Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Councillor Wilkie: All right, good morning and welcome everybody to the general committee meetings of the Monday 14th of March, the Kabi meeting opening. We'd like to begin by acknowledging the traditional custodians of the land present and the men emerging at Kabi Kabi. We have the board of councillors to attend us. We have someone present and emerging from the general committee meeting. We have all the councillors to attend us. The council already have someone present, and the minutes of the general committee meeting are in order. We have no presentations. We have no presentations. The first item of the committee meeting is carried. We have no presentations. And no presentations. The first item of the committee meeting is carried. Item change is a low-time, low-retire business. A vehicle using a retail business type 2 shop and operation. Item change is a low-time, low-retire business. Vehicle Uses, Newtown Merciless, Title 2, Long Island National Works, Rhyme Engine 52, 54 Mary Street.
00:01:00 Councilors, we have a question for staff. Councilor, we have a question for staff. Speaker 9: No, it's not this one. So, Councillor, we'll have that for you for the ordinary meeting. Someone's going direct to the ordinary meeting. Councillor Jurisevic: No, it's not this one. Oh, sorry, next one. I thought it was this one. No, it's not this one. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Questions, I asked what other service stations were open at 4 in the morning on a 24-hour service station. Tom. Questions, I asked what other service stations were open at 4 in the morning on a 24-hour service station. Speaker 4: I thought that we were open at the last meeting where we advised that the service stations within the industrial area were open. I thought that we were open at the last meeting. I'm sorry, I'm sure they were open at 4 a.m., but they certainly open. They don't have restrictions in their opening hours. And there were a number of other approvals that were issued. One was in Noosa Junction, a service station there.
00:02:00 That's quite an old approval. That didn't have any conditions around hours. There's a service station here in Tewantin, the Ampol as well. That's quite an old approval from the 80s. That didn't have any conditions around hours either. Councillor Wegener: What is the condition? What is the condition? What is the condition? What is the condition? What is the condition? Speaker 9: They're a long way from residential. So they certainly, if they wish to operate 24 hours, would have no concerns with them operating 24 hours. Councillor Wilkie: We have a motion before us. Councillor Stewart. Speaker 2: Yes, I wanted to add following to the motion, which is part C and D, Mr. Chair. And I'll read that out for the benefit of people at home. That is, request the CEO to... ...convene a councillor workshop for councillors to allow the review and further discussion regarding the signage laws and associated policies.
00:03:00 And D, request the CEO to, if necessary, provide a report to a future council meeting outlining any changes, updates or improvements to the laws and policies as may be proposed at the councillor workshop. Mr. Chair, this is... Councillor Finzel: We have a seconder for... I'm happy to second. Speaker 2: Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Finzel, seconder. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is quite a simple and straightforward amendment or an addition. And the reason I include it today is because it is an opportunity. It is an opportunity for this council to obtain information, have its say, and perhaps amend and change laws and policies which we are being judged on and which we have had no opportunity to have any input into. The clown fiasco, and I refer to it as that because, quite frankly, it was a fiasco and a national one of that, generated a huge amount of angst and concern in our community, with many thinking that myself and this council and councillors had the ability to simply
00:04:00 change a policy, to make policy on the run. We know clearly that this isn't the case. Amendments and changes can take time and they take process. Workshops, debate, formation of policy, and then have to come before us, the full council, for a decision and ratification. It is a long detail. It is a detailed process, which involves significant community consultation. No one wants to do anything drastic. And the last thing we want to do is turn Noosa into the Nicklin Way. But in justice, fairness, and equity to this council, we must be given an opportunity to have a voice and to have a look at our current policies. The signage laws, which have become part of our local laws, is but one of the policies that this council is judged on, yet we have not had the opportunity to undertake a deep dive. Today is that opportunity. It is my hope that with this amendment, we can at least gain a better understanding into the laws and processes and reasoning behind various laws and policies formation.
00:05:00 And at the same time, ensure that a platform is created that this council has an opportunity to provide further strategic direction to policy and procedures, just as it is required to do under the Local Government Act. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jarratt. A question for staff. Just an explanation. The current situation where there is strip lighting around the top exists, but the addition of a logo there is something that staff see as within that lighting strip. Why, where does the addition of the logo change or dramatically vary what's currently existing? Speaker 4: Well, they're considered to be separate signs. Under the local law, so the strip is in itself considered to be signage and then the logos would be additional signage and for this site, being on a corner site, it's allowed to have illumination to each street frontage, the LED strip is one form of signage and so is
00:06:00 the pylon sign on the corner, it's their second illuminated sign, so it's at its threshold there in terms of that allowance. Councillor Jurisevic: So, given the volume of signage that currently exists on each street, does that mean there's a 10 square metres that makes them allowable? Speaker 4: The helios are existing and they were approved, so what this application is seeking to do is illuminate them and we allowed for 4 square metres each side of the pylon sign as part of the approval, which they have. Councillor Jurisevic: For illumination? Speaker 4: No, just for signage and that is illuminated, that sign, and then there was approximately a 5.86 square metres. 5.86 square metres, I think it was, of additional signage throughout the remainder of the site, which includes these helios signs. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, so the issue here is not the helios sign itself, it's the illumination of the helios sign? That's correct. Okay, so that would constitute additional illuminated signage, which is an illuminator
00:07:00 of the current signage? Speaker 4: That's correct. Speaker 9: Yeah, so a total of two signs are allowed to be illuminated on a corner and they have that too already. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to clarify, Patrick, you said that the strip lighting was considered advertising as well and that was illuminated? Speaker 4: That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: So does that light also come under the, so that was approved, was it, under the original approval? Speaker 9: Under the, at the time the application was approved, the strip lighting wasn't considered advertising, but under the current local law, it did. Councillor Wilkie: Kerry, in last week's planning and environment portfolio meeting, you mentioned that the reasons for a refusal are just as much about the form of application made as about the nature of the changes itself. This is an application for a minor change. You said an impact accessible application was more appropriate. Speaker 9: Can you explain why? Yeah, I'll just clarify that. So at the time the signage was approved, it fell, signage requirements fell under the
00:08:00 planning scheme. And so an operational works application was not approved. It was made by the applicant and approved by council. Since that time, the signage requirements for Noosa have been put into a local law. So new or additional signage is regulated by the local law, not by the planning scheme. So the type of application they've made for the signage isn't appropriate. They would need to make an application under local law if they could for this additional signage. Under local law, as was said, more than two signs on the signage. On a corner that's illuminated is prohibited by the local law. So it wouldn't be supported by that in any case. So yes, they've made the wrong application. We can't approve additional signage through the operational works process because the scheme no longer has that requirement. And the signage itself is inconsistent with the policy requirements for signage. Councillor Jurisevic: So just to clarify, with that change, what form of paperwork are they required to complete
00:09:00 under the local law? Speaker 9: Well, the signage would actually be prohibited under local law, so they cannot make application either under the local law. Councillor Jurisevic: But if it weren't prohibited? Speaker 9: If it weren't prohibited, they would need to make an application under the local law. Councillor Jurisevic: Is there a particular form? Speaker 9: Yeah, there's a process for applications under the local law. Councillor Jurisevic: There is a process to go under the law? Speaker 9: Yeah. Most of the signage requirements under the local law do not require an application. If they meet certain requirements, they can just go ahead and put the signage up. But there's a couple of types of signage under the local law that requires approval. Councillor Jurisevic: And the liminal signage is one of those? Speaker 9: Yes, as well as parallel signs. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. That clarifies the situation. Councillor Wilkie: So is any part of this process, do the neighbours who stand possibly be affected at any opportunity to make submissions? Speaker 9: Not about signage. What officers have recommended is that the proposed change in hours from 5am to 4am, that is not a minor change to the development approval. We think that that should be publicly notified and go through impact assessment.
00:10:00 Councillor Wilkie: But is there potential for that to occur? Speaker 9: Yes. Yeah, the applicant could, you know, lodge a new application for impact assessment for that change in hours. And go out to the community and call for submissions both for and against that change in hours. Yeah. So they are able to make that application to come. Councillor Wilkie: So there's two elements to the submission. One about the signage. Yep. One about the operating hours. Yep. And it's the operating hours that also should be considered under an impact assessment application. Which gives the neighbours a chance to make submissions. Yeah. Thank you. Speaker 2: What would the cost be if they were to go back out and make another application? What would their costs, what would the additional costs be for it? Speaker 9: It would be an application fee. You know, I don't think it's appropriate to charge them for a full service station fee again. It's probably something we would have to work out a fee that's a reasonable cost for
00:11:00 them. Obviously it's Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Speaker 9: Yeah, so having to report the matter back to council does involve certain costs to council in that process, but we'd have to work out a fee. So I wouldn't suggest a full service station fee would be appropriate again just for that component we'd have to work out. Speaker 2: And what's the charge, what's the current cost of a full service station fee? Speaker 9: I'll have to come back to you on that. But it would be in excess of $5,000. Councillor Jurisevic: And in this case, a minor change for an existing report would be associated with the process of consideration of this? Speaker 9: Yeah, our minor change fees are graded from something that's minor for a house through to something that's more major. I would suggest they're probably paid around the $2,000 mark for their application fee, but I'd have to check for you. But certainly the applicant was advised before they launched that... You know, this wasn't the process for them.
00:12:00 Councillor Wilkie: And the fee structure is based on covering the cost of staff time, so the rate pays don't subsidise developer applications. Speaker 9: Exactly right. It's a fee per service. Brian, you had a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I was going to talk to the motion. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, go for it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll deal with the last issue first, which is about the appropriateness of requiring community input into changing operation hours. As we've identified, there is some service stations that do have a 24-hour operation, because they're in the industrial zone. I do receive complaints about hooning by residents in the Noosaville area, because they go between the service station and the McDonald's. Loud, fast, and you can't get police there to control it. So there is real risks for urban amenity with respect to late-night hours, so it's totally appropriate to say that's an impact-assessable application. And then we move to the signage issue. Has anyone had difficulty finding a service station in Noosa?
00:13:00 No. Every service station that has applied for in my time at Council has tried to get more signage than the policy allows. Councillor Wegener: Everyone. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Because they've got the statewide or the national standards for their brand that says you do this. And we say, no, in Noosa you do this. Now, we've been doing that since the very first sign policy in the 80s, where we had the smallest... We've got the smallest sign in Australia. And that's because we do want to be different. So, to me, it's a lady on the Zerf. We've just got to apply the policy. Because it's really important that we don't allow creep. Now, I'd like to correct the mirror in two aspects. One with respect to the service being a fiasco, and the other being with respect to what was national. It was actually international. We've got to the US. We've got to the UK tabloids. And if you're looking at a veritable source of information, I suggest you don't go to the UK tabloids to judge your opinion.
00:14:00 Every circus that has come to town tries on a plethora of signage around the roads to attract customers. And every circus in my time since moving to Noosa has been told, no, when you're in Noosa you do what we expect. OK? Yes, it might be fun to see clowns to some people. As Councillor Wilkie pointed out, it might be frightening for those who are afraid of it. But do we want to set a precedent we think three and a half metre high blow-up signs are suitable for Noosa? That's really being different. No, that's being kitsch. Now, we have to understand this is not just about not being nice to business. This is being nice to business. I've got a couple of quotes I've used a few times. One's from Dave Nicholson, who was one of the original advisories on the Advisory Design Committee in 1986, which set the rooftop structure, outdoor eating and signage display, which actually created what we know as being the drawcard for Noosa.
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 And he talks about, you know, for many years he's been a design consultant, mainly working in architectural signage and graphics. Numerous projects in Noosa from both sides of the fence. And he says, I've always managed to convince my commercial clients that less is best. And that is the key to it. All good planning policy documents need to be revisited from time to time. And I'm quite happy to support the motion put forward by the Mayor. Some minor tinkerage with council signage policies over the last 30 years. And the last time was actually probably the most significant revision. We actually made a lot more signage permissible. I think it's also important to say that he talks about the importance to the Noosa brand. And this is where we have to really think about governing for the whole Shire. Because the economic study done in 2019 by QUT showed that our difference with the economic brand adds value, significant value to accommodation and tourism businesses.
00:16:00 But general value. I think it was about 21% they estimated. Our brand gets people in general retail because of that brand. And it's also important to recognise that some of our significant business owners understand that. So I haven't got permission to use his name, but you might guess who it is. I write, this is a long time Noosa resident and a substantial property owner and business owner that employs over 250 people in the Shire. And he supports the proposed local law in full. It's critical the council does all in its power to maintain the character and the look and feel of Noosa. There must be an appreciation of the very real difference of Noosa and the reason for its popularity and appeal. So I think it's really important when we come to this is you don't look after business by saying yes all the time.
00:17:00 You might look after the individual business interests who think they'll get more money. And we had this debate with the sign policy in terms of the big brands wanting to put great big posters over all the windows. And when we said, no, you can only have a certain amount, the shops that took it off actually increased their sales. Because too much is not better. Less is best when it comes to signage. Councillor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lyons. Councillor Lorentson: I just want to jump on the Mayor's words of opportunity. And I'm going to take this opportunity to raise a local law that I think is overdue for a review. And that's the Noosa Shire Council Subordinate Law Number 6, Bathing Reserve 2015 that prohibits kite surfing and non-
00:18:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Morrison, this is way, way outside the bounds of this particular application for signage and service on a service station. Councillor Lorentson: So in reference to the amendment D that says request the CEO, if necessary, provide a report to future council meeting outlining any changes, updates or improvements in the laws and policies. Signage rules. As may be proposed by councillor. That's only in reference. Any signage rules. Okay. I accept. That's fine. Perhaps that should be clear. That's not clear. Would you like to amend that? Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. Because my thought was that it was actually all. Oh, that's right. That was my understanding. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, then I've brought a point of order on the motion. Yeah. Then it becomes ultra-virus. Okay. So ultra-virus is beyond, because it doesn't relate to the matter at hand.
00:19:00 It would be contrary to our standing laws and the act and therefore have no force to Speaker 2: But I'm happy to leave it as is then if it's related specifically to this. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: I'd like to move an amendment that the word, sorry, signage be put in front of any changes, updates, or improvements to the signage laws and policies. Speaker 7: I'll second that. Councillor Jurisevic: Take out the two signage laws and policies. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: To remove the word, improvements to signage laws and policies.
00:20:00 Okay, so item D now reads, request the CEO to, if necessary, provide a report to a future council meeting outlining any changes, updates or improvements to signage laws and policies as may be proposed at the council workshop. Look, I'll do that to clarify what we're actually talking about. Yes, Karen. Speaker 9: If I may make comments about this proposed motion. I just raised a few concerns about the motion. The local law for signage is two years old, so it went through public consultation twice with the community. There was a lot of work that went through developing that local law, and I appreciate council, some of the councils here didn't get to be involved in it, but that's a fairly recent local law change, and there were a lot of changes made to that local law which introduced additional allowances for signage.
00:21:00 I just raised concern with the proposed motion because staff have a number of projects on, and this may be not such a priority in the scheme of the different projects that staff have on strategic planning and working through amendments to the planning scheme, the housing study, responding to the regional plan, there's a range of, the CHAT process, there's a range of issues that we have on our plate at the moment, and I'm not sure that this is going to be a significant priority, but obviously that's for council to decide, given it was only advertised two years ago. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask the question, Kerry? My understanding that there was a 12 month deferral period during that time also because of COVID, is that correct? Speaker 9: Yeah. So since its commencement, it's commenced just before COVID, and some of the new requirements were asking for flags. I don't know if you've heard of that.
00:22:00 It was actually prohibiting flags. So for the last two years, we've actually put that on hold because of COVID and haven't asked businesses to change their signage around to meet the new local law requirement. So it's really been, it hasn't really taken effect fully because, for that reason, because we have taken a, I guess, a linear approach during this time around signage. Speaker 2: I've got a question for the CEO. The CEO isn't, in your experience, and with the councillors you've been in normal practice, to review policies for a new council, what is on the table so new councillors have an opportunity to revisit and look at those and do a deep dive. No one's saying we're potentially going to do anything about it, but have the opportunity to do, as C says, a deep dive and a workshop to potentially then do something. Speaker 8: Through the chair and in response, Mayor, absolutely. Generally once per term you would review all policies, call back to the council table so that the councillor has the ability within that term to ensure that all policies are
00:23:00 refreshed. Generally that's regardless of whether it was adopted late in the term or early in the previous term, but council has that ability within that term to be able to review all policies. That's my most recent experience and previous experience as well. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So you haven't talked to your amendment? Councillor Wilkie: Look, the reason I've done this is because I made the change to clarify specifically what I believe the Mayor was intending as a review of the signing tools and policy, which makes it relevant to this particular application that's before us. As mentioned, we would make it include a review of all policies, local government policies, as part of this development application that would be beyond the bounds of what we're looking at here. Yeah, exactly. So purely to bring it within the bounds of what I thought was the spirit of the Mayor's motion. That's full stop. Speaker 2: Thank you, council. I'll accept that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I'll speak to it too.
