Start of recording ¶
00:00:00 Speaker 9: There's also concerns around the community's ability to be aware of what would be happening for the site, so it was recommended for refusal. And the day before we came to the Planning Environment Committee meeting, the applicant actually lodged another change application. That's really muddied the waters a bit, so to speak, in terms of the report and the recommendation. Insofar as a other change application will address the matters which are being raised for refusal, we will have to deal with the koalas, there will be an updated bushfire management plan submitted, there will be notification, so the community will be aware through a 15 day period of notification. And also importantly, different to what we discussed in the Planning Environment Committee
00:01:00 meeting, the application will actually be assessed against the current scheme, so it now deserves to review the application in light of the current plans. Councillor Jurisevic: I just want to clarify what staff have just said there. With regard to the application that's before us here and now, this is the old application, and as a result, it will be assessed against the current scheme. Speaker 9: So what we have before us is a request to extend the current security application. So this sits separate to the extension application. We hadn't received the extension application at the time that we got this and that we assessed it. So when we looked at it, we said, well, if we just go and extend this application, we're going to have concerns with the development that won't comply with current bushfire requirements, that won't comply with current koala requirements. The community won't be aware of that. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll rephrase my question. This has been assessed currently under an older planning scheme.
00:02:00 And the approval has been changed. Oh, that's right. Speaker 9: So the current approval, that's right. So when the approval was lodged, it was lodged as a superseded application in 2008. At that time, it was the 1985 scheme, which had been significantly changed in 1990. So it's quite an old... Okay. The second part of my question then becomes... Councillor Jurisevic: The other change application has been lodged. That will have to be publicly notified, signs out front. That will have to be publicly notified. So the community will be aware and would be assessed under the current planning scheme. Councillor Wilkie: That is correct. Councillor Jurisevic: Is there any reason why... That is correct. Councillor Wilkie: Is there any reason why... Councillor Jurisevic: The application to extend cannot be deferred and run concurrently with the change application, so that the two coincide and a decision made at the end of that plan. Councillor Wilkie: So that the two coincide and a decision made at the end of that assessment of the change application. So the planning act does...
00:03:00 Speaker 9: So the planning act does put a timeframe. So... Councillor Jurisevic: I don't think that quite answered my question. The question was, can these two, can the application here be deferred to run concurrently with the assessment of the other change application that is being presented? Yes, it could. Yes, it could. And look at then assessing this application when that is completed. That could occur. That can happen. On that basis, I'd like to move a motion. Councillor Wilkie: And second it, Councillor Stewart. Councillor Jurisevic: And that motion is that, because the public aren't aware of it, the Council note the report by the Coordinator of Planning to the Planning Environment Committee dated the 11th of October 2022, regarding application 132008.176B. For an extension to the currency period for a material change of use. Resort development comprising a multiple dwelling, 109 dwelling units and accommodation building,
00:04:00 90 accommodation units, an ancillary facility situated at 3 and 7 Serenity Close Noosa Heads and described as lots 10 and 11 on SP195871N. A, defer the application, the consideration of the application to such a time as the assessment of the other change application being 132008.176B. And B, note the report is provided in accordance with Section 63.5 of the Planning Act 2016. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Do you wish to speak to it, John? Councillor Jurisevic: I do so on the basis of. Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stewart is seconded. Councillor Jurisevic: I do so on the basis of, I think there's an opportunity here to potentially avoid unnecessary legal proceedings and an opportunity to make the assessment of the application to the Planning Act, line up with the changes that are being proposed by the applicant, which are in keeping
00:05:00 with the current planning scheme. I think it's as simple as that. I don't need to allude on any further than that. I'll let the councillors decide whether they agree that this is a good idea or not. Mayor Stewart: We have three options here. Agree with the staff and refuse the extension. This would then incur an appeal by the applicants in the P&E court. This could take six to 12 months and potentially cost our ratepayer hundreds of thousands of dollars. Similarly, while this appeal is taking place, the new change application has to be assessed on its merits at the same time. We similarly then have a second option to grant the extension. Again, the change application has to be assessed or we defer the extension as this, Councillor Jurisevic's motion has been put forward. The applicant can't defer for an extension for the application, but councillors can defer it. I support this. The new change application, which has been lodged, and I believe it was lodged, Patrick, on the Monday, and we went to the P&E on the Tuesday, and so the report had already been written.
