It's the first time engaging the community through budget, through face-to-face and online budget tool. We've continued our relationship with our business community through Business Roundtable, which is on page 27. And the Climate Change Response Plan has come to fruition.

04:37:00 And it's, I believe, our largest funding of over a million dollars given to community groups in the last 12 months. So a lot on. No wonder we're all tired. Especially staff. But thank you for all your hard work. Yeah. Great. Great report. Well done. Council stop off. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It is good. And I like the little up front for us who don't like reading and thinking. I thought the little council snapshot on page 13 was useful. Of our 501 employees, 50% female, which is great. Yeah. And you look at our executive leadership group, and I think that's reflected in the executive leadership sessions as well. I thought it was also interesting that waste in an environment of health was the most popular topic raised by customers. Popular being the most frequent. More people complain when their bins aren't picked up. See, it's been through comms.

04:38:00 But I do think it is interesting because the range of services, just the number of people who come in from a digital hub to the basics of the old roads, roads and rubbish, to the fact that we've got a range of responsibilities and the things we're looking at. And last year was a very challenging year for everyone. But the report highlights our, I suppose, the organisation has navigated through that with some aplomb. And I suppose everyone should be very appreciative of the efforts and as we go forward. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anyone else like to speak to this? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. The one that highlights for me was page 25, community grants and the million dollars going back into our community. Particularly pleasing for me to see we continue to fund water rebates, which is something that other council, previous council wouldn't do. So it's good to see our community being supported in their own community. The remaining highlights and that are a credit to the organisation and all the hard work

04:39:00 that all staff undertake, particularly our leadership team. And the outgoing CEO deservedly deserves his recognition for the time and delivery of all of the facilitation that this report encompasses. I recommend it as a reading to everybody that is critical of council in some way, shape or form and realising and understanding the amount and the value and the volume of work that goes on for this council. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. That's exactly right. Thank you, Jo. Anyone else? Oh, yeah. I'd just like to add thank you back to the organisation and the staff. I particularly love all the themes and I do use them quite often too as a base for my arguments and to remind us of where we should be going and what we're striving for. So yeah. I really like all of the five themes and yeah, it's really informative.

04:40:00 And if you read the document and drill down to each of those things, I think it's a really good framework. We don't always get it right. And we have our challenges that we've heard around the table today about engendering trust in the community and keeping everybody on board and bringing us forward. But I really love the themes and I think it gives us a good launch pad to hopefully improve what we're doing. So thank you. Thank you. Speaker 6: Yeah. Thank you so much. Speaker 8: It's a wonderful document. I've enjoyed briefly skimming it. I wish I'd read it thoroughly because we have to go quite a bit on. But it also gives light to our job around the table here because this is an enormous council and we've done a beautiful job. But, you know, we're the ones driving the ship and so we should take it, you know, as a kind of beacon for what we need to do and the importance of what we do.

04:41:00 Speaker 6: Congratulations, Governance, Big Guy. Excellent report and it gets better and better every year. I know that you guys, but I do. We love you guys. But it's clear you made a commitment to transparency and that's got to be reported because the document reads really well. And for anyone in the community, I think it should be made into a copy book personally. But for anyone in the community, it's just, you know, a great performance review of this council and in saying that, I want to just sort of say I'm proud of council's achievements, I'm proud to be part of this story and proud to be part of a team that go beyond the call of service. And I think we can't underestimate that the staff and the councillors here are all committed and passionate about our job.

04:42:00 We couldn't deliver or do our job unless there was a genuine passion for this community. We want to make it a better place. Thank you. Speaker 8: Please break it out. I think we should bring this over to a coffee chat. No, it's a good idea. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm concerned that the councillor wants the print warnings. So I'll just finish. I was going to finish with the last thing. Councillor Finzel: I'm just, I'm just, we're nearly finished guys. I'm just going to finish because no one else is going to read this message at the table, the Mayor's message, but I'm sorry. That was really, I've got to sit down. And I'll just reiterate what I said when you read it. I'm proud of what the council team achieved over the past 12 months. There's always more to do. I'd like to congratulate our hardworking staff who every day put the community first and make this great Shire a fantastic place to live, work and play. And our job as councillors is to serve our community and we all do that with gusto, integrity and in good faith.

04:43:00 So, and thank you once again. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you guys. I'll put it to a vote. All in favour? Unanimous. Speaker 7: Thank you Kath. And that is, I declare the meeting closed.

Elsewhere on this site

Every page here that links to this one, by section.

What was said

Latest