00:24:00 I support the clarification. And I have no problems with C in terms of getting a workshop so existing group of councillors can get their minds around what was probably one of the more controversial signage policies until we started to look at Airbnb's last term. But just be aware, if there was any changes to the local law, there's probably very little likelihood, minus 1%, of having any changes to a local law before the end of this term. So you'd be just big. Councillor Wilkie: And a question to Kerry or the CEO. Would it involve public notification because that will process for local law? Speaker 8: For local law, absolutely, Chair. Yeah, that would be a more extended process as opposed to policy changes. But they must always align with the local law. But I think it's prudent that this has become an issue before the council, a review, understand better and that we can communicate to our community better about what we have in place and why we have it in place. Thank you, Kerry. Councillor Lorentson: Can I talk? Yeah, Amelia.
00:25:00 So I will support the amendment. I think what we really need to be doing is actually debriefing about the clown incident as part of this review process and understand actually what were the issues. And can they be addressed other than reviewing the local law? Is there another way that we can address these type of circumstances as one of COVID related or something else? So happy to support this. Also apologies for raising the kite surfing van on the eastern beaches. I understood what the mayor had intended, not the spirit. So apologies. Great. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Firstly, thank you for the amendment C and D. I do support them. We can't make assumptions actually that how things will land on the table if we have workshops or reviews just in response to Councillor Stockwell.
00:26:00 I welcome the review. I think it's really important, especially given raised the flag situation. I work in many community groups. They've invested a lot of money. Oftentimes through fundraising and applying for grants to put up flag signs at their local events in community. And that has been a big impact financially. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, could you direct your comments to me or the council? Certainly. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the reminder. I appreciate that. Thank you. So I think it's timely that we review these and I support the comments by the CEO and definitely the mayor. I think it's not an opportunity at this table to actually correct the mayor and I'm happy to support the mayor. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Question to staff. Other ways. I mean, I agree with you that it is hard to give staff a major thing to do.
00:27:00 Would it be prudent instead for the councillors themselves to go back and read the minutes and go through the amendments that were made first? First to ask, you know, to do their own studies before going and asking staff to do something? I mean, is there other ways that we can learn about this other than asking to do a review, to have staff prepare a review for discussion on the signage laws? Other pathways that that that that councillors can should go down, perhaps before asking staff? Councillor Lorentson: My question. Councillor Wegener: That's my question. Councillor Wilkie: Question on speech. Councillor Wegener: That's the question. The question is, are there other paths that that we normally that would be expected? Speaker 9: Yeah.
00:28:00 So certainly, officers can make available the reporting at the time of the local law, if councillors want to do that. So, the question is, what do the councilors like to refresh themselves? I'm just remembering there was a council or workshop with this council about the local law and the changes that were made by the local law. Councillor Wegener: I remember we had a workshop on signage. Speaker 9: But, you know, if council wish to workshop that again, we can do that again. I just just raised flags that we may not be able to complete a full review of the local law. Is that a pun? Again. Kerry raised some flags. Sorry. Too slow for a Monday morning interview. Councillor Jurisevic: We might have to. I'd suggest an in-depth read of policy and local laws that any councillor could be concerned would be first place to, of course, to go and talk to. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you for your question, Councillor Wegener. Any other councillors? We're sticking to the amendment. We're still talking about the amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: That's why everybody's talking to the whole, not just the amendment.
00:29:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Any other councillors to speak to the amendment? Look, I'll close. I'll take on board Councillor Wegener's question. I would surmise and suggest that prior to the workshop, there will be reading that councillors will have to undertake and that diligent councillors will be priding themselves of the local law review. It is true that we did have a workshop on local laws and signage policy as part of the induction process after the March 2020 elections. It was, I acknowledge it was a very busy time for councillors. COVID was in full swing. There was so much information to be absorbed. I see no problem with revisiting the local law.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 It was a very busy time for councillors. It was an opportunity for all of us to be reminded of the role that local laws such as the signage policy plays in preserving and upholding Noosa's key points of difference, which makes it different as the Mayor said, to a Midland way or the Gold Coast or Sunshine Coast, other South East Queensland communities that have developed in the same way as Noosa has. Yeah. And as I said, I can assure Councillor Finzel, this was not a correction of the Mayor this Councillor Finzel: Excuse me, can I make a comment to that? Councillor Wilkie: No, that is the end of my debate. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? The amendment is carried. It goes back. The amendment now becomes part of the original motion. And Councillor Stewart, Councillor Stockwell and Councillor Lorentson have spoken to the original motion. All other councillors are free to speak to the original motion. To the motion which includes the CND.
00:31:00 Thank you. Councillor Stewart. What? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: What do you mean by the CND? Councillor Finzel: You actually said, I'm going to collect the man as your opening. Councillor Stewart, may I suppose? Yes, thank you. Look, I will. Sorry, one discussion at the table. I want to thank you for saying that. Speaker 2: I will close. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Well, look, the circus was but an example. And the reason it was brought up was because it is fresh of mind. And it did garnish, as Councillor Stockwell said, international attention. And we need a deep dive. And I'll take on board that we did have very early on in the piece a workshop about local laws. But this is an opportunity. And that word I keep coming back to because, as the CEO said, a lot of councils, they go in and they revisit all the policies every term. And this is an opportunity for us to revisit the policy. No one's saying or deciding right here at this table. Well, what that means, what that looks like.
00:32:00 But it's an opportunity to deep dive, which is important. It's our job. It's our job as councils to be across things. And if we want to change as elected representatives, we have the right to do that or we at least have the right to vote on it and be a part of that decision making process. So that is what this is actually about. It's about justice, fairness and equity. And I take on board what Kerry said that we, the staff, you know, I understand their push, but these are policies that this council has to sit at and make decisions on, and this council has not had an opportunity to even be involved in the formation of those policies. So I think we need, and that is, that is fairness, and I think we need to be involved at least to have a workshop and potentially arising from that workshop. And as Councillor Finzel said, we don't know what's going to fall on the table at that workshop. It may be nothing, it may be a lot, but we have the opportunity then, with the CEO, to bring a further report to council. So I think it's prudent, this has come up, it's before us, we've had the, and it was a fiasco, we had the cloud fiasco, and now we've got this before us, it's the first opportunity to revisit, and I think it's prudent to do so.
00:33:00 Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Put the motion, those in favour? That's unanimous. Thanks, Kerry. Thank you, Patrick. Item 2, Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee update from the Planning and Environment Committee agenda. You're welcome, Sean. Thank you. Councillors, do you have any questions for Sean? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We want an overview. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, perhaps, Sean, for the benefit of those who may be listening to that, it's a bit of a challenge. Do you have an overview of the report for noting? Speaker 1: Good morning, councillors. Councillor Finzel: Good morning. Speaker 1: The report presented to the P&E Committee provided an overview of NSERAC activities in the 12 months since formation, and noted that significant progress has been made on a number of actions, but there is also a lot of outstanding actions that still need to be pursued.
00:34:00 Their priority in their work has been based around vessel management today. And also enforcement. They haven't progressed items about the future of the Noosa River Plan or the future governance of the Noosa River Plan. But considering the disruption caused by COVID and also departure of both co-chairs and the like, it's been reasonable progress in terms of accomplishments. The report also notes that the Maritime Safety Queensland have a speed review out for consultation. That is under consultation. That is under jurisdiction of Maritime Safety Queensland. And they're proposing to reduce the speed limit in the lower reaches of the Noosa River permanently from 20 knots to 6 knots. Currently, a holiday speed limit applies. And the report just notes that consultation activity. It's not proposing a representation or review of council, noting that that will be jurisdiction of MSQ to make a final call on that matter.
00:35:00 Since the P&E Committee. The council have asked me for additional information concerning the speed review. And I distributed that on Wednesday last week. And then I also provided some insights into NSERAC activities. Particularly about vessel management and their frustration at the lack of progress on vessel management. Which they see as being the highest priority for the Noosa River. Along with enforcement. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Questions for Sean? Speaker 2: Sean, where is the committee at? And I see you as an observer. As does Sandy Bolton. But, you know, the big issues are the litter boards, the illegal moorings, the anchorings. You know, your gesture on the river. What is that doing then with, you know, for our environment with this potential sewage coming from those houseboats? The fact that anyone can just go and put their houseboat in the middle of the river. Where are we at with those kinds of things? Because I know that when we started off, that was a big priority for the river and for this
00:36:00 council. Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. So to their credit, the NSERAC subcommittee did a significant analysis of vessel management concerning anchoring, mooring and liverboard in the Noosa River and provided a suite of recommendations to MSQ and council about the middle of last year. They were reported to council in August last year. At that time, MSQ provided assurances that it would pursue a specific regulatory program for the Noosa River by amending the relevant transport regulation for Sunshine Coast waters. And there are similar regulations on the Noola Harbour and also in Palmerstone Passage. More recently, MSQ have inferred an amendment. They've said in an email that they're backing away from a specific approach and that they consider that it might need to be a more strategic or statewide approach because of the issues they're experiencing in other waterways. So the NSERAC subcommittee community members are very, very dissatisfied at the lack of
00:37:00 progress of bureaucracy by the state government and to some extent council as well, because obviously we have a role to play in terms of foreshore management. I do need to point out, Mayor, that the term you used, illegal mooring, is actually incorrect. It's lawful anchoring. So at the moment we have lawful moorings, which are designated moorings to specific boats on the river. And then across our river network, apart from navigable channels and a few restrictions, lawful anchoring is permitted anywhere. So a lot of the boats you see, most of the boats you see in the Noosa River are lawfully anchored. And I think that's where most of the problem comes in terms of the perception of the community, because they see the anchoring as being inappropriate and not controlled. And at the moment it is unregulated, but it's lawful. Councillor Finzel: And it's not chartered? No. Speaker 1: So anyone can bring a boat into the Noosa River and lawfully anchor it for whatever
00:38:00 time that they wish. Speaker 2: So it's the same as, I guess, I can go and pitch a tent in the national park for six months. Speaker 1: But then, you know, the airport issue is a bit separate because just because you're anchoring a vessel in the Noosa River doesn't necessarily mean you live aboard it. Now there are live aboard permits issued for vessels, and there are a number of vessels that have the lawful live aboard permits and obliged by the conditions of approval, which includes you know, keeping the vessel to a seaworthy condition and also the requirements for sewage management. We also have vessels that are being inappropriately lived on, and also maybe not appropriately dealing with their sewage. Speaker 2: So can I go to the Malula River and put my boat there, live there, and not be charged anything? Is that the equivalent? Speaker 1: I think the Malula boat harbour has restrictions on liveaboard, but I can't say for the upper
00:39:00 Malula River. I can't answer that. But certainly there's restrictions on the Palmerstone Passage and on other waterways that allow time-limited anchoring. Speaker 2: So if MSQ are looking for a statewide approach, and they're doing time limits and that sort of thing in those areas, well then why hasn't that been enacted in our Malula? Speaker 1: Well, that's exactly the dissatisfaction by the NSERAC subcommittee members. And we've got alignment from various sectors. From environment, to tourism, to commercial operators, recreational, they're all aligned on this issue about poor vessel management in the Lower Noosa River. And they see that there's been a lack of action on this matter. Speaker 2: So is this an advocacy role that we now need to walk into state government on? Speaker 1: Yes. Yes, I think it is. But there's also a role for council to play in terms of some of the things that we perhaps don't do to manage our foreshore.
00:40:00 You know anchoring of vessels near the shore and if I use an example Hilton Esplanade has no regulated parking so of course if you're anchoring a vessel along Hilton Esplanade which is lawful anchoring if it's below the high tide mark then you know you can park your car there continuously and that's why you don't end up with so much lawful anchoring on the riverfront along the Noosaville stretch because there's time regulated parking. And also the way that perhaps we manage our boat ramps and allow large vessels to come in without management and the informal boat ramp at Doonella Bridge is an example of that because that's the only location where large vessels can actually be deposited into the river it's under council control but we have no control over the way that facility is used and vessels are deposited in the river. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Councillor Jarrett. Further on that you're raising, I'm getting more and more questions in my head with every
00:41:00 question that you take Michelle. Boat ramps aren't the control of council, they're the control of the state? Speaker 1: It's a mixture. From my understanding is that the infrastructure is usually funded by the state but then it's managed by council. Councillor Jurisevic: Point about anchoring and mooring. So what's the difference between anchoring and a mooring? One is putting your own anchor out, a mooring is a permanent fixture there they can tie to. Speaker 1: Yeah. So mooring is usually, there are different types but if I speak crudely it's usually a concrete block on the river bed with a chain attached to it to a buoy on top and that buoy is specifically designated to a specific vessel. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So there's no time restrictions on anchoring in the Noosa River? Speaker 1: There is no time limits on anchoring in the Noosa River so anyone can bring a vessel in and leave it there forever. Councillor Jurisevic: I was interested in reading your report that the mooring audit by NSQ has revealed a 30% capacity improved monitoring of mooring conditions. Where would we have an increased capacity for 30% more moorings, particularly when
00:42:00 anchorings can occur anyway? Would that help restrict some anchoring? Speaker 1: It certainly provides capacity for taking up the vessels who are currently anchored in the river and who are regularly using their boats or their vessels. So that's the first thing. The audit really was a result of, because up until September 2020, 2020, there was no MSQ presence on the river. So they only established their office in September 2020. And then last year they went about doing an audit of all the moorings. A number of the moorings were just held by people just in case they might have bought a boat or as a holding pattern. And they're still in their name. They're happy to pay the licence fees but actually not using it. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the next question. The licence fees are very moderate. Speaker 1: They're modest, yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Has there been any communication looking at what the fees are for mooring in the river? Speaker 1: There's various options for management of moorings in river.
00:43:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Including time limits? Speaker 1: Yeah. So moorings traditionally are used for vessels that are there for a long period of time. And the model that we've got under management is very simple. MSQ provide a permit, then the boat holder goes and places the mooring in accordance with conditions. And the boat can stay there forever. But there are other opportunities where another entity could actually take up management of the moorings on behalf of Maritime Safety Queensland. And that commonly could be a yacht and rowing club or, you know, or a council for instance. And then they, you know, sometimes what they do is actually own the moorings and put the infrastructure in. And then they manage the use of those moorings for both permanent vessels and visiting vessels. Councillor Jurisevic: So the discussion around anchoring and time limits on anchoring, has that been raised? Speaker 1: Yeah. So to the credit of the NSERAC subcommittee, they provided very comprehensive recommendations to both Council and MSQ on the time limiting. They think it's a great model worth pursuing.
00:44:00 It's consistent with other waterways in other states. It's not rocket science. And, you know, the overall idea that they proposed of a 28-day limit, you know, with any calendar year, would mean that someone who came in across the bar or, you know, put their trailer sailor in the river could happily enjoy the river for up to four weeks in the calendar year and, you know, have a lovely time. And then at the end of it, you know, it might be two two-week blocks, you know, they remove the vessel. Whereas at the moment, this practice of just leaving the vessel on the river is actually doing all of us a disservice because it basically congests up the whole river for everyone. And, you know, whether it's a local or a visitor, we have, you know, probably, and I'll just take this figure out as a random, but, you know, maybe 70% more vessels anchored on the river at the moment than what we need to because they're not being used. So I know I just picked that figure out of the air, but I just wanted you to understand that a lot of the vessels that you see on the river aren't used that regularly.