00:06:00 As you said, the change application hadn't been lodged until right before the date before, so it was too late for that report. There is two key reports that are contained in the change application, an arborist report and a bushfire hazard assessment report, which is assessed against the current state planning policy and the Noosa 2020 planning instrument. As per requirement of section 82, change applications must be assessed against planning instruments at the time of the lodgement of change application, which will ensure that they are assessed against our current scheme. There are also 12 other specialist reports contained in this change application, which are all assessed against the Noosa plan 2020. This includes, and we've all received this information, increasing trees, reducing the footprint, and most importantly is that the change application will be publicly advertised and a community will be able to be consulted. They will have an opportunity to have their say. There is, in fact, a koala mapping report due to come in within the next few weeks. We all have received that information, of which we believe, if we had met with the applicant.
00:07:00 So there's no reason why we shouldn't defer, because the change application will be assessed anyway. So this is a sensible application. It's reducing risk to Council. It's reducing risk to the community. And it's reducing potential incurrence of fees. So I support this. Thank you, Council. Thank you, Councillor Stewart. Amanda. Amanda. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask a question, Patrick? Yes. With the wording of the amendment, I'm implying that there will be a further report coming to Council regarding the extension to currency application, or does that need to be clarified in the amendment? Speaker 9: Certainly, both the matters, the extension and the other change application, would be coming back to Council. You could add, you know, at the end, has been completed by staff and reported to Council, if you're comfortable with that. Councillor Lorentson: Could I move an amendment to include that, so we can read both? Yes, you can. Move that now, Councillor Livingston.
00:08:00 So defer the consideration of the application to such time as the assessment of the other change application. Thank you. Can I suggest, and both, and both applications are reported to Council? And both applications happen with that. Both applications reported to Council. Councillor Wilkie: A seconder for that, please. Councillor Finzel. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm going to ask a question on process. The other change is a change to... Councillor Wilkie: I'm sorry, Brian. This is... Oh, it's been moved. So Amelia's got the right to speak. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, I think it's just... Purpose of clarity, that both reports are presented to Council at the same time. Thank you. I have a question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's just a question of process. So the other change application is a change to the approval that's in place at the moment that's being sought to be extended. That's correct. If it's approved, it will provide a timeframe, which will extend.
00:09:00 Does that then mean the extension application is null and void? Speaker 9: I don't know. I don't think so. I'd have to review the conditions within the approval to understand whether it's... How it's actually specified in there. But I think it would be prudent to do both matters. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else want to speak? Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just get clarification of that question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So the other change is a change to the approval which they're seeking to extend. So if we approve that, the old approval automatically lapses. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Which means the extension... Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: There's no need to extend it if the other approval is granted. Speaker 9: That's my understanding. Is that correct, Patrick? I'd like to have a look at the conditions, but it's quite likely that's the case. Okay. Thank you. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I just have a question. Yeah. Thank you, Patrick. Just to clarify, the other change in note is when we talk about community has opportunity then to have a say. How does that process work? Speaker 9: Well, there'll be an ad in the local newspaper and there'll be a sign at the front of the
00:10:00 property that will have to be there for 15 business days and that will direct people within the area to view the documentation online or to come into council and if they've got a... If they support the application or if they've got issue with the application, they can make a submission. Okay. Speaker 4: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I dare say that the process we're going through today will be communicated through various media streams. So that people will become aware of the... Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wants to wish to speak to the amendment? Councillor Lorentson, if you wish to close. No, thank you. I put the amendment those in favour. It's carried unanimously. The amendment becomes part of motion to which Councillor Jurisdict and Stewart are the only speakers. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Amelia? Councillor Lorentson: I will. Just to keep it really simple for community. The other change application will be assessed against the Noosa Plan 2020. It will be referred to the state for assessment against current koala provisions.
00:11:00 The other change application has a new bushfire hazard report, arborist report, vegetation management plan that's relevant to the 2020 Noosa Plan and also the state plan. Public notification. 15 days will be allowed for community to make submissions. So what we're approving today is, in my opinion, what the community has publicly told us. Thank you. Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. I think it's important to understand and, as Councillor Lorentson said, for the community because of comments that have been made. Since the original report was produced. The other change application will go through exactly the same evaluation assessment process as they put in a new application.