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 Councillor Jurisevic: A large reason a lot of the vessels are anchored or moored on the river is because there's no fees or very minimal fees and it's far cheaper to put them there than it is to keep them on dry land. Speaker 1: And it is a very attractive river for people who are boat dreamers, you know, who've got to, you know, because they can have the lifestyle on the river, they can access restaurants and bars and, you know, and have a really, that's part of the dream. And they can do it without regulation for now. Councillor Jurisevic: How many of those actually own a property here as well? Speaker 1: Yeah. And, you know, people say, why don't, is there the same issue in Mooroochee River, for instance? Well, Mooroochee River doesn't have anywhere near the same interface of, you know, retail activity. So it's not as necessarily attractive to that sort of lifestyle. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Swapnall. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'd like to move a motion. Bring that up. So it's the staff recommendation to start with, with the addition of A, request a further report to council at a future meeting with a recommended approach to vessel management
00:46:00 on the Noosa River that aims to achieve the strategic intent of the Noosa Plan regarding natural scenic amenity and landscape character. The report should include review and the advice and recommendations of the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group in regard to the relevant issues and proposals in the draft Noosa River Plan, including one, clutter and congestion, two, impediments to use of the river foreshore by local residents and the general public by vessel mooring and anchoring, three, a management framework that regulates anchoring, mooring and living on the river and establishes effective compliance regimes and achieves compliance with them, and four, the potential use of environmental levy or other sources of revenue to fund any enhanced role of council in the management of the river. Councillor Wilkie: Do you have a seconder for that, please? Mayor Stewart. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. And Cathy, if you could bring up the images. In the last round of meetings, I expressed some frustration at the quarterly operational
00:47:00 plan about the lack of momentum on the Noosa River Plan. Since that time, I've come 180 degrees, and I think that is the wrong way to go, because both feedback from staff and the people on the committee that I've been having conversations with, if we wait until we get all those issues resolved, we'll be waiting for a long time. So this motion proposes that we do set our policy or our position based on each individual issue, and as Sean mentioned, that the vessel management was the highest priority. I do so understanding that in the draft river plan, we looked at both values and benefits. And you see the values here are all the natural ecosystem values. And you see there is some significant threats, if you look just where the red is. And when we first thought we'd do a revised river plan, we were bringing all this into the river plan. Whereas now we have the environment strategy, these issues are well dealt with, and we can implement responses.
00:48:00 We can implement responses to these threats through investment in the environment strategy. So we don't need the Noosa River Plan to give us a head of power. Coincidentally, with respect to the first two on the left there in regards to sediment from rural and urban runoff, at the meeting I attended for the mayor in Brisbane, it was the SEQ Regional Planning Committee, but it was focused on flood recovery. It was highlighted that this event, particularly in Brisbane, and most likely here because of its nature, had significantly higher sediment loads. So turbidity, I think they used five to 10 times in 2011. And also a range of councils were saying the work we did after 2011 to try and stabilise our stream banks really worked well. So it's likely that we'd be able to, maybe under the recovery effort, we'd focus some of our attention on that sediment issue through a recovery from these current events, and that we might be able to get funding to really enhance that. Because no doubt anyone who's been in the river, sailing in the lake like I was on the weekend,
00:49:00 knows that the turbidity levels are very high at the moment. So if I move on, happy that we don't need a river plan to address those, which are significant issues. But then it looked at the benefits, and these are things we benefit from. And we looked at the one that I think is really driving this is the benefit of the natural amenity, enjoyment and relaxation the river provides. And you can see here, there's two high risks. One is clearing of riparian vegetation, which, as I said, can be dealt with under the Environment Strategy. The other is the high amount of boat traffic. I think these are the interests of council. And if I go to the next slide, we can see perhaps one of the reasons why MSQ isn't as keen to take local action as us. Because that's their mandate. Their mandate is to protect Queensland waterways and the people who use them, providing safer, cleaner seas. Now, there is some safety benefit from being decluttered and uncongested. But to me, the main driver for us is about the non-powered use, the relaxation, the amenity
00:50:00 benefit, the character of the river. That's what really gets home to people in Noosa. So you can see, while we agreed to go with the department on this journey, their response is fairly typical to departments. That is, when we look at saying, we need this attention to our river, they say, oh, but we've got statewide responsibilities. So we need then to say, well, what can council do to make sure it is a priority? If you move to the next one there. This is where I think we should focus our policy. I think in our corporate plan at the moment, it says Noosa River is clean, has abundant fish life, and maintains its A rating as a goal. I think we add, in maybe the next corporate plan, Noosa River is clean, safe, uncluttered, has abundant fish life, and maintains A rating. I think that benefit that we saw in the risk assessment in the draft of the plan can be broken up to two aspects.
00:51:00 One is the opportunity for activity, lifestyle, and tourism. The other is about natural amenity for enjoyment and relaxation. I think the impact we want to do is we want to make sure, in terms of the first one, that its use is within its natural carrying capacity. That we don't overuse it to a point where the benefit is reduced, which is what I think we're hearing today is what we're saying. It's being overused, therefore the benefits provided to us as a community and as visitors is reduced. And we want to make an impact so that we reduce the clutter and congestion in the lower estuary. The programs that are already highlighted in the draft river plan are about compliance and enforcement, and regulatory reform and co-management of the river. And that's the big question for council. We did a whole citizen's jury in the first Noosa Council post de-amalgamation. In the draft river plan, I think there's two or three different options for the management of the river that would give council some involvement or some head of power to be able to manage the mooring and anchoring.
00:52:00 So one, for example, we looked at the model of a limited harbour. But where we became the harbour master and we charged people. We used Rottnest Island as an example of the sort of cost and fees associated with that. But there's other models. To me, that's what we need to get to. If I hear what our acting manager says and what I hear from the advisory group is, I think they would come up fairly quickly with an agreed model, at least an agreed outcome of the policy they want to achieve. And I think we should get there very soon. I think the issue is, if we wait to address all the issues and then we flounder with, because we've got no adopted policy of council on anything, then it won't do our community service. I think what is proposed in this motion is we deal and we adopt a position on this particular issue and we do it in the near future. And then we can then either go to the government and advocate just that they need to do their
00:53:00 job a bit better, or we can go to the government and say, we think co-management to achieve the multiple benefits from the river is required and we're willing to look at the options for us being involved. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jones. Thank you. Question for either the CEO, the acting manager of the environment, or indeed Councillor Stockwell. Where in this motion do we have our advocacy role? Where does it fit in this and how do we progress beyond a report to council that actually takes that to the next level? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Probably me. With a recommended approach to vessel management, I would expect that that is in the form of a policy framework that we adopt. Whether it's a position statement, whether it's just, you know, we can adopt a position by just a motion. Or we may say, no, this is our policy and adopt a policy position.
00:54:00 So I've deliberately kept it broad. Advocacy is just one option within that response. Councillor Jurisevic: So given that we don't control mooring and... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, but there is an option that we can do. Councillor Jurisevic: ... congestion, how do we then take that to the next state? Yeah, take it to the state. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But as I said, there is an option that we can do. We can take it as we have looked at before. Councillor Jurisevic: It's just how do we take that to the next level and see what the state will and won't deliver? Speaker 1: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Oh, that's our suggestion. I'll ask the CEO and... Speaker 1: I've got a question in response to your question so I understand the scope better, if that's okay, Chair. Yes, of course. So with the motion, are you seeking that the recommended approach is both crossover areas that are solely within local government jurisdiction or expanding to include areas that are within state government jurisdiction? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So... But... Yeah. So that... I tried to use the words in the draft of the plan, but the co-management, I think,
00:55:00 is used there. Yeah. Speaker 1: And that's obviously us and the state working together. So that would go everywhere from declaring a marine park, like Moreton Bay is a marine park... Yeah. ... to the next step down, which might be marine zone... So, in answer to the Councillor Jurisdict's question, I think the advocacy result really needs to await what the recommendations of that report are and what approach Council thinks we should be pursuing because the advocacy outcomes would depend on things that the Council might want us to decide within our remit versus advocate for things which are within state government. Councillor Jurisevic: So, that's where the outcome of the report would be, what goes where. Speaker 1: Yes. So, I suppose I could ensure that that report includes an outline of what advocacy actions
00:56:00 would be required for each of those recommended options. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, that's what I was expecting to hear, but it wasn't clear through that as to what we, until the report's written, what we present to the state as the, that we believe in, and what the shortcomings are and what the necessary actions are, or we feel the necessary actions are to improve and enhance the activities of the river. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. I'd like to move an amendment. Sure. I'd like to move an amendment that Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to discuss with Maritime Safety Queensland as Joint Chair of the Noosa River Advisory Group, providing an invitation to the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance to represent the interest of the Alliance on the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group.
00:57:00 And furthermore, if agreed by Maritime Safety Queensland, that the appointment of the Alliance is made in accordance with the terms of the reference. Speaker 2: Can I, I've got a second, a second of the original. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Right. We have a seconder for that, please. Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. It's a good point for the point of discussion. Thank you. I'm familiar with the group. Speaker 1: Can I speak to that motion? Sure. So the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee. Point of order. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, that's fine. Please do. Speaker 1: Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: You're free to answer questions. Speaker 1: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Fantastic. On Thursday night at Council's ordinary meeting, I'm going to be presenting to Council a petition that's been signed by over 1300 regular river users that have opposed the extension of the seasonal six knot zone. Alarmingly, most of these petitioners were not even aware that the extension of the seasonal
00:58:00 six knot zone was even being considered, including the owner of the largest tackle store in Noosa, Mr. Chico Bella. And none or most of these petitioners, none of them actually even understood why this one size fits all speed limit was being proposed. So what's been going through my head over the last few weeks is how did this happen? Why weren't regular river users represented on this committee? And what opportunities were given to the broader community to participate in the consultation process? Where were the check and balances and where was the data and data analysis that led to a speed limiting review? What is the reason? What's the justification of the review? And where do you find the safety review report? I want to make it clear that I'm actually not opposed to regulation of speed limits.
00:59:00 What I'm opposed to is regulation that falls short of public expectation and regulation that potentially threatens public trust. I'm also opposed to regulation that's not supported by the broader community. If the majority wants six knots, then so be it. But the majority needs to know about the proposal and have their say. The Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group is an important initiative by our council in partnership with the state government and stakeholders. It is a community. However, representation at the moment does not include regular river users, the Noosa fishermen and the powerboat owners. The Noosa Boating Fishing Alliance, it's a newly formed group. In fact, it's been formed, it was formed two and a half weeks ago in response to the proposed six knot speed limit. They're also in the process of being incorporated. So they are, in my opinion, an important stakeholder.
60 minutes in ¶
01:00:00 I went to the terms of reference for the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and I'll quote its purpose. The Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee aims to achieve diverse representation across the community and stakeholders by providing the specific user groups and interests to be represented. As a commitment to this purpose, I put forward this recommendation and I ask that you support the amendment and allow regular river users represented by the Noosa Boating Fishing Alliance to have that opportunity to be represented. Councillor Wilkie: Sean, there's a number of questions posed by our council. Could you please address some of those, including the process by which the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group was established? And the interests represented on there, please.
01:01:00 Speaker 1: Yes. So thanks, Chair. Thanks, Councillor. So the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Committee was formed as a result of a public expression of interest and members selected based on their representation on the river. It does include the current president of the Noosa Commercial Mariners Association, which represents a significant number of the commercial tour boat operators on the river. It also includes representation from a member of the Noosa Yacht and Oring Club, again, a boat user. It also includes representation of the local fishing family, the Massos. So there are significant representation of boat users. It also includes NRM groups, like people who happen to be also members of NICA and Landcare, and also recreational users, such as members of the Outriggers Club. So it is a very diverse user group that have come up with those recommendations. The process of selection, noting that, and the report references this, that we've actually
01:02:00 got, when I drafted the report, one vacancy, but there's actually two vacancies. And I've already been liaising with the former acting CEO, Larry, about going out to public expression of interest to fill the two vacancies. And the NSERAC committee members have noted that those vacancies, ideally, would probably be targeting at more the commercial sector, or the boating sector, versus the conservation sector, because they're well represented. So I'm liaising with our admin officer at the moment to put out a public expression of interest for two additional members on NSERAC. And then, as per the previous list of members, it came to Council for endorsement. So we can put that back to Council for their endorsement. It's going to be hotly contested, because we've actually had about six or seven different approaches of different people put their hand up to want to be on the committee. The second thing I want to point out, for all your benefit, is that the speed review was not something that was stipulated or asked for by NSERAC.
01:03:00 The subcommittee's view, which is articulated in the additional information I sent to you, is that the key issues were vessel management, in terms of mooring, anchoring, and liveaboards, and also enforcement. So the proposal for the speed review came as an aside for Maritime Safety Queensland, that they saw that, as a result of safety incidents, that they wanted to do a speed review on the Noosa River, and presented those findings to NSERAC. So please don't misunderstand that the speed review is something that was populated or projected by NSERAC members. They were just providing their views in response to an MSQ request, the same way when Council's had an issue. Luckily, that's the foreshore dredging program. We presented that to the committee, and the committee had provided their views. And you'll note in that additional information that I sent around by email in response to the subcommittee member, a subcommittee meeting that was held last week, their views are, well, it's an MSQ process.
01:04:00 Let it run its course in terms of consultation. Its highest priority as a subcommittee, the NSERAC subcommittee, is mooring, anchoring, liverboard. And secondly, enforcement. They are the key issues. They're not projecting a particular outcome in terms of the speed review. Councillor Jurisevic: The question that raises for me, then, is that if the MSQ are undertaking that review of speed, how do they then convey that through to the general public and river users and stakeholders, so that they may have an input to the process? Speaker 1: Or do they? Yeah. So they sent letters out to key known stakeholders in the river, including previous members of the previous correspondence, so they, to the NSERAC committee. They've also posted notices at each of the boat ramps to, you know, have a bigger understanding. I don't have jurisdiction over state government or MSQ consultation processes. Councillor Jurisevic: Just wondering what the process was from their perspective, whether you knew that, if they sent it to them. If they have posted that, don't they send a file number for responses?
01:05:00 Speaker 1: Yeah. Originally, it was for a month, which was about the 14th of March, or today. And that has now been extended to the 31st of March as a result of, you know, delays. So they also did arrange a media release, which was certainly highly taken up by local media to, you know, ensure general awareness. And the issue does have general awareness. Councillor Jurisevic: So there would be opportunity here for this newly formed Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance and that petition to be submitted to MSQ for input into the process? Speaker 1: We never asked for it to occur, and neither did the NSERAC members. It was Maritime Safety Queensland who came, you know, arising from a number. And I think you need to appreciate that we have received a significant number of submissions from the community concerned about speed in the Lower River. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry, Sean. So can I ask, was the decision to put the proposal forward, was that voted by the committee or was that, again, a decision that MSQ made?
01:06:00 Speaker 1: It wasn't. It wasn't a resolution of the NSERAC committee. It was something that was just for noting. And the subcommittee provided some views, which weren't totally unanimous. So to, you know, increase MSQ's understanding in preparation for development of their program and putting it out to the public. So the NSERAC committee are fully of the understanding. They're not a decision-making body. And if you look at their terms of reference, they're there to provide advice. And they did so in the best interest from those people around the table about what they thought was appropriate. And I note that that advice still reinforced that the issue is still this mooring, anchoring liver board and enforcement. So which are still unresolved to their satisfaction in the NSERAC River. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell? Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll talk to the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's a couple of problems with it. Firstly, it suggests that we should nominate a group representative. We actually, the terms of reference doesn't allow for that. The terms of reference were specifically worded that we didn't ask groups to put up
01:07:00 nominees. It was about the characteristics of the individual. Now, their ability to network and have linkages into community groups was one of the things we looked at. So firstly, fundamentally, it's contrary to the intent of the terms of reference of the group. So there's one reason why you wouldn't support it. The other is this notion that people with recreation or commercial boating interests aren't already represented. I think every member of that group has boating and or fishing. Some might be there because they're involved and have good knowledge of conservation and NRM groups, et cetera. Speaker 4: But I know all of them. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: They're either recreational boaters and fishers, or they're sailors. Some of them, with their knowledge of conservation and NRM groups, are either recreational boaters on the river. Some of them, who might be there for their conservation and community views, who run
01:08:00 businesses on the river. So to suggest that the current NRAC, which was increased in size to get some gender equity, doesn't represent all the interests of the river, it's flawed, in my opinion. What we have is a fairly typical response to a regulatory change by a government organisation whose responsibility is about safety. You've got a group coming who feel adversely affected by it, and they want to protect their patch. And then they want to come in retrospectively and influence what they think might be a way to influence that decision. The way to influence that decision is by participating fully in the current consultation. That's not saying that when we advertise for two vacancies that someone who's on that group will have the capacity, the skills, the networks, and the credentials to do that. We'll say, okay, yeah, that'll be a good nomination. That's how it goes. It's an open process, as was the original.