00:12:00 There is no difference in the benchmarks or the approach. The concerns around bushfire and koalas will be assessed in exactly the same way. I wouldn't have approved a extension of the old approval, but I do think the approach of deferring this, both for the practical reasons of trying to avoid unnecessary legal costs, but also the principled reasons. And there is an ethical issue underlying this, and that is this whole Settlers Cove development was negotiated some time ago with very generous environmental offsets. And a large area along Wiver Creek dedicated to a nature conservation trust. So implicit within the existing approval is acknowledgement of the previous acts to offset any ecological impacts of development of this site.
00:13:00 So the existing approval acknowledges that. The existing approval only had a limited number of trees that were thought to be protected as part of it. A number of those trees were casuarina, so they have a short life and therefore have already died. The proposal, as in the other change, does exceed the environmental footprint than the existing approval. I'm not saying that what is put in will get a rubber stamp, but what I'm saying is by deferring it and allowing to assess the other change on its merits, we will be both honouring an ethical obligation to the site because we did overtly consider it at the planning scheme review and made a conscious decision to retain it for this purpose, for a tourism development, not for multi-units.
00:14:00 And so to me, saying that we won't extend the approval, well deferring that request for extension to me is both practical, potentially money saving, but also probably the right thing to do from a pencil position. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Chair, do you wish to close? Councillor Jurisevic: I think Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Stockwell summarised the points very, very well. I don't think there's anything further needs to be said. I think that it was all covered under those two summations. Councillor Wilkie: Okay, motion goes in favour. That's carried unanimously. Thank you, Patrick. Next is the Noosa North Shore Ferry Service Tender. That's deferred from the services and organisation meeting. Agenda. Page 4. Welcome, gentlemen. Hello, Janice, would you like to give us an overview, please?
15 minutes in ¶
00:15:00 Yes, good morning to you there, Madam Chair. We'll start with our CEO setting parameters for discussion around some probity issues with our assignment. Speaker 8: Chair, thank you very much. Councillors, as per some recent email correspondence that you've received, this particular matter is in a live tender process right now, and we do, because of the quantum, we have probity advisers engaged as well. So if there are questions as to why one tender was selected over the other, I'll defer to the Chair, and we may have that question asked and closed. What we're doing is ensuring that the integrity of the tender process is upheld. It is important, though, that you as Council inform yourself with as much information as you possibly can to make your decision, so we understand that. But what we want to maintain is the integrity of the tender process. Some questions may need to be asked and closed. I will work with the team that have been able to review the applications through the tender process as to what their views would be around answering
00:16:00 those particular questions and defer back through the Chair. So please ensure that you do ask the questions. It is important that you do. We may have to answer those and close for you from there to ensure that the probity of the process is upheld. Thank you, Chair. Sure. Thank you, Scott. Thank you, Chair. Speaker 7: This report is about the Newson offshore ferry tender, the process that we went through this year. The incumbent ferry operator has a contract which expires in June next year, so June 2024. And has been providing the service continually since 1999. So we've been through a process of reviewing the service and reporting to Council, and Council at its March meeting made the decision to go out for tender for the fully outsourced service model. And we launched that tender in May this year, closing in August.
00:17:00 It is a very pleasing result in what has been a challenging period in the procurement environment this year. We had five tenders coming from three entities. We had the incumbent operator submit, describe them as a small business. We had a medium-sized enterprise in Entrada Travel Group submit, and also Sealink, which is a very large business. So it was a really pleasing outcome in the range and number of tenders that we got. And we've been through the evaluation process with an extensive team and with a recommendation there to proceed to award to Divers Den Investments, which is part of the Entrada Travel Group. So happy to field any questions. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, that question. Thank you, Dennis. I'm looking at the contribution to local economy,
00:18:00 and I see that both Divers Den and the Kelsium Group, scored 2.75 as opposed to 5 with the Noofer Unit Trust, who currently operate the Noosa North Shore Ferries. One of the questions asked of me was that why are Council choosing an overseas company for this? But with regard to contribution to local economy, I note that whilst they're a New Zealand-owned largest transport passenger transport company, they operate the Daintree River Vehicle Ferry for the Douglas Shire and also operate various cruise and dive vessels in Australia and New Zealand and Cairns Tourist Information Centre. So one would assume that they're well established in Australia. They have a local presence. And that they use local staff in the local area for their local operations. Would that be a fair assessment of their operations? Speaker 7: That's correct. They've got quite a number of Australian entities
00:19:00 to do with their various businesses, primarily in North Queensland. So they've got ferry operation, dive operations, tours, the Cairns Information Centres. So there's a number of entities associated with that. And then ultimately, they're all owned by the parent New Zealand company. Councillor Jurisevic: So within that tender document, did they acknowledge the use of local residents? Residents for the local operation? Speaker 7: Yes. And that's really, in delivering the service, the majority of the staffing requirements relate to actually on the ground delivering the service. And all those people need to live locally. So it will be a local crew that's providing the service because they're actually hands-on and operating the service. So it's not something that you can do remotely. Thank you.