01:09:00 It opens up to everyone to apply. And hopefully it adds diversity to the views around the table. So for the reasons I outlined, I can't support the amendment. Councillor Wilkie: I'm sorry. I'm going to speak against the amendment. Only because we have an open process that's been proposed by the NRAC. And it's going to be launched very shortly. Which will be an open expression of interest process for two spare seats on the Noosa River Stakeholder Advisory Group to be filled. And there's absolutely no reason why the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance can't have a representative participate in that process. Rather than the Council being perceived to be giving insight, running to one specific group, when we know there are at least expressions of interest from the State Council. I think there are six or seven, according to the advice from the staff, that would like to be involved. I think in terms of having an open and equitable process, we allow the expression of interest
01:10:00 to take place. And invite the Noosa River Advisory Committee to put forward a representative as part of that process. And that will also give them a chance by that stage to be incorporated. Currently they're unincorporated. We've given them a chance to become organised, incorporated and participate more fully in an open process. And the Council will not be perceived to be getting insight running to any one of these stakeholder groups. And as was mentioned also, the Council really has little to do with this process that MSQ is running. At the moment about six knots on the river. So, in terms of... Some of the issues that I've seen is the equity and openness of process of the supporting the expression of interest process. And not seeking to be perceived to be short-cutting that by supporting this motion.
01:11:00 Just a sorry, it's an eminence. Councillor Wegener: I'll speak to it. I really understand. I get where Amelia's coming from. There's a lot of things I don't understand, though. I don't understand why this proposal is not... It seems that we are concerned with lack of enforcement on the river of MSQ, while at the same time we're wildly increased in the laws regulating the use of the river. I mean that this is a the six knot regulation is a huge change to the river and it's a huge change to the way primarily I see kids using the river. I grew up on the river on water and I love little boats and there's no way in the world I could ever drive six knots. It just couldn't happen and so all of a sudden we are putting in, you know, apparently even though we're not because we have no influence over MSQ right now.
01:12:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's point of order. We're demanding an amendment about a consultation process not about the MSQ's review of speed limits. Okay. So it's out of order. Councillor Wegener: Yeah, you're right. Okay. Well, I've got a lot of questions here. I'm confused as to why it's here. And it's my gestalt as I suppose. And really because I just can't believe that this is this is here. But yeah, I don't understand and that I'll go back on a speak to that further when we go back to the other motion. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wegener: Good. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor is receiving the amendment. I appreciate where Councillor Lorentson is coming from. Newly formed organisation that has arisen as a result of what appears to be a consultation process on MSQ proposal. Which is, a petition has arisen that is associated with that and as a result we get a formation of a new body that wants to represent those that are associated with boating and fishing on the river that may be impacted.
01:13:00 So that's great to see. And I look forward to seeing them incorporated and the strength of their membership grow over time so that they do have a voice and can affiliate those voices that perhaps think they're not being heard or seen. Given that we've had explanation of how the process goes with regard to the Noosa River Advisory Committee, I won't be supporting the amendment. And that doesn't preclude the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance from making representation for inclusion on the River Advisory Committee if and when those vacancies are made available. Speaker 2: Thank you, Councillor. I've got a question for Sean. Sean, how many positions? You said there's about four to six people who are looking to develop. How many positions are we looking at developing? Two. Two. Okay.
01:14:00 So I will speak to the motion. Look, I will support this motion. I think that this group, Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance, they've clearly got a significant amount of community interest behind them. I understand what Councillor Wilkie is saying, that there is a process that needs to be completely open and transparent. And I know that there are two positions vacant. But this is the word discuss. Let's focus on that. Because we're not actually saying they're going to definitely get a position. This is authorised the Chief Executive Office to discuss with Maritime Safety. So this in a way is, and I imagine that discussion would be very prudent and take a number of factors and considerations. And it would be a rigorous process. So I do think that the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance, all the credit students for being incorporated and for the amount of people who are regular river users, I think we can't ignore that voice. And I think certainly this is an opportunity to discuss. And also they also have the opportunity as well to engage with the process and to make
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 an application through the advisory, community advisory group. So I will support that. I will support this amendment. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Shire. Councillor Finzel, do you wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Finzel: Firstly, I'd like to thank Councillor Lorentson for bringing that representation of community voice to the table. It's really important that we do be seen to be a council that actively engages with community. I also want to applaud that group for coming together and engaging in that process. I think that's really positive to see. I see people active in community and pursuing that. However, I today cannot support the amendment. I think that we have to also to engender trust in our governance and process, that we have to be seen to honour that process and look to be seen as that we are providing equity in that space for all key people who are interested in having a say.
01:16:00 So I like the idea, the spirit behind it. I truly support community engagement. And I think that's really important. But it's also including the gab and supporting their voice at the table. I just think that we need to follow due process. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lawrensonow follow us? Councillor Lorentson: I do. I think everyone has not read or understood the wording of the amendment. Councillor Stewart, Mayor Stewart has identified the word discuss. And the other word that people have sort of missed is that if such an appointment is made, it was made in accordance with the terms of reference. That is due process, councillors. Okay, in reference to some comments made by Councillor Stockwell, that the group is representative of these regular users,
01:17:00 if that's the case, Councillor Stockwell, why am I about to present a petition with over 1,300 people who two and a half weeks ago found out about the proposed speed limits? Thirdly, I want to just quickly sort of touch on the notion of petitions and why they're here. I've got a petition and a petition with 1,300 residents in our community. To me, a petition, that petition identified some serious issues and concerns with one, the consultation process and the makeup of the representative group. Firstly, that the representative group failed to represent a large section of Noosa River users. And secondly, the community consultation was not publicly available. There was nothing on the MSQ website and I only knew about it from Sandy Bolton's website.
01:18:00 So please, I ask you to rethink your vote and understand the intent of the amendment. Namely, to acknowledge those 1,300 people who weren't given, until just recently, an opportunity to make their views heard. And two, to authorise the CEO to discuss with MSQ, as joint chair of the Noosa River Advisory Committee, to provide an invitation to the NBFA to represent their interest. And if such appointment's made, then it's made in accordance with the terms of reference. According to due process. So please, rethink your decision. In closing, I'm going to take this opportunity to thank two people.
01:19:00 Andrew McCarthy and Mr Chico Vela, for raising their voice for over 1,300 plus regular river users. And for also letting me understand the unintended consequences that these proposed changes might have made. What these proposed changes may mean to regular boat users, who use the river to commute to work and to buy groceries. And to people in the tourism industries and small business, the trickle down effect to accommodation providers, cafe owners and restaurants. And as Councillor Wegener mentioned, to our kids. If you guys sit comfortable with the notion that if a kid at 7 o'clock on a Monday morning, outside peak season, travelling at 8 knots is going to be hit with a $280 fine, then there's something not right. You know, enforcement is the issue. And enforcement is something that's been identified as a top priority of the Noosa River Advisory Committee.
01:20:00 Not regulation. Regulation has the force of law. And that's really serious. So please, rethink your vote. And I ask you to support my amendment. Councillor Wilkie: I'll put that amendment a thousand favour. Councillor Lorentson, Councillor Stewart, Councillor Wegener, those against. Councillor Jurisevic, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilkie. Amendment's lost. We go back to the original motion to which only Councillor Stockwell has spoken. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: Just a question. John, would this add, if we pass this, would this add more work, put more work onto your place? Do you feel?
01:21:00 Speaker 1: I have the new Principal Environment Officer River Strategy and Engagement starting next Monday. So rather than juggling two jobs, as I've been doing since October, I'll just have one job. So they'll have the capacity to advance these things. I actually don't mind it because it actually goes a bit back to first principles. Because when NSERAC rose the high priority issue being mooring, anchoring and liveaboard, MSQ tabled a solution. You know, because we had a different co-chair there and they jumped to that conclusion saying, that makes sense. Whereas this almost takes a step back to say, well, what is the full suite of tools we can use and what is the most effective to implement? You know, with this resistance we're now getting from MSQ who are more interested in a statewide solution, you know, what are the other avenues that Council can be exploring in terms of its suite of tools to assist with vessel management on the Noosa River? So I think this would be a good exercise to do. Councillor Jurisevic: So another question for Sean.
01:22:00 Given that we're talking about the River Stakeholder Advisory Committee and those two vacancies, when is it likely that those two vacancies will come up for public? Speaker 1: So I've got the public notice drafted and it's sitting with the planning administration officer. So I've also been in contact with Charlie Vela and various others. Chico? Chico. And they're well aware. I've said we'll be going out in the near future. And what I've done is said that as soon as it is out in the public on Council's website and on local media, I'll directly let them know as well. Councillor Jurisevic: And is it a requirement of the structure of that committee, the processes in place that someone has to be in, an incorporated body? Speaker 1: No. If you're part of it? Speaking to a committee. It's meant to be individuals, but as part of that, you know, they're meant to be well-connected in representing various bodies and have experience with the Noosa River.
01:23:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So someone like Chico Vela that's had a significant bait shop in town that connects with a number of babies would be somebody that would be well-considered? Speaker 1: I can't speak on behalf of... Councillor Jurisevic: If he placed his... Yeah. Potentially if he placed his head in the ring. Speaker 1: Can't speak on behalf of the co-chairs or the eventual council decision. Councillor Wegener: Council, what do you make of it? Could I make a motion to defer this motion to the ordinary meeting? Because I'm really not understanding a lot of stuff here. We just came directly to general here, read the reports, asked questions and so forth. But this is, you know, my opinion is just adding another maelstrom on top of a maelstrom of inaction so far with the committee. And I just want to get my head straight. Whether this is going to be beneficial or... Just add more confusion because as we've said, the committee has, is really frustrated with inaction. It hasn't done much so far.
01:24:00 And all that seems to have come out of it is a six knot zone limit, which I, again, I'm not understanding why it's in front of us right now. Because if we have no impact on it and the committee had no impact on it and it's all MSQ, why is it here? So that, so there's just, I just have, I was just, I was... I'd love to, to defer this, to make a motion to defer this. Speaker 1: So, I, just correct you, I believe the committee's actually been very active. I'll just correct you that in their view, it's been both council and MSQ who have been ineffective in addressing their key issues. Okay. So, and, and they have invested a lot of time in recommending solutions and quite detailed solutions for anchoring mooring in Liverpool. So, they never proposed the speed review. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Speaker 1: So, that came, as council can come to that committee and advise, advise, ask for their view on a particular proposal. So, MSQ came to the committee to ask their views on a particular proposal and, and it, it, it probably did come from the notion of enforcement.
01:25:00 They do believe that the changing speed limit in the Lower Noosa River is very, very difficult to enforce. Councillor Wilkie: So... So, it's a procedural motion that we defer, further discussion and debate on this issue. Do you want to, do you want to say more? Councillor Wegener: Yeah, I'd like to speak. Councillor Wilkie: Can we have, can we have... I'm happy to support that. Do you think it's already been moved and seconded? Councillor Wegener: No, it hasn't been seconded yet. Councillor Wilkie: Oh, the original has. The original has. The original has, but my understanding is procedural motion can be moved at any time. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, they can do that. Councillor Wilkie: So, um, that the matter be, that the, yeah, be deferred to the ordinary meeting. Meeting on Thursday night. Moved by Councillor Wegener. Councillor Lorentson: I'll second that. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Lorentson.
01:26:00 Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Um, I just, lots of questions. And to close with what Sean mentioned is that, that the group is actually very, very confident and happy with what, with what they've done. They've been very proactive that there's, the State has been dragging their feet. Perhaps they're frustrated with talents a little bit. I would just like to know the playing field a bit more. Here I've made an accusation that it's not been totally ineffective or been ineffective, but it actually hasn't been ineffective. And I make that statement out of not really knowing enough about this. Yeah, I don't feel the report gives me that overview that I need to support or not support the motion here. And I'm very wary of policy on the ground, so that's why I asked to have further information on this.
01:27:00 Through the week. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Tom. Look, I want to speak to the motion. Speaker 1: I'm just going to note that the August report to the P&E Committee provide an extensive outline of the proposed anchoring mooring Liverpool controls. Councillor Wegener: I'm all in favour of those. Those are great. I just want to see those enacted. That's number one. And it seems that we keep sliding away from that. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'm going to speak to this motion. I don't support it because it has the effect of a gag motion, where this is an opportunity for us to learn more. And interrogate the staff and discuss the issues before us that has the opposite effect of what I'm understanding Councillor Wegener is actually seeking. Also, we do not make final decisions on any motion until the ordinary meeting anyway. There is ample opportunity between now and Thursday night for any councillor to seek out, sit down with any staff member, revisit any report, to get across the material and have all their questions answered.
01:28:00 This has the effect of a gag order. And for that in turn is contrary to the spirit of the voting debate and inquiry. So I cannot support it. Speaker 2: That's a good question. Thank you. Sean, when you said that the State Water Advisory Group is quite frustrated with MSQ and also Council, can you give me an example of what we haven't done or could do that they're frustrated with? Speaker 1: One of the things we could do is explore the notion of bathing reserves declaration on the Noosa River. Councillor Wilkie: So I'm going to intervene there. But what we're talking about is the procedural motion to the Noosa River. So can we just look at our questions and debate, proceed to that, please. Mayor, would you like to? No, no. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I too won't support it. I understand that Councillor Wegener perhaps is grappling with what the intent is. The intent is to get council to make a decision based on the advice of both staff and the advisory committee. So the concept that this would push it further away is exactly the opposite to what the motion would do. This motion brings it to a head and says we want staff to report to us so we can make a decision.
01:29:00 And we can make a decision on what options we want to pursue as a council. And that can include advocacy. It can include co-management. It can include other levers we can use. So to me, together with this concept, it's better to have this sort of open questioning at this meeting rather than at an ordinary meeting. I don't think it's necessary. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor, would you like to speak to the procedural motion? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, look, I understand likewise that Councillor Wegener has some need for further clarification on the rest of it. But this proceeding from this meeting to the ordinary meeting does not preclude the councillor from asking further questions and in fact having that item dealt with separately at the ordinary committee. So I don't see the need for the procedural motion.
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 I don't see a need for a procedural motion. I think the opportunity still exists within the process as it goes forward to deal with the matter separately and to pull the item out for further debate if the council deem necessary. Councillor Wilkie: No councillors wish to speak to the procedural motion. Tom, do you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Councillor Wilkie: Go ahead. I'll put the motion as in favour. Councillor Wegener? No. Everyone else? No. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. So my question was, you said there was some frustration there with the council and MSQ. What could we do to, or what haven't we done, I guess, to create that frustration? Speaker 1: I think that, speaking on behalf of NSWAC subcommittee members and members of the council, I think
01:31:00 they think that council could play a much more assertive role in advocacy with the state government to devise controls. And then I think we could explore a suite of actions that are clearly within council jurisdiction in terms of riverbank usage, about the way we see our riverbank being used. And some of that's enforcement, so that we've got, when a boat does tie up to a tree or anchor above the high-water mark, that we're straight onto it, where tenders are stored above the high-water mark in particular places like Noosa Woods and the like. They're actually, you know, impounded because it's actually within our jurisdiction. And then there's other things we can do in terms of, you know, particularly the concerns for the houseboat village, you know, near the Doonella Bridge, about management of that particular boat ramp or informal boat ramp, and also regulated parking along it. Speaker 2: So, Sean, in fairness to council, though, I haven't seen anything that they've actually specifically written to us and asked for that, asked for those advocacy in those areas.