00:20:00 Councillor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: In accordance with your wishes, I'll move to the staff recommendation. Councillor Wilkie: One second. Moved by Councillor Stockwell, seconded by Mayor Stewart. Councillor Stockwell? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I do so. It is an important and large contract. And we have gone through a very long and detailed process looking at it. The staff recommendation proposes a solution. It's not something that we're going to go through. That will not only benefit those wishing to go to the North Shore, but because it includes a full suite of digital payment ticketing information and application forms, it does open the opportunity to embed within it some management measures that will reduce the congestion to our locals in peak periods. It does allow for speedier loading. And while one of the historic historic projects and historic measures we used to try and control vehicle numbers on the North Shore
00:21:00 was the size of the ferries, the use of a larger ferry will actually facilitate flow without and that will leave the decision about whether the state government puts limits on day trips, for example, on the Noosa North Shore to that venue rather than to on a ferry service. The other good thing about this is that they have indicated that they will fully offset the carbon emissions. from the Green Fleet using the partnership we have with them in the Ural Ringtail Forest project. So it's both helping to mitigate our emissions, but also this will be part of Council's scope two or scope three emissions that we'd have to cancel by 2026. So it will be reducing our footprint in that regard. And I think that's a really good thing. It's a good initiative that all our major suppliers should look at when they're making tenders.
00:22:00 I think the fact that they have proven performance, that they will have a large local footprint. I'm not sure if it's still the case, but just for technical reasons, when I was in the game, the national local buy policy actually included New Zealand. I'm not sure if it's changed since a decade ago, but it certainly was when the Sunshine Coast Hospital, the only time that we don't consider New Zealand as our extra status during rugby union matches. And maybe netball, yeah. So I think it will help us move forward. I think this is a key bit of infrastructure and a key partnership, well, a tender agreement, service provider agreement, that will allow us to look at a range of policy options when we come to destination management and stewardship of what is one of our shires and Queensland's leading attractions,
00:23:00 which is the Noosa North Shore and Teewah Beach. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Brian. Yes, Mrs Stewart. Mayor Stewart: Thank you, Brian. I agree with the staff recommendation. There are a few good things that come out of New Zealand. My husband being one of them. But... I had to clarify that before. Councillor Lorentson: My gosh, I'm getting clean. We're silent. All right. Mayor Stewart: But look, this is an overseas company, but it has substantial interests in Queensland. Runs the Daintree Forest. And when I Googled them, it was all about Cairns. And they have a large number of vessels operating up in our Great Barrier Reef. So they're very accustomed to Queensland and they're well used by Queensland. This, as Councillor Stockwell said, it does have increased vehicle capacity. And when we talk about it, we get a lot of complaints about vehicle queuing, about burden on residential amenity because of traffic and congestion. Well, this new ferry will go a long way to address those concerns.