01:32:00 Speaker 1: Yeah. It's been more peripheral to the main question because they really do think that the main issue does rely on MSQ coming up with the timed anchoring, but there is a role for council to play to support that. And I think with the capitulation by MSQ on the mooring and anchoring, I think they're going to come to council looking for us to refocus on the peripheral things that we could do to support better vessel management in the river. Speaker 2: So that would be good, I think, for all of us potentially to have that in writing, these specific requests of us as a council so we can act on them because otherwise we don't know. Yes. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. I can raise that one. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Can I just ask a question? Yes, please. Sean, who gets the revenue raised by the moorings? Speaker 1: Maritime Safety Queensland. Okay. Councillor Finzel: And I don't know if this is a question back to you or who it is. When I look back at a lot of mention in the report is around a governance model and also raised with the following objectives in RSARC on five, they consider the long-term best
01:33:00 practice governance for the Noosa River and its catchment, including clear visions and goals. And I think the conversations we've had here today are really positive around where we've identified the actions, this group has brought that to us, our attention, the communities voiced it, especially through Council Lawrence's engagement with the community there to bring their voice to the table. Have we looked significantly at a governance model, like how do we, there may be one in place that you're following, what does that look like and is that a model that needs further exploration to provide that very strategic governance model that everyone sits under and has their place in that to inform MSQ or Council to bring everything together. I feel like there isn't a point, and there may well be, that I'm unaware of, that where
01:34:00 does that sit? Who's taking the key role in governance around this? Speaker 1: So the governance model that Council has set up for this two-year period is a unique initiative of Council, there's no legislation which requires bodies to come together to manage a river, and yet we have Council responsible for the land and various state agencies responsible for the river. So Noosa Council, to its credit, has suggested this governance model of the Noosa River State Governing Advisory Committee, made up of diverse sectors of the community, and in this instance, co-chaired by a state government representative. So we'd know of no other governance model like this on a river in Queensland, so with this sort of guidance methodology. So what I was suggesting in the report is, you know, it'd be great for the committee and Council to consider, well, how has this governance model worked, what it should look like in the future, how can we tap into additional legislation and other mechanisms.
01:35:00 So it's meant to be a bit of a self-reflection, so I think collectively because of our interest in the Noosa River, even though it's not technically mostly in Council's jurisdiction, I think it's imperative that we take a leading role in advocating for the best Noosa River outcomes, and I think that the Noosa River State Governing Advisory Committee should endure for decades with appropriate leadership and resourcing. But I think we need to nuance exactly what that looks like, so yeah, it's meant to be a review to figure out what is the best model moving forward after this. Councillor Finzel: And do you, you know, do you think that is coming round to the table more often with like a round table like we've done with the quarry to bring all the key stakeholders together on a more regular basis, is that, or is that what we're going to discuss moving forward? Speaker 1: It could be, it's probably worthwhile pointing out that when I started in my previous role in Council, it was a two to three day a week appointment, you know, working with a small committee, but we can see that, you know, the topic has generated a lot of community
01:36:00 interest and, you know, and as part of the, you know, budget planning process we've now allocated for that person to be a full-time person, you know, supporting, you know, the Noosa River. So I think there's going to be an ongoing, you know, demand for this type of, you know, leadership and advocacy for a better outcome for us all. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. I'd like to move an amendment. It'll be an item B. And it reads that Council invite the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance to the council's board meeting to discuss the future of the Noosa Boating and Fishing To participate in the open expression of interest process to fill two vacant spaces on the Noosa Liver Stakeholders Advisory Committee.
01:37:00 And then participate in the upcoming, second line, participate in the upcoming publicly advertised expression of interest process to fill two vacant spaces on the Noosa Liver Stakeholders Advisory Committee.
01:38:00 Along with other interested parties to participate in the upcoming publicly advertised expression of interest process to fill two vacant spaces on the Noosa Liver Stakeholder Advisory Committee. May I have a second? I'm happy to second that. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Lorentson: Do you want to say to fill one of the two? Councillor Wilkie: No.
01:39:00 Councillor Jurisevic: To fill vacant, any vacant spaces? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, it's been seconded. To fill, yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, just leave it to fill vacant spaces. Vacant spaces. Councillor Wilkie: Well, I'm going to say I'm going to leave it at two because it's, there's two vacant spaces. But, I think that. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, because it's open to other interested parties. Councillor Wilkie: To fill the two vacant spaces. Yeah, the expression of interest process will be two vacant spaces. It doesn't mean that. Yeah. Correct. So, thank you, Councillor Finzel for seconding that. Councillors, the reason I've done this is to send a message that there is going to be an open process. It's underway. It's preparations for this open process. We're open to having representation from the Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance participate in this open process. They may, it's, we're not saying no to them. We're open to hearing their, having their input on the committee should they be selected.
01:40:00 I just think it's a better way to go. It's, it also is a more. It's a more complete representation of the actions Council's going to take in the space regarding the committee. And I think it sends a message to the community more broadly that there are two vacant spaces. And that we're looking for people to, to, to, to make application for a correct process. That's the spirit of it, Councillor. It's the observation. I'll second it. I'll second it. Thanks. Yep. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question to Sean? So the amendment as written, is that in accordance with the terms of reference? Speaker 1: Yes, I believe that would be. Councillor Lorentson: So the wording that I used in the previous amendment terms of reference would have encapsulated this amendment?
01:41:00 Speaker 1: I think this amendment is better worded. It makes it more open and transparent, which is Council's intent. Yep. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll support the motion that, I think the Council invite an individual to represent the interests of Noosa Boating and Fishing Alliance is perhaps better wording to be more tightly in compliance with the terms of reference as it's established, but that's fine. We know what we're trying to do. I think also it's, it's good that we do have this group forming, you know, in previous endeavours by Council. One of the difficulties was when we had people looking at, you know, commercial fishing, when we had people looking at historic fishing rates, et cetera, they were always difficult in finding where to direct, and so we'd be going to individuals, but if we do have a Boating and Fishing Alliance that has a constitution to achieve certain aims for the river, then that will be a useful role, you know, they may be not just lobbying, they may choose then to grow into educating users and going for grants from Council to, you know, to, you know, to, you know, to
01:42:00 get, you know, better behaviours on the river. So to me, it is important to say, yes, it is something, those interests, I think, you know, the general interests of boating and fishing are well represented, but if we've got a group who has a really strong focus on it, who have, you know, key individuals, and I know some of the names being mentioned have previously been involved in consultation processes that I've talked about, but to me, it just says, yes, we're not excluding you from the process, but we need to be open and honest in accordance with this process that we've got in place. The reason why I would have thought leaving off the two vacant spaces is, I also think there's probably an opportunity to go out broadly and have a suite of potentially suitable candidates to fill any future vacant processes, so we're not always having to re-advertise. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Suffolk. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Suffolk will speak to the amendment. Councillor Jones. Councillor Jones. Councillor Jones. Councillor Jones. Councillor Jones. Councillor Jones.
01:43:00 Councillor Jones. Councillor Jones. Councillor Jones. It shows that there is an open expression of interest process to be undertaken, and I, like Councillor Stockwell, welcome a new representative body that will fulfil any role that they, or any representation they feel is being covered under the current representations on the committee, or that those voices aren't being heard elsewhere within the community. So if a body can be formed there that represents 1,200 or more recreational fishermen and boaters, I'd welcome them to participate in the process. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to thank Councillor Wilkie for taking the time to rethink my amendment and putting it in this wording, and acknowledging those 1,300 plus petitioners that I'm going to be presenting to Council.
01:44:00 So good on you, Frank. Councillor Wilkie: You know, the council should speak to the amendment. I'll put the amendment in motion's favour, the council will add some unanimous, that becomes part of the original motion, to which only council will stop when I've spoken. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Nothing more needs to be said. Councillor Jurisevic: If only that were the case. Yeah, do we want to debate that? I do see where this is coming from. I do see that there's an element of frustration with regards to actually delivering on the outcomes for river management going forward. The points that Councillor Stockwell has picked out here are the main points that have been raised to date. I think there's also a little of inaction.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 With council there's an element of education, there's signage that is out of date that needs to be addressed and those are things that are within council's regime and responsibilities that we can facilitate in that regard. But these are the main points that have been raised and a request here and the point I was raising further that this does do is facilitate how that advocacy does occur because that's the part that's missing. It's all well and good to have the words on paper and all the rest of it. But we need to actually have the process by which we capture all of that and then present it to the MSQ and any other bodies on the river so that we do facilitate improvements and enhancements of the management of the river. Thank you, Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Well, councillors, the issue of a petition has been raised and in interest of balancing out, I've had a request from a member of the public, Joanne Daly. She's also a member of the Minister River Stakeholder Committee.
01:46:00 She'd also like to, councillors, to consider some videos that she provided, which she says shows vessels ignoring the six knot speed limit, travelling in close proximity to other river users in, contrary to the law, the regulations and the impact, the dangers that they're posing and the reasons why they're also an opposing side to the petitioners and the public. She says about the six knot speed limit and why some people in the community will be supporting the MSQ, will be submitting the proposal, MSQ's proposal to be supported. So can we just run through them first? Speaker 2: Can I ask a question, Mr CEO? Sorry, Mr Chair. Is this relevant to the motion before us? Speaker 8: It has been spoken about through the Chair during the debate, Mayor, about the six knot speed limit. Yep. And my understanding is that councillor Wilkie's chair is just trying to demonstrate an ultimate point of view around this.
01:47:00 It's not potential, really. Speaker 2: But if we have nothing to do with the six knots, it's an MSQ decision and MSQ put it out. In fact, we're so arm's length removed from it. I'm just wondering if it is relevant. Speaker 8: Chairing through the, through the Chair and Mayor, I may defer to Sean on that, if that's possible. Councillor Wilkie: If I may say, had councillor Lorentson not gone so hard on the petition and the MSQ and the six knots, this need to balance out that comment would not be necessary. Thank you, Mr Chair. Sean? Speaker 1: I think it's a fair comment, the Chair, because you've heard lots of views opposing the reduction of the speed limit. But there are significant members of the community who fully support Maritime Safety Queensland in their efforts to reduce it. And I think in the terms of balance, I think it would be important. Speaker 2: But just on the proviso that this is very much an MSQ driven thing. This isn't a council driven thing. I think it really needs to be noted. Councillor Wilkie: I'll point my one petitioner presenter also in that. Yeah.
01:48:00 Okay, if we can just run through them. This is... Contrary to the speed limits at certain times of the year. Speaker 1: At different times of the year, if it's normal times of the year, it's 20 knots. If it's Christmas and Easter holidays, it's six knots. Councillor Jurisevic: Nine hundred or something like that. I don't know what the speed limit was there. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, how do we know that location? Councillor Jurisevic: The 19th of December is...
01:49:00 Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair, can I ask a question? Yes. Just through the Chair. There are already existing rules about what we've just seen, isn't there? That you can't... You should be travelling at six knots if you're 30 minutes... 30 metres... Riding 30 metres within a boat user or a swimmer. So that's an enforcement issue that we're looking at at the moment. Speaker 1: Yeah, and in each of those videos, depending on the time of the year, I don't know whether those vessels were breaking the law or not. That's right. Because, yeah, so I don't know. To me, it looked like that they were in excess of 30 metres away from both the pontoon or the jetty and the other users. So if that was taken at a different...
01:50:00 You know, if that was taken non-Christmas or non-Easter, those vessels looked like they were doing, you know, everything... Councillor Wilkie: And they also provided this, so it's taken during the Christmas period. Speaker 1: Christmas period, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, so... Yeah, just look at the last one. As you say, it's not a council issue. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So once again, sorry, through the chair.
01:51:00 So that was taken 19th of December during the Christmas period. So during the Christmas period, there is a seasonal six knot limit. Speaker 1: Yes. So if those vessels were travelling more than six knots and I'm not a mariner, they would have been breaking the law. Councillor Lorentson: That's right. And they may be breaking the law because there is already an existing rule that six knot is the maximum speed limit. So during the Christmas period. Okay, so the petition is opposing a 365-day six knot speed limit, not a seasonal speed limit. Okay, thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to talk about what the petition is related to. Councillor Wegener: So those were just three videos of people breaking the law then. That's it. Speaker 2: So it shows the value of enforcement. Enforcement is the issue, not the need for a six knot one-size-fits-all. Right. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you.
01:52:00 Councillor Finzel: Excuse me, through the chair. I just have a question then to clarify. Earlier on, Sean, did you say that the petition should actually go to the state government, not to council? Speaker 1: I didn't mention that, but I think the petitioners are well aware of the consultation process with the state government and well aware that it needs to go there from my understanding of correspondence and the like. And they had submitted it. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: The other point, Marnie, is that the videographer has over 150 videos showing exactly the same scenario over and over again. These have been reviewed by MSQ. Good. Councillor Wilkie: All right. Anybody else care to talk to the motion before us about the CEO doing a further report on the council's actions on anchoring more in little boards? Speaker 1: Can I suggest, for the purposes of perhaps NSERAC members and others,
01:53:00 if there'd be a sentence in there in recognition of NSERAC priority, concerning the highest priority on the river is mooring, delivering an anchoring board or vessel management? Because I think that would just show response to the issues that they're continuing to raise. Councillor Stockwell, how would you? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got no objection, but I can't do it. No. Someone else had to move. I know. Speaker 1: And I know I'm taking it from an officer perspective, so I acknowledge that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That is the driver, obviously. That's why that issue's going. It is the driver. We're out of the advice that that's the current issue. Councillor Wilkie: We'll think about some wording for Thursday night. Thursday night. Yeah. Do we have a run here? Yeah. You can tell. Councillor Finzel: Perhaps we just... Why can't we do it now, given the debate previously about not driving it forward here is our opportunity? Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I'll give you some of the opportunity to think about the wording, rather than on the run, to actually come up with the appropriate wording for Thursday night. There's still an opportunity for Thursday night. Speaker 1: You could just put in... Councillor Jurisevic: You can propose some wording if you can. You're welcome to.
01:54:00 Councillor Finzel: Sure. Okay, then. Okay. So, requested for the report. Can we specifically report in response to... Speaker 2: Is this a new number or...? Councillor Finzel: Well, won't it go in front of A? At the beginning of A. So, here? Yes. So, item A... Yes. In response to... The recommendation from... Councillor Lorentson: Can I just copy it so I can get... Yes. Councillor Finzel: What's that? Councillor Lorentson: What are we going to change? Councillor Finzel: If you go to A, where it says request, prior to that, can you please add, in response to the report to Council by the Environmental Services Manager acting to the P&E Committee
01:55:00 date at 8th of March? Councillor Lorentson: We've already got that up there. Oh. This is just changing... Councillor Finzel: Isn't it just clarification as to why we're making this decision and to clarify...? Councillor Wilkie: Well, perhaps... Well, perhaps if we hear Sean's point, it may assist you. Sure. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thanks, Sean. Speaker 1: Can we go down to the committee recommendation, Cathy? Yeah. So, I just wonder... The Council note the report by the Environmental Services Manager acting to the Planning Environment Committee date at the March, providing update on activities of the Noosa River Stakehold Advisory Committee. And note, in response to the high priority of vessel management in the river, and note the planned focus for 2022, A. Councillor Lorentson: Up here, right? Speaker 1: Yeah. That could do it. I think then that would allow me, when I email the NSWRC members, to say, Council have listened, and they understand that this is a matter that is high priority, and you're not getting enough traction.
01:56:00 And they want to work on it. Councillor Finzel: Yes. So, it's actually a preamble to the motions. Yes. If you want to change. Okay. To show the link between our action and the report. Because that's... Everyone wants action, right? I see that's the most valuable thing of the debate. Yeah. So, we're going to action this to move it forward to get the outcomes instead of just... Can you just say that again? Is it in here? Speaker 1: Provide an update on the Noosa River Stakehold Advisory Committee. And note, in response to the high priority of vessel management in the Noosa River, A. Councillor Finzel: Something like that. To include the objectives... To include... From the NRSAC. Yeah. On page 4157 of the report. Yeah. To include mooring, anchor, and... Speaker 1: I think just leaving vessel management... Okay.
01:57:00 ...in there would be fine. That would give me enough... Councillor Finzel: Okay. Speaker 1: ...nexus to explain it to them. Sure. Thank you. But the intent was... Councillor Jurisevic: Vessel management's already there at the beginning, Kat. Speaker 8: I'm having a second. Oh, sorry. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, you don't have to include in there. Councillor Jurisevic: The high priority vessel management in the river and the... So how do we add that to the plan focus? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Maybe... Is it in the plan focus for 2022? Speaker 8: But you've already also got to note the plan focus, because that's what your actual focus is. Speaker 1: And note the plan focus. Note the plan focus. Yeah. There you go. Councillor Finzel: Okay. Thank you, everybody. I'm happy to say thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Karen. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Sure. I'm happy to include this today. I think it really signifies the link between the work that's being done and the objectives
01:58:00 back by the NRSAC in 2022 back to Council, especially given all its stakeholders want to get some action. I think we need to not delay this any further and let this precede this item so that we can have... We can have clear, concise communication about how this came about. Councillor Wilkie: And Councillor Finzel. Anybody else wish to speak? Councillor Finzel, would you like to close? Councillor Finzel: I'm happy to proceed forward. Thank you, Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: We'll put the amendment rule in favour. That's unanimous. Go back to the original motion. Councillor Stockwell, if you wish to close. Can I speak? Councillor Lorentson: Yes, you may. I'm a little bit like Councillor Wegener on this. A few red flags for me. The fact that we're all sitting here trying to digest the enormity of the amendment and there's been no workshop and no real clarity around what's actually being asked.