00:24:00 And it's fantastic, you know, looking at being able to offset those carbon emissions. So there's certainly positives in that respect. I note, too, that there has been an independent financial assessment of submissions by the ADC group. And they assessed the financial capabilities of all the tenderers and were very positive and supportive of this particular one. And we are, as a Council, under an obligation under Section 198 of the Procurement Policy for Local Government Regulations to demonstrate and produce sound contracting principles. So I think this is a good contract. I think they're a good operator. They're a seasoned operator. And I fully support staff recommendations. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I have some questions. My first question, and you mentioned the offsets, which is excellent. Once we're in contract, will Council be engaging with Guyber's Den and discussing opportunities down the track for electrification or hydrogen
00:25:00 instead of diesel ferries? Speaker 7: Through the Chair, I think that will be a natural consequence of where this project and this Council is going in looking at emissions reductions. And my assumption would be that we'll start to develop strategies that will target low-hanging fruit and where best bang for buck for sort of intervention actions are best directed. So I think that there's a strong potential for us to partner with Entrada through the life of this contract and potentially at a fairly early stage to look at converting to other propulsion technologies. Councillor Lorentson: My other question is, whenever I see 20-year lease, I can't help but think of the Kin Kin quarry. My question is simple. Does the 20-year lease allow Council to revoke, review,
00:26:00 or make any sort of operational changes in response to any community and environmental concerns that haven't been identified today that may come up in five years or 10 years' time? And has King & Co wrapped their head around emerging risk and potential issues in the future? Speaker 7: In short, yes, it does. It's a really extensive contract that lets us vary for a range of outcomes. And, yeah, I probably wouldn't speak to specifics of where you're going with that, but it is a very extensive contract that allows us to do things that historically we weren't able to do on the previous lease agreements. We've given that a lot of attention. Fantastic. Councillor Lorentson: And last question, and I spoke to Larry, and maybe Larry may be able to answer this question,
00:27:00 but I was speaking to a resident over the weekend who used to work for TMR, and this is her idea, and I think it's really great. But the report identifies that Council's infrastructure services have already allocated funding in the current financial year budget to design the upgrade works to Moorindil Street. And that project intends to add a second northbound lane to Moorindil Street to the ferry landings. Given that TMR just recently had concluded a survey on additional boat grants for the Noosa River, and without raising any expectation to the community, if that survey comes back and it says that the Noosa River may be a desirable location, it would make sense for Council and TMR to combine and do a sort of a master plan or... It's a question. It is. Is there opportunity,
00:28:00 if that's the case, for Noosa Council and TMR to look at combining resources and putting together or co-funding a master plan for a boat grant with the ferry landing? Speaker 7: I could probably talk to that because I'm across both issues. Oh, thank you. Dennis? Yeah. It is something that we've identified with TMR. I've been involved in those talks. I don't think it's a lay-down, Mazia, but it's... It's a great location for increasing the facilities and increasing the sort of intensity of recreational boat use there. It'll be an assessment of the pros and cons, with the cons being sort of increasing the intensity of both the traffic, parking, and sort of interaction with the ferry service itself. Potential conflict. Potential conflict. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Speaker 7: So I think there's some real potential benefits,
00:29:00 but it needs to be sort of assessed holistically, as you point out, in a sort of master plan type format. Interesting. And involving our... Mayor Stewart: Dennis, in that, when we're looking at that, is there the boat trailer parking, is there the ability to look at that there as well? Speaker 7: The way DTMR operates is if they're providing a new facility, it's sort of implicit that it comes with trailer parking, but there's a lot of pressures at that point, particularly currently. So we need to assess whether it's appropriate to be potentially adding to those pressures. Mayor Stewart: Because people in the community have also raised a new slipway there too. I'm not sure what your thoughts are around that. Speaker 7: It was considered at some stage in the past. I think that's more a bit of a legacy issue, and the current slipway was the outcome of that process. It's a fish habitat area in that location, and a new commercial lease area is not something that's really feasible. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Right.
30 minutes in ¶
00:30:00 Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Dennis. There's one element that is mentioned in the Kelsian Group tender, which is the opportunity to look at an electric ferry, powered apparently by a connected cable, and the sea link indicate the technology is in use in Sweden and Norway, and it tends to use the electric ferry to source 100% renewable power, et cetera, et cetera, in their tender. Diver's Den. What have they offered in opportunity going forward to move away from diesel-powered ferries? And is there an opportunity, and is there anything that can be written into the contract with a timeframe as to when more renewable sources of energy could be part of this contract, given that it's a 20-year lease that we're talking about? Speaker 7: Yeah. Through the Chair, what they've offered through the tender process, both in their original tender and clarifications that we've made, is a commitment and willingness to work with Council