01:59:00 Other red flags was some preamble... Some conversation that was had by Councillor Stockwell and I've written some concerns. Council heeded power to manage moorings. Red flag. Potential use of environment levy for management of the river. Red flag. These are real concerns with me and something that I really want to understand before agreeing to. We're council, we've got to stick to core business and we've got to understand we need to swim in our own lane. And I don't know whether we're agreeing to something co-management. Get it. And that's the intent of the advisory group. But I have got some red flags. However, I will support this because it's simply a request for a review and further information
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 and a recommendation. But I do want to also put on the table that we need as a council not to continue doing this. The implications. We've just spoken about a proposal to change a six knot speed limit. You know, the unintended consequences. If this group of 1300 people hadn't picked something up, we might be sitting here in six months' time with a 365, one size fits all, six knot speed limit. So I think we need to understand short term, medium term, long term implications of every decision we make here at council. This is what we need to do. We need to have a decision making forum. And I just want to raise that I really don't want to be continually agreeing to these sorts of amendments on the run.
02:01:00 But this deserves serious discussion and analysis. Again, I will approve it only because it's a request. But I really don't want to continue to be making these sorts of decisions. Speaker 2: Thank you. I will support the motion on the basis that it deals with, and as I've said, this is something that a miserable stakeholder advisory group have to do. I don't want to make any suggestions about the management for regulating anchoring, mooring and living on the river. I think that's really important that we address those concerns and that we as a council take an interest in that. In regards to the six knots, I think we need to make it very clear that that is something that is a state government issue, that it's run by the state government, and that it was their doing. And I think there is often blurred lines between responsibilities of state and council. And I think in this instance, we need to ensure, and I'm really grateful that we have those, the community members have stood up and provided their voice.
02:02:00 It's important for us to hear that. But we need to communicate that this is, that was MSQ driven. And I agree, we need to swim in our lane, and we need, but if we can act on or influence on any of those things about the moorings, about the congestion, about the potential environmental impacts, I think that's a positive thing. And that's why I will support this. But as soon as we start talking about, you know, regulation, when it regards to six knots, 12 knots, 15 knots, five knots, whatever it is, we need to ensure that the community know that that is MSQ driven. That's what we need to communicate. So I will support this motion. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. Thank you. I was about to leave an amendment to code to tidy that up. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Wegener and Councillor Finzel will get to speak if they wish. Councillor Finzel: I'd just like to reiterate, I think, you know, we've got to get some traction where we move
02:03:00 forward. I'm happy today that this recommendation is hopefully giving us, you know, the next step in front of us. I think it's important for continuous improvement. I think this gives us opportunity to continue the conversations, given that it is, you know, one of the first groups around a river, a shoreline. It's a governance model where everyone gets equity at the table and I guess good on us and the community for working together to drive something forward that doesn't have a roadmap. We're constructing it as we go along and I think in terms of that to be innovative you have to have some risk where we go this isn't exactly sitting concrete but we're prepared to bring everyone along and try and engage effectively to achieve outcomes that I think the whole community including council, MSC, community members and all the groups that we have tried to you know put out that expression of interest to come on board and I think moving forward I think this is a good starting point or it's not a starting point it's part of that process to continue the dialogue and and give voice to the table so I'm happy to support it today.
02:04:00 Councillor Wegener: Well I'm actually a little bit surprised that well I still have a lot of questions there's a lot of red flags I'm very pleased that that Sean and staff support this motion and that it appears to me though that this is supporting what the group wants because they want more action from council in regards to the moorings and so forth and perhaps council isn't pushing for it. This amendment seems to push the goals that we want and not necessarily the six knot speed limit which has just put us into a tailspin and me anyway so I won't support it for now I won't say that I wouldn't support it on Thursday night but I just would love to learn more and be really confident with what's up here because it is a colossal move forward I feel and I'm fully supportive of the river group but I think it's a colossal move forward I feel and I'm fully supportive of the river group but I think it's a colossal move forward I feel and I
02:05:00 love where they're going and I just worry that this would add another layer of bureaucracy essentially to them getting their goal done achieving the goal of moorings and liveaboard boats and all those things that we really want to happen so I'm just gonna not support it now but not to say that I wouldn't support it on Thursday night. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question through the chair? Yes of course. Councillors are not permitted to be observers on the River Advisory Committee meetings unless there is a specific reason.
02:06:00 Can I request that that gets revisited? Because I think you understand here that unless we're involved in the process, we don't have proper comprehension of the intent and purpose of the committee. And to be afforded the opportunity to sit as an observer, I've been, as you know, I've communicated with you, making a request to be just seated as an observer. I think it would pay dividends. We wouldn't be sitting here confused. So can I ask through the Chair if you can make that request on our behalf? Speaker 1: So the terms of reference sets up the Mayor as an observer and also the State Member. And it just notes, and it's meant to be inclusive of all members of community, not directed at councillors. So that if other people would like to be observers of the NSERAC meeting, they're to make a request to the co-chairs and to provide a reason. So that's what the terms of reference say at the moment.
02:07:00 And that's all I've communicated to you. So if the reason is so you have a better understanding of, you know, management across the Noosa River, then I think that's a fair reason for the co-chair to, you know. But it is set up for all community members, not just directed at councillors. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes, Jack. I'll raise a question. Can I ask of the Mayor that perhaps that, as an observer on that committee, that what happens on the committee is perhaps better conveyed to the councillors so that we have a better understanding of the issues discussed and the approaches therein? Councillor Wilkie: The question is for Sean. Sean, isn't there a page on the council website which has all the minutes from every meeting of the committee that councillors can read? Speaker 1: Yes, there is. Yes. And that's publicly available to the public. Councillor Finzel: Through the chair? Yes, Karen. I just have a question following on from that, and I raised it earlier. Is there opportunity to have like a key stakeholder group that brings, comes to the table like we've done with the climate change response, like we've done with the quarry management?
02:08:00 It seems to be a direction and a model that council is embracing instead of, you know, well, people can't apply to the process to be at the meeting. But what if we bring the heads of those around the round table? And then we have those, which seem effective to me, in identifying those key stakeholders that bring that information to one point, and then that gets disseminated back through community, through council, through the councillors, through that meeting at a round table. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what we've already got. They've got that. Where have we got that? That's what the group is. Councillor Finzel: No, coming in here, like we've done the same model as the quarrying management stakeholder group. Speaker 2: So I guess that would be a question of whether some of the chair of the subcommittee may potentially be able to come and give councillors a briefing like next quarter or something like that. Speaker 1: Yeah. I think that makes a lot of sense. Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: Thank you.
02:09:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Tom, you've spoken. Councillor Wegener: We all have. Councillor Wilkie: Karen has spoken. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Look, I'm going to support the motion. Look, just to clarify. This has got nothing to do with six knots on the nursery. It's an MSQ process. We'll be very clear about that. I am fully supportive of this because what it's doing, the report that will come to us will clarify the issues and the options that we have before us regarding the management of ain't running more in the river walls on the nursery river, which has been the prime objective of the New South River Plan and any study that we've done. We've been involved in that process since the late 90s, if I understand correctly. If this council no longer has the appetite to manage anchoring or mooring because that involves regulation, well, we can have that debate down the track. I'll be supporting any option that lets us get some sort of traction on this.
02:10:00 The whole purpose of the New South River Plan was to address those key issues. And if, for whatever reason, MSQ is reluctant to handle that, I want to know what options we have to assist them either stepping up or helping them as a partner to address those key issues. And that's all we're agreeing to on Thursday night. A further report that will clarify the issues and the options we have before us. And that's when we can have a full and frank discussion about the implications and the resource and what potential regulation we might be looking at playing a part in. Councillor Stockwell, you have the floor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will close. I think mainly to address some of the concerns or challenges. So what we've got is we set up a steering New South River Stakeholder Advisory Committee and the primary thing we asked them to do was advise us on the New South River Plan,
02:11:00 the Draft New South River Plan. What they come back and say, they want their priority to look at this bit of the New South River Plan. So number one, two and three are key issues identified in the New South River Plan. Number four is mentioned in a number of ways, but we've already amended the environment policy to allow us to invest in river management. The question will be when this report comes up, whether the aspects of the river plan that we're looking at perhaps implementing actually meet that criteria. I did mention a number of different approaches. One of which is highlighted as things to investigate in the river plan. And one of those, as I said, was about council taking a limited harbour from memory and that does allow us to collect the moorings and charge anchoring, et cetera. So that's another source of revenue. So it's about refining where we've asked for advice both from staff and from the advisory committee about those aspects of the river plan.
02:12:00 Now, if I can, Cathy, just have the last of my slides up again to remind why that's important. I think councillors, in terms of both the use of the river, both by powered and unpowered, is really important. Yeah, the last one. Yeah. So you see here, if we want to value the benefit of the river as an opportunity for activity, lifestyle and tourism. But MSQ is only currently operating in New South Wales. So if we're going to be covering the safety aspect, we may have more role to play in achieving that recreational commercial use within the carrying capacity. We may want to advocate for more compliance and enforcement rather than a change in speed limit. But we probably have to look at it from both the powered and non-powered water sports aspect. Because it is, you know, non-powered, the vessels, the videos you've seen, I take kids and teach them how to canoe on the river. It's a real risk.
02:13:00 Most times of the year. Not just during the holidays. We, you know, probably been five years since I've taken young scouts up that way on the river. Because the last time we had two boats swamped getting to a charity event. So we do have an interest. We have an interest to make sure the river is well managed and any regulation that does help it is enforced. And if there is a need for different regulation, we can perhaps advocate or, you know, make it that long. But our interest is in achieving what the river does. Bear in mind, when you look at TripAdvisor, I think number of river, the river is the second highest reason why people come to Noosa. I think it goes Main Beach River, National Park. Well, I think they're the three anyway. Then the second one, and the second one is about the people who don't want to use the river, they just want to enjoy it by looking at it. And this is another big driver for the clatter and the congestion. And you'll see in my motion, I refer to the Noosa Plan 2020, because that's the only place
02:14:00 where we've actually got our outcome, what we want to achieve is, and that's why that's in there. But the Noosa Plan can't achieve that goal alone because it only regulates development. So we need other mechanisms to say, how do we want the scenic amenity in the real season and the river looking at the same standard as we want for the rest of our area Noosa? And that's what this is about. It's saying, we've heard the Sleeve Room Committee, we want the next report to come to us is recommending what our response should be. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. I hope the motion goes in favour. That's unanimous. That's Councillor Lauritsen, Jurisevic, Stewart, Stockwell, Finzel and Wilkie against. Councillor Wecker.
135 minutes in ¶
02:28:00 Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, Clint. Clint, could you just give us a bit of an overview please? Speaker 6: If Dennis is the reporter. Speaker 7: I can do that, Frank. Thank you. Yes, so this report is a follow-up to one that the Council considered in August last year regarding the ferry service. The current service provision under contract is due to expire mid-2024. So we're looking at the model thereafter, what form that would take and how we might procure that.
02:29:00 So AAC were commissioned last year to review Noosa's ferry service and their review report was received last month. AAC reviewed it. They reviewed 17 existing cable ferry operations on the eastern seaboard and benchmarked it against Noosa's service. Their review points to Noosa's being one of the most highly patronised services in the country and also one of the most financially and non-financially. And they recommend two models be primarily considered by Council. Those both involving the outsourced operation of the service but varying with other Council-owned ferries or contractor-owned ferry vessels. So those are the two primary operational models recommended by AAC.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 Some of the other key findings and probably the ones that stood out most for us in the procurement process is that, Speaker 7: there is sufficient revenue with the service for it to remain a viable business both for the contractor in operating the service, and also for Council and its community in staying revenue positive and not requiring rate payer subsidisation. They also did market sounding and the market sounding indicates that there appears to be an active tendering, a tender market for the service. So both of those aspects are encouraging in a procurement sense in that it appears warranted that, and justified that we can go to market for the service and that there's both a viable business that we're offering to the market,
02:31:00 and also a tender market keen to tender on the service. So the report recommends that Council maintains the fully outsourced operational model that it's historically used across the whole time that it's been involved in, in this service. Speaker 7: And the reasons being that it would maintain the financial sustainability outcomes that have been demonstrated through that operating model. And also allow us to obtain marketability. And also allow us to obtain market responses from tenderers in a competitive environment. So the report seeks Council approval to proceed to market for that approach, Speaker 7: and outlines the broad tender provisions that would form part of an approach to market for the fully outsourced model.
02:32:00 That's it. Councillor Jurisevic: Good questions, Councillors. Thank you. Chair? Yeah, Dennis, sorry. One I hadn't thought about before, and one that's just come up with regard to new vessels. Any new operator would require new vessels or require to purchase vessels, but the existing operator could continue operating with the current vessels, I would assume, going forward. Is there any provision within the tender for new vessels to be required during a contract period? Speaker 7: Joe, we've got a number of existing operators who've indicated they would be interested in tendering. And we have existing operators that have existing vessels as well. So it's not definitive to the extent which there's existing vessels available for this service,
02:33:00 but we have existing experienced operators. Speaker 7: So why going to market? It would allow tenderers to either identify existing vessels that they've got access to, or to commission new vessels, so we wouldn't intend to be prescriptive in our claim. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So to follow up on that, Dennis, we have provided enough time for potential tenderers to develop the specifications and procure the appropriate vessels, yeah? Speaker 7: Yeah, we're aiming to provide eight months if we prove to award toward the end of this year, yeah? Fifty, eighteen months for that purpose. Some of the parties that were through the market sounding indicated they'd need less than that, and some indicated they'd need more than that. So, you know, it would be nice to have additional time on top of that,
02:34:00 but 18 months appears to be sufficient, I suppose, yes. Speaker 2: Dennis, it was interesting to read that we are one of the few councils that run on a cost recovery basis, and that we don't have – we've avoided ratepayers' subsidisation, which I think is really great. Speaker 7: Yeah, I'd agree. And, you know, I guess it reflects how – what a highly utilised service we have in NISA. You know, different services around the country have different levels of utilisation, Speaker 7: but of course they all have minimum costs and requirements to provide the service. So the fact that we have a high level of utilisation goes to the sort of financial viability of our service.
02:35:00 Councillor Lorentson: Dennis, residents and stakeholders provided feedback regarding hours of operation, fees, payment options, and also in regards to the Kooroola recreation area visitation pressures. How did this feedback inform or influence the procurement recommendations? Speaker 7: So there's a suite of recommendations remaining, Steve, for us to address within the tender package. So that really informs the way in which we structure that tender package. And from the residents' perspective, you know, a lot of their focus is on levels of service and customer service. So it's the waitings for the tender. The service plan is second only to price as far as the waiting goes. So from our perspective, that's the key aspect of tender submissions will be relating to service.
02:36:00 Councillor Jurisevic: And an element of service that we're talking about is bringing payment structures into the 21st century. Do I understand it? Speaker 7: Yes. So on the – I'll just see which page it is. Page eight. Page eight of the report. I just identify a couple of mandatory components within the tender. And certainly electronic payment systems will be mandatory hereafter. So that's sort of a non-negotiable from our perspective. Councillor Jurisevic: So that would include websites, online payment systems, EFOS, any of that. Any or all of those options under electronic payments? Speaker 7: Yeah. We would see mandatory providing at least one, preferably more than one electronic payment options.
02:37:00 Speaker 7: So yes, at a minimum, one electronic payment option. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm assuming there's a weighting associated with that within the criteria then with regard to their service plan and how they expect to deliver that if they had other options, i.e. an app, online payments, electronic payments and all cash payments would – Yeah. would contribute to that. Speaker 7: That's correct. And I think it also goes to efficiencies on board the vessels. So asking them to identify and demonstrate that their payment methods would deliver efficiencies out of the current service. There is potential for payment methods to deliver some inefficiencies. So, you know, their service plan would need to address some of those inefficiencies. Speaker 7: So, you know, the cost of payment and why that was – you know, representing efficiencies and how it could be done best to minimise time loading the vessel and transacting if it
02:38:00 occurs on the vessel. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We have a question about a statement in your report on page 7 of the system. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service indicates it is seeking to address sustainable visitation for the Cooloola Great Recreation Area and observe that peak period loads are where impacts are most likely to occur. The most evident and potential management measures may include influencing a spread of total annual visitation to transfer a percentage of peak usage to underutilised times and or sites. Now, I have an idea of what that might mean, but could you decipher that, please, about what QPS means? Yes. Speaker 7: My understanding of that feedback is that – Okay. – QPS and perhaps others are seeking to reduce the pressures that occur on peak visitation
02:39:00 days. So, you know, potentially capping numbers or setting limits on days, any day, that – to avoid over-visitation. And I think it's likely that the natural – Mm-hmm. The natural consequence of capping peaks would be that pressures are spread and low visitation Speaker 7: pressures are smoothed, if you like, over what are currently quieter times. Councillor Wilkie: Thanks, Dennis. So, that implies that any tender document, any procurement process would involve a tender that includes the flexibility to take – make account – I'll comment on that. Yeah, there's a number of ways in which we will look to do that, both through the pricing structure that we invite tenders to submit.
02:40:00 So having a fixed fee component which provides surety to the contractor, Speaker 7: and also a contract that allows future flexibility if there were significant changes in legislative regimes or the like. Speaker 2: Dennis, am I right in assuming, and I could be wrong, there's about 20 days a year that are busy, that are very busy. I mean, you know, busier than normal, and of that, say, four to six hours are the peak times in those 20 days, which are the peak period. Speaker 7: We have indications from a range of sources that indicate that peak days are somewhere between a dozen and 20 days per year when the peak pressures are felt.
02:41:00 And from a ferry use perspective, those peak visitations occur sort of in a four-hour window around, Speaker 7: you know, the low tide on those days. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Dennis, one of the major themes during the stakeholder engagement was the need for a priority slip lane. Will priority slip lanes form part of the contract arrangements? Speaker 7: A priority slip lane is really infrastructure that would be up to Council to provide. And I think what we seek to do is identify through the tender process and the service plans as to whether there are traffic management means that are identified by the operators that they see worth pursuing.
02:42:00 And in parallel with this tender process, which is about continuity of service, we're also talking to Councils. Traffic engineer is an external consultant as to whether they're having to assess whether there's either resident priority lanes or stacking lanes opportunities, which can be pursued by Council in parallel to this process. Speaker 7: So currently, I have a traffic engineer engaged. And to this point, his feedback has been mixed about the extent to which there are opportunities for new infrastructure. There's a lot of issues around providing infrastructure of that type. Councillor Jurisevic: But we do have a traffic engineer engaged to look at that in parallel to this tender process.
02:43:00 So Dennis, further to that, at what point will a report come to Council on the infrastructure required to facilitate that? As a result of the traffic management report and or maybe the feedback from the tenderers here with regard to what Council needs to do to facilitate better or enhanced management of traffic that is queuing currently for the fairway? Speaker 7: We don't have a date for a report earmarked for that process. But certainly, I would get before Council probably by a workshop first to start to outline those investigations. Speaker 7: But I would expect that we'd be progressing that this year. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm sure of adding a second recommendation here to the CEO.
02:44:00 I'll flag that with you and that Bill might even look at some wording of that. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. Councillor Wegener has been waiting for us. Councillor Wegener: Who owns the actual cable going across the river? Because that would be an expensive bit of infrastructure. Speaker 6: The contract . Councillor Wegener: The contract rents the cable. Speaker 7: My understanding is it's replaced each year. Councillor Jurisevic: No, we're having a cable operator without a cable. Councillor Wegener: Oh, no, no. I just thought that that would be a very expensive piece and difficult to do. But, yeah, good question. Councillor Wilkie: It would be a lot of pressure on the people. Councillor Wegener: I'm not sure about that cable in terms of... Councillor Wilkie: Dennis, you've recommended option two recommends Council procure a contractor owned and operated under a fixed fee of the service plus revenue share model. You also mentioned that Noosa Ferry currently is one of the busiest and also one of the most financially sustainable.
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 Yet it includes one of the highest levels of resident concession. So, can you just unpack? There's a lot of elements to that. How is that achieved? Why is that model able to deliver benefits for the residents, a high level of resident concession, a high return for ratepayers, lack of ratepayer subsidy, and it's able to cater to such high numbers? Why is it such an efficient model? Speaker 7: Well, at the underpinnings of it all is that it's the high levels of overall visitation in regard to the high levels of concession essentially based on the standard crossings for visitors and tourists and the like. It's that strong revenue base to effectively subsidise.
02:46:00 Or offset the concession rates for all locals that live over there and work over there. So, you know, the crossing fares for those people at the moment are 50 cents and a dollar. So, very affordable and offset the revenue that we receive from normal crossings and them Speaker 7: being the lion's share of crossings. Councillor Jurisevic: Just to follow on from that, Dennis, the explanation of the option being preferred is a continuation of the model that currently exists with enhancements. Speaker 7: Yes, that's right. Looking to increase the levels of service in some areas, but maintain the operating Speaker 7: model of being fully outsourced.
02:47:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, just to follow on on that one. So, your report identifies, page seven, the two options that were highlighted by the AEC report. From my recollection, option one actually in the cost benefit analysis was a little bit superior from that perspective, but there were a whole range of provisos in that scenario. Your report identifies why you don't think that's the option to go with. My question was, if after this process that we go through, the cost benefit analysis, we go through in terms of going to fully outsource, that we don't see a response that is consistent with what that cost benefit did from that model, is there still going to be time for council to consider option one? Speaker 7: Yes. Obviously, going to tender, we're not obliged to award. So, the financial modeling that's been done to date is based on a broad range of assumptions. So, going to market allows us to do that.
02:48:00 If we obtain real market responses, and if it's unaffordable, for want of a better term, through the market responses, then yes, we would look at other options available to council. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So, back to Councillor Stockwell's question, have we given council enough time, if no tender has come to the party? Have we given ourselves enough time to develop specifications for new vessels and procurement of new vessels? Or are we leaving it too late? Councillor Jurisevic: We would always have an option to extend the current contract if need be, wouldn't we all? Speaker 7: That may be part of a process in that scenario. There's a number of scenarios that could play out. Speaker 6: Yeah. Speaker 7: Okay. Speaker 6: Thank you.
02:49:00 Look, through the Chair, there is risk with all of these things. If we're going to have a robust tender process, then the likelihood is we'll get a lot of commercially robust responses, which will augur well for us. But of course, there's always risk around that, and that's something we'll have to address if and when it comes up. Councillor Lorentson: What is the contract term, Dennis? Are we offering a 20-year with two-by-five-year options, or two-by-three-year options, like what we have at the moment? Or is it a shorter term? Oh, okay. Excuse me. Sorry. It's 10 to 20 years. So, what does that mean, 10 to 20 years? Speaker 6: Well, through the Chair, it's a range. Oh, okay. So, that's right, isn't it, Dennis? They'll be able to provide within that range. Speaker 7: The intent there is to allow tenderers to price different options.
02:50:00 So, at this point, we're looking at 10, 15, and 20-year terms to be priced tenderers, and that will allow us to see the sort of price implications of shorter versus longer terms. Councillor Lorentson: So, the shorter the contract term, then is there the potential for a longer term? And then the longer term, if you're going to expect ferry increase fees, increases in ferry fees? Or is that right, given only to Council? Who is in charge of increasing the fees? Speaker 7: It'll be up to tenderers to price the provision of the service. It will be up to Council to set the fees, knowing the price implications of providing the service. Councillor Wilkie: Councilors, for the sake of moving things along, I will move to the recommendation of seconding Councillor Stewart. Thank you, staff, for the report, the background study by AEC as well. It's important that we go to market with a tender process that is based on a model that is financially sustainable, can handle large volumes of traffic,
02:51:00 is revenue positive, and places all the risk in terms of provision of and the running of the vessels on the contractor. So, as we know, the financial service subsidised comes first, which means it helps keep rates lower. The procurement process has the flexibility, the tender process will have the flexibility involved in it to cater for the fluctuation in public volumes, depending on what the responsible authority for managing that is. That is an opportunity for us to lodge a report which is what UBWS wants to do over there on the North Shore and also an opportunity for the tenderer to propose how they intend to address the key resident concerns such as queuing and different options for payment on the vessels.
02:52:00 Thank you, staff, for the report on this. Speaker 2: I'll speak first. Yeah, yeah. I too want to thank the personnel members for the opportunity to give us one of these presentations which is really helpful. And I think you've done a huge amount of work on this and I really want to thank you. I also want to thank you for your initiation of bringing AEC Group Economic Consultancy and I think it's incredibly worthwhile and prudent in this situation. It's such a big and important operation that we do get an outside influence and I really appreciate you taking the time and using all the resources to enable them to be involved in this process. I agree with what Councillor Wilkie said. The best thing we can have is a very robust process with the more people interested the better and that will be a better outcome for our community, a better outcome for this council and a better outcome for our rate payers. There are key elements that are certainly set down
02:53:00 that the contract will look into. But I thank you for your report and I look forward to seeing a huge amount of people tender for this very worthwhile community resource. Let's do this right. Councillor Jurisevic: Mayor, I'll have this one. Go ahead. I support the staff recommendation. Clearly there's a model there that's shown through the AEC report that has worked for many, many years and one of the only and fewest sustainable models going forward. So I support the model. I understand there are challenges with the services that currently exist with regard to electronic payments and the like and they are being addressed here. And there are areas where council has an area of responsibility to go out of the infrastructure there and how we can facilitate that and look at the options with regard to... I mean, we've got resident lanes and all queuing facilitations, but also we've got 1950s car parking relations down there and the infrastructure that hasn't been dealt with
02:54:00 for a significant amount of time. That's another issue I'd like the council to address, providing... Making it... When you look at other ferry services and the facilitations they provide, they're far better than the council currently provides. So that'll be the thing I'll be looking forward to. But on top of this, going forward, so that amenity for all users and residents is addressed with the service going into the next delivery of this tender service. Good job. Tom. Councillor Wegener: I'd like to thank you guys for this report. I'd like to actually thank you because some councillors put up quite a stink early on and you really took the time to... to explain things to them and to explain that to the staff's point of view. And so thank you very much for your patience and for your understanding and for your looking after all of us. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Boykman.
02:55:00 Anybody else? Councillor... Yeah, I will. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: This is probably one of the council's most significant commercial enterprises, as well as providing the community service obligation to get people who live on the North Shore and Teal Beach to their homes and back. In that respect, whether you call what I did causing a stink or not, I'm not sure, Joe, the key thing we've got here is, we want this tender and the tenderer to exemplify a sustainable business model that meets our community's expectations. I'm happy that with the AEC report provided by councils and staff with a lot of good, useful information to compare and contrast and look at the options and costs, the tender assessment, if you look at 30% for the service plan and 7.5% for environmental sustainability,
02:56:00 you're getting over a third of the assessments going to be based on how well the tenderer comes up with the business model that understands what the future is, not necessarily looking at what the past is. And that to me is important. And the other aspect of it is that we've looked at the draft terms of agreement done by the King & Co company. And I'm satisfied within those draft terms of agreement that they're flexible, or that there's sufficient provisions in there to allow for that key issue which was mentioned in the preamble in terms of peak management. I think it's important to understand that there is provisions there that if the state government does what... What is a responsible thing is ironing out the peaks on the Noosa North Shore, the tenderer can be confident there is a process how that is dealt with if it happens after the tender is awarded. So from all those reasons, I am happy to support the tender.
02:57:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Jarrett, a question, and apologies on those. With regard to business models the council has in fact, it's only that Brian brought that up. Let's go to business models and competitive neutrality provisions. We have a couple of business models, business entities within council, that is the waste service and the holiday parks. Why does it seem very triggered? That is a service that council provides that comes under those provisions of competitive neutrality. Speaker 5: To the Chair, one of the key drivers is where we run and operate the business. So for example, our current business activities are waste and holiday parks. We have a number of business activities that we run and operate business. We own and operate those business activities. So the thresholds are based on our expenditure thresholds. So obviously this being a service that we are outsourcing, it doesn't trip over that. Councillor Jurisevic: So it's the outsourcing that prevents it from being. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Can the Councillor switch to speak to the motion?
02:58:00 Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to it Rick. I'm happy to support this tender. And I first want to say, oh my God, what a business. The most highly patronised. Very service across Queensland. I'm really confident we're going to get a lot of tenderers. I want to just point out, and it's stuff that's already been mentioned, that this is the model that actually poses less risk to council. Less financial risk. Less people risk. Less compliance risk. And less reputational risk. I think our job, as Councillor Stockwell sort of just mentioned, is that we need just to make sure that we're doing what we need to do. We need to make sure that we've got the appropriate controls within the contract to ensure service levels are appropriate as well as provisions for potential changes in the service levels and demands during the contract. I think this is one of those cases where contracting out to someone that has the requisite skills
02:59:00 and experience to deliver the service is the better option. So I'm looking forward to seeing how many people are going to be able to come in and see how many applicants come forward. So, yeah, happy to support. Thank you for all your work and patience, Clint. Dennis, especially. And Dennis, especially. We try and sometimes. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: All the time, sorry. Councillor Finzel: Certainly, I'd like to thank the staff and Dennis. It's been a big body of work and I know it's been a lot of impact, study and research. The report recommendations were really good. And I think we've covered all the necessary checks and balances. I think that there's enough flexibility in the arrangements moving forward to ensure that if those risks raise their head with regards to state restrictions imposed on the numbers, especially also around queue management and the provision of the service with Council
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 setting the fees, I think it's all sound business practice. So I'm happy to support the recommendations. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, councillors for your comments and staff for their report. I put the motion does in favour. That is unanimous. Thank you, Clint. Councillor Lorentson: Thanks, Clint. Councillor Wilkie: And thank you, Dennis. Thank you. Thanks, Dennis. We now go to the last item of today's agenda, which is the financial report for the month of February. Welcome, Paul. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Good morning. Welcome. Would you give us a bit of an overview? Sure, I can. How are things happening? Speaker 3: The Council's financial performance year to date to February is still tracking above budget, with our operating result currently $3 million above budget. $1.6 million of this is driven by revenue. So in this regard, waste utility charges continue to be above budget, as do development assessment,
03:01:00 building and plumbing applications, and community property revenues as well. So the revenue is also starting to show above budget with the increase in weddings and events that are returning after COVID. Holiday parks can also continue to exceed budget year to date. They are offset, however, with some additional variable costs around the running of those parks relating to commissions and contract services. And sales of recyclables at the waste facility also continue to be above budget due to higher volumes and higher prices for metal sales. The recruitment of electricity charges at holidays is being delayed, so the revenue related to that is actually down at the moment. That's due to the supplier actually being located interstate, but the installation is currently underway, so we should start to see those recruitments come through once those are operational. Operational expenditure is also tracking below budget by $1.5 million, which is contributing favourably to our operating results.
03:02:00 This is comprised by lower than budgeted employee costs due to vacant positions and some facility closures during the year. Materials and services are also below budget by $629,000, and this is due to some delays in the environmental services projects due to some COVID impacts when staff are off and they haven't yet caught up with, I suppose, a few other priorities on their plate. We have lower contract services relating to concrete crushing and mulching and sulobin purchases. Library and galleries is down. I think I mentioned that last month, and that relates to the delivery of projects around heritage and some of the library services and some of their operational programs. Again, holiday parks are above budget, as I mentioned. That's due to related to the revenues. I'll just note that we have paid the second instalment of the Tourism Noosa payments, so that's all the payments made for this year. So that's all good and ready. Capital revenues remain on track today. However, capital expenditure is currently tracking below budget due to some time issues
03:03:00 around the projects. The capital team are currently assessing the impact of the recent floods, and we are likely to see some delays in some projects that may carry over into the next financial year. We will know more when we have some of the capital works project meetings later this week, so we'll see how we might quantify that and what that looks like then. I just wanted to touch on the cash reserves. We're currently holding $106 million in cash. That's due predominantly because we had the second rates run come through and the payments coming through in February. And so our cash reserves are currently at their peak. With the large capital program that we currently have, we have $20 million sitting in commitments. So with that and our normal operational expenditure, we will see that position decline over the coming months to June. The majority of our funds are currently held with QTC. However, we are monitoring investment rates with the commercial institutions to have a look at investing those funds in term deposits as the rates rise. And we are starting to see those move. However, they are all out in 12 months of terms at this stage.
03:04:00 So at the present time, QTC will still operate, offers us the best short term rate, but we are looking to monitor those and invest as we can so we can get the best return on those funds that we can. Overall, however, council is in a strong position and we expect that we will, I won't promise you a surplus, but we are certainly on track for 2022. Thank you. Speaker 2: The floods. Yeah. How have they impacted? I know that we, you know, we're one of 17 or 19 council, which have been, you know, fortunate enough to get the disaster recovery funding, $1 million combined federal and state. Yeah. But, you know, we keep hearing the impact that it has, you know, 95 infrastructure assets and damage, damaged NS roads, probably climbing joys. So how is that, how have the floods impacted our bottom lines? Speaker 5: We haven't quantified that yet, councillors. We're still working through that. Obviously, there's, there's a combination of immediate recovery. Yeah. And the cost over the last fortnight with that. Yeah. As well as a lot of infrastructure, as you mentioned, that will need reinstatement,
03:05:00 repair or renewal as a result. And obviously, some of the capital works projects have run away, obviously impacted as well. So we should know over the next month what that estimate looks like. Beyond that, you obviously then you walk into the realm of what the cost is going to be for any follow up recovery and resilience work, which could be, which will definitely flow through in the 23, 23 budget as well. We'll be talking about that through the budget workshops, but hopefully we should be able to come back to you next month's report with a bit more of an estimate as to the impact of that. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: The counterbalance of that is how much emergency management funding and recovery funding is available to recover what we spent under Golan as a council. Correct. But also what the opportunities are there for replacement, repair and resilience projects going into the future as we've had through the bushfires. Speaker 5: Correct, councillor. And as you know, we've obviously got that immediate payment come through from the disaster
03:06:00 notification. And as we see with previous events, that, you know, we've obviously got that immediate recovery funding buckets come through 6, 12, 18 months' time, so it will be a trickle through event. As you know, they're lucky that we do have our cash reserve for disaster recovery. That's what I was going to get at. And even if the quantum of the recovery and the resilience work we need to invest in goes beyond that, we have strong cash reserves to fund that and support that as well. Speaker 2: Okay. One more. Just sort of the economic development expenditure is below budget, page 21, just because we've – Speaker 3: So there has been a delay, obviously, with their staffing issues. And they have appointed two new advisers that have come on board, especially we've got destination with Inventor coming on board. So whether they'll be able to get those programs up and delivered by the end of the year, I'm not sure, given that they're all new and they don't have, obviously, a manager. Yeah. Speaker 2: Mine's been for the CEO. Are we going to – that is currently an under-resourced area. Are we going to look at, I guess, upping those resources?
03:07:00 We've got money there that's underutilised, hasn't been utilised because we're low in staff. So is that, I guess, a priority? Speaker 8: To the Chair, absolutely. Through the strategic realignment of our organisational structure, we will be looking at making some moves around ED. Yet to talk to the executive team about that. But I think it's important that we have that a little bit closer up to the office of the CEO. But it's something that we'll work through, talk to UT about, and definitely bring back to this table to discuss further as well. Great. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: As with your role, we've had a delay in fulfilling positions. We've got a number of vacancies out there. And obviously through flood and COVID and all those other priorities, delays occur. So I flag the need to fulfil some of those key roles as prudently as possible going forward. And that's an area I'd like you to focus on as we go to ensure that we do have a full capacity of staff who undertake the work that we had before us, given that we've also got
03:08:00 an added workload with the flood recapping now on top of that. Speaker 8: Thank you, Councillor, through the Chair. Absolutely. We will. And looking at also a large number of labour hire and temp and casual staff that we have here within Council and how we can convert those if they've been there for quite some time. So there is a balance. There's our temp labour hire casual staff component. We need to be able to work with them and understand whether permanency is an option for those particular employees. Also there where we have those permanent vacancies as well. Do we encourage that group to be able to fulfil if they're unable to fulfil, but something within the next four-night we'll be able to have a very clear picture on. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, those staff want you to attend contracts and there's a place for them in the future which would solve a lot of issues. Speaker 8: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I've got a couple of questions. Anybody else? You're on a roll, Karen. Yeah. For the benefit of the councillors that probably aren't familiar with what wastes all they've been recovering. Well, I'm here today to budget 88K. Would you like to?
03:09:00 What are they? Speaker 3: If you can. So essentially what happens is Council will buy the bins. So as the bins need to be replaced, we then recoup those funds from Clean Away who are responsible for those under their contracts. So we obviously haven't had the need for what we've budgeted for in that respect. We don't have the offsetting revenue side at this stage because there was a carryover in timing. So we had additional revenue in this year. So it's sort of buffered our revenue budget for Zulu bin purchases. But obviously our Zulu bin revenue and recovery, but our bin purchases are down because we haven't had to buy them as much yet. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I believe there's an uptick in demand because they're now used for rain gauges and ice Councillor Jurisevic: bars at sporting events. And I'm delighted to talk to the waste manager here that he's looking at instead of buying brand new recycled bins every time, we're actually looking at recycled plastic recycled bins or waste bins. So that'll be the first important area that we talk about in procurement to look at areas where recycled products can be recycled.
03:10:00 You mentioned, oh hang on, there was another one in waste management there. Waste management 216k below year to date budget. Is that because we're not delivering services or is it just a timing issue at the moment? Speaker 3: It's just the timing of mulching and concrete and whether we need to actually do those services. Councillor Jurisevic: So the weather in essence. Speaker 3: Yeah. So as we need to do them or whether we haven't got the product to turn out, but at the present time they haven't needed to do them. So their services are under budget. Councillor Jurisevic: And you mentioned holiday park electricity equipment is below budget. Speaker 3: Correct. Councillor Jurisevic: We also know there's been some added costs in running holiday parks. How are we continuing to run above budget in our holiday parks? Speaker 5: Can I answer that? Through the chair. So when we build our budget for holiday parks, using our build from base approach, one of the key inputs is occupancy levels. So when we do our budget for this financial year, we base our budget on our budget for our last pre-COVID occupancy levels at the holiday parks.
03:11:00 Now as you know, Noosa River consistently runs above 90% occupancy all year round. It's one of our most utilised holiday parks. But in terms of the other two parks, Boring Point and Noosa North Shore, the last full year of running pre-COVID was 18-19. And what we found is through the work that the property branch have done, in particular our commercial property advisor Robin, occupancy levels at Boring Point have gone up by 10% post-recovery from COVID. So we've got 10% more occupancy. Noosa North Shore, post the renovation work that was done on the site, we've gone from just over 30 to nearly 60% occupancy average. From? 30 to 60. Councillor Wilkie: Wow. Speaker 5: So what we've seen is the reason why we're still running and still running in track with our $1.5 million direct surplus that we target for the holiday parks, we're still achieving that even with the additional costs because the occupancy levels are well beyond what we
03:12:00 anticipate at this point in time of the year. And it is, as mentioned in the report, that's also buffering the timing delay we've had on turning on the metered powerheads at Noosa River holiday parks. Councillor Jurisevic: That's very great. I'm imagining that there'll be a downturn in the occupancy as well. Yeah, over a period of time. Speaker 5: That's right. We should, with next month's report and the update on disaster impacts, we should have a bit of a quantum on that. But full credit to, again, to the property branch staff and the operator at Boring Point. If any of you saw the photos, the site was under a few metres of water and we had it, it was up and running and opening again on Monday. So amazing amount of work to get that site in particular back up and running again.
03:13:00 Councillor Jurisevic: I believe the issue with the bins floating off there has been addressed and the waste has been seen. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Amelia? My normal question, but I've got a different spin to it, legals, 1.866, my constant question, where are we up to with in-house legals and can we get a report to Council as to the breakdown where we're actually spending that money? That's a request to the CEO through the Chair, please. Speaker 8: Through the Chair, Councillor Lorentson, we absolutely can provide a report like that for you. So that's absolutely available. And that is something that I have had a look at in my short time in the role and 1.8 million is a lot on legals for a Council of our size. I understand the reasoning behind that, though, and the way that Council has been acting and operating. Once again, it's probably a little bit like internal audit, a co-source could be a very good outcome for us. But it is working through that organisational structure and where that might fit. But it is a high level of expenditure and one where, you know, whether in-house is a
03:14:00 central point or where it is something that is more of a high level advisory that there's work to be done there. I'll also defer to the corporate team for any further input. Speaker 5: Go on through the Chair. In terms of breakdown of that 1.8 legal, I think two or three months ago we did put a deep dive as a one-off addition to the finance report on the breakdown of legal costs incurred in the different areas, whether it was development appeals, leases, et cetera. And I suppose if there's appetite, we can include that as a running section of the report or a quarterly deep dive, depending on how you want to see that in the finance report. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, Kin Kin Cooroy would have added that as well. Speaker 5: Yeah. Correct, Joe. Councillor Lorentson: So my question is, can we have a report that compares the last financial year to this financial year? That's probably where I'm coming with my second question, which is, when I first started in Council, we were at about $1 million.
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 Two years down the track, we're budgeting for nearly $2 million. So I would love to have a look at where these increases are going under those break-ups. And also, through the two years that we've had, I would love to have a look at where we could set a KPI as reducing that amount. Because at the moment, it's just incrementally moving higher and higher and higher. And if there's a KPI or a standard that's actually reduced, to me, that's a reflection that we're addressing what I see a problem that's going a little bit over the top. Councillor Wilkie: If I can just come in there. I think it was flagged by the former CEO that we can expect there to be more. And I think that's a good point. Because development applications, as land becomes scarcer, become more marginal and speculative. So it was flagged that we're likely to face more of these applications that are not compliant.
03:16:00 Then we will have to defend them in court. So it's contrary to a KPI. Of course, we love our costs, to keep our costs down. But I just wonder if there's a clash with the reality there. Councillor Lorentson: So understanding that, then, and the opportunity for an in-house lawyer to mitigate those costs, or offset some of those potential escalating costs, and therefore just, again, substantiate the argument that there's potentially a need for an in-house or a specialised planning and environment lawyer, if that's where all our money is being spent. Speaker 3: Can I just comment that the Director of Executive Services has drafted a brief around the internal in-house legal, and was taking it to ET, but I don't believe it's come to ET just yet. So I know she has worked on it. Sorry, it's progressed. Councillor Jurisevic: The other element of that reporting is the stuff that isn't in the budget for legal. Like Kin Kin Quarry, which was our second issue, if that would fit, what was budgeted
03:17:00 against budget, and what is extraordinary to budget, so that we can compare the budgeted versus something that we've agreed to outside of the budget. Speaker 5: That's a good point, Councillor. What you'll see is when we put the original budget up, often the original, the base budget, is in the realm of just over a million dollars. It's not until we get through the budget review and we've had emerging court cases come up like Kin Kin Quarry, or if it's a governance, or a people and culture, or an asbestos case, or any kind of unplanned or unexpected matter, often that's when we end up at a budget review to where we're sitting in the realm of 1.5 to 1.8. So that's point taken. When we do the exercise, we'll break up for you what we did start the original budget with, and where that moved during the year. Councillor Jurisevic: I think under the legal cost. Yeah, just in your paragraph under the legal costs. Compared to unforeseen outside of the budget for these costs, and this is what they are to date, to add to that.
03:18:00 Speaker 5: And the last agenda item on the fair review is probably a good case and example, where we do get, we get advice in for a range of matters, and advice pulling together contract documentation, obviously has legal consultation as well. Councillor Wilkie: It's not just court cases, is it? Correct. Speaker 5: A lot of it is related to the, like the previous matter where we are seeking professional independent advice. Councillor Jurisevic: But one would think that that would be budgeted for. We should know what's coming up for review contractually, and that there is going to be a legal component to reviewing the contract, and the tender process. We should, there should be a no, there should be a no, not none there. Speaker 5: Through the Chair, in most cases it is, and then in some cases, if you look at a range of property or procurement matters, often we can go through many tenders where there's no need for any legal advice or assistance or guidance, and then we'll get one that comes through unexpectedly that, that does escalate and require a bit more intervention.
03:19:00 So, it's a, it's a case of, a lot of it's coming back to the way we build our base budget, and facilitating and allowing those areas that do incur that consultative-based legal advice to, to build that into their, their base budget as opposed to coming and chasing it reactively. Councillor Wilkie: You're saying that one of the principles of base budgeting is you don't over-estimate to build a contingency. Correct. Correct. Good job. Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy to move the recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Brian. Speaker 5: It's been a long day. It's done. Brian. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I do say, obviously the big picture is, financially, we're doing well. Councillor Lorentson: Okay? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We're under-expended in capital, and we know why that is. But to put that in context in, by, by February, we spent $2 million more than the Sunshine Coast Council used to spend on Noosa when we were amalgamated. So, we're still doing a lot.
03:20:00 Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay? How much more? $2 million more. Councillor Wilkie: On what? Capital? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: We have a large capital program in the States. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So. Councillor Wilkie: So, under Sunshine Coast Council, it's only about $12. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I thought it was $15. I thought its average was $15. But anyway. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I stand corrected. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. $11 million. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: $5 million. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The, some good response in terms of our. Councillor Wilkie: I sent you myself. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well done. The, in return on investment, is one that I always take an interest in. And, I think I want to invest in Council. So, I can get 1.3, 1.13%, because, you know, obviously the current environment, interest rate environment is very low. And, we're still performing 0.33% above for the Bloomberg 10 year index. That's great. The performance of our caravan parks, even during COVID and the event. And, I suppose on a personal note, the borrowing point has always been a favourite of mine
03:21:00 for 20 years. Our Sea Scout group camped there on the weekend. The sailing activities. And, there was heaps and heaps of positive comments about the upgrade done to the ablutions block. And, so, that's also a good thing, is, you know, through some of that COVID stimulus, we invested in our infrastructure, which is now returning. So, it is, you know, much, much better. So, well done to all those involved in keeping to the budget. And, we look forward to large sums of money being spilled in the capital works now. It's definitely not going to rain until June 30. Councillor Wilkie: Have you seen this week's forecast? Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? I'll pass it over to you. Speaker 2: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Trent and Polly, for your hard work. Every month, it is, you know, we come looking at positive information. And, you know, as Councillor Stockwell said, we are performing well. Our assets, our parks, they're performing well. And, to get them up and running after such a big, you know, I'll say disaster, disaster
03:22:00 of floods, is a huge effort to the staff. And, we're really grateful for that because that could have set us behind, but it hasn't. What I always look at is cash cover ratio. You know, our target's three months. We're currently at 14.2 months. We're in a very strong position. I think that's really important to take note of. I think you said, Polly, we've got our peak amount of money in the bank right now. Obviously, that will go down as we spend that money below budget capital expenditure. There's money to come down from that. But, still, we're in a strong position. And, you know, it is, let's say, for a rainy day. Well, the rainy day has come, and we're in a good position to really move forward on that. And, you know, look at all of those reconstruction works that will be needed across the Shire. And, coming into the budget, it gives us confidence we're going into a budget in a good spot. So, thank you for your hard work in that regard. Councillor Jurisevic: Well, I can tell you the sentiments that have been relayed there. A fantastic job. And, of course, the added workload is a disaster.
03:23:00 And the other challenges that Council now face. And, of course, behind the scenes that the finance team particularly face with regard to alternate sources of funding and all these opportunities that come forward. The added workload. Well over 100 assets have been damaged in some way, shape, or form. The Council now has to go out there and, on top of that, the normal workload and the Capital Works Program, try to source repair and mitigation and potential for resilience and further mitigation works around the Shire. And that just adds to the workload. So, I appreciate all the work that CEO and staff have had to take. And the normal workload. But the added workload that you have as a result of this disaster. But, also, the added opportunities that it presents for the community going forward. Councillor Finzel: Can I just add to that? Yeah. Thank you to the staff. I think what's really good moving forward is we've been out on the ground with recovery
03:24:00 and the, you know, the trauma associated with the impacts of the flooding. And those things, I think it's really good that we can have, you know, trust in our Council that we've delivered a really good sound financial position. And, hopefully, that then reduces the anxiety around that for our community as a whole. And that we can just get on the business of recovery confident that you guys have delivered, you know, a really good report and that we're sitting well financially. So, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I can't argue with anything that's been said. As much as it pains me. Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.