00:31:00 to explore those things. So I think it's difficult to entrench as a contractual requirement, because it wasn't something that was a contractual requirement through the tender, but certainly we have the flexibility and willingness to work, and to identify those sort of opportunities with them once they're under contract, and provisions within the contract would allow us to do that. Councillor Jurisevic: But there's no way, with the current tender arrangement here, of knowing what sort of costs that might incur. One of the tenders has given us a price with that incorporated, and the other hasn't, has it? Is that correct? Speaker 7: Only in part. We've got a tender that has one electric ferry and one diesel ferry, and then in a lot of aspects an unknown quantity as far as sort of electrical design and infrastructure and process that is involved to fully explore
00:32:00 what's involved in delivering that. Councillor Jurisevic: So whilst one tender has given us an indication that they're willing to undertake an electric service, there is infrastructure such as poles and potential solar power and all the rest that would have to be facilitated on top of the costs here. That's correct. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Tom. Councillor Wegener: Just quickly, I'd like to thank staff, especially Dennis and Clint, for your patience with me because I was wildly opposed to this for a long time. And I've seen it through your eyes, you do not limit passengers to the North Shore by the ferry, and this is not a job for Council. So Council has no business running the ferry business. So thank you for your patience and communicating with myself and the rest and bringing us on board on this journey and helping us really understand where Council lies and what we do and what we can't do
00:33:00 and where the ferry fits in. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'll speak to the motion. Look, I support the staff recommendation for a number of reasons. One, two vehicles, two vehicle ferries, one of 27 vehicle ferry. And one of the greatest, and Brian alluded to this, one of the greatest problems we have down Merindal Street at the moment is the traffic that queues and queues endlessly when people want to go to the North Shore. Facilitating a larger vehicle ferry that can transport more people across will alleviate a lot of the congestion Councillor Wilkie: that is facilitated there. Councillor Jurisevic: The other element that will alleviate congestion and brings this service into the 21st century is the capacity for electronic booking and payment systems. And that is, that is something that we've been working towards for some time with the ferry. And I think that in the 21st century, I think that's a reasonable expectation to have with regard to a service that people can book online,
00:34:00 that people can pay electronically, not reliant on cash seems to be the exception rather than the rule these days with a lot of services. And it means that it will facilitate and I believe a faster and a simpler service going forward. The opportunity there to look at and options other than diesel can be discussed and can be facilitated within the release and the contract going forward. So provided that all of those things are undertaken in a reasonable timeframe to reducing carbon and emissions in another way other than just offsets will be I believe a greater benefit to the community in the long run. I appreciate this operator intends to do it by offsets in the interim and utilising the Ural Ringtail Forest as one of those projects going forward. So I'm happy to support staff recommendation. I think the evaluation here is clear,
00:35:00 clear cut and there is one tender that stands out above the others. So I congratulate staff on the time and effort and I know the work that's gone into this. So very much well done to have got such a great group of tenderers to come forward for our service. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you councillor. Councillor Finzel: Thank you to the staff. It's been a long process. I just have a question around good governance moving forward and looking at continuous improvement. When the reviews come up in terms of contract or lease, is that right every five years? Did I read that? Is that the CEO? Speaker 8: There's the ability to review the contract. That's through the chair. That's built in. Councillor Finzel: Yes. So what processes, how robust are they in our internal organisation systems to address issues that may arise as this goes along to make sure that we have everything right
00:36:00 given it's going to be the length of the contract of 20 years. What assurance do we have in the organisation that good governance and principles around that will be robust and transparent? Speaker 7: I'm not sure I fully understand your question. You're talking about reviews of the contract? Councillor Finzel: Yes, the reviews moving forward. Given it's a 20-year contract like Amelia's raised, we've got the before us with the 20-year issues that have arisen around that. I just want to make sure that we have, you know, good robust systems in place to ensure community and engender trust that as we're working towards excellence that we'll be able to satisfy everyone here today that we can address those issues as they arise. Speaker 10: Sure. Through the chair, I can respond to that one. I suppose first and foremost, first consideration is the actual structure of the contract that we now have in place
00:37:00 in front of us for this tender. A lot of work went into the requirement of this contract and probably one of the most robust contracts that we will have in place for a long-term service that council provides. But supporting that is through our procurement team is our contract management framework. So we're actually working on at the moment the establishment of a contract management framework which will help guide and deliver best practice contract management in our organisation. Obviously that extends beyond the scope of just this contract, but broadly to all our contracts, both short-term for our construction work but also long-term for our larger contracts such as this, our technology contracts or our waste management contracts. The information in there will help build both the framework, the process, the education, the policy, documentation, training, et cetera, for all officers in the organisation to facilitate that. Speaker 2: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: So I guess following on from that and following on from my question earlier,
00:38:00 given that it's a 20-year lease, under the conditions that are being set here, the contract is yet to be written under which the operations will be undertaken? Speaker 7: No, the contract form part of the tender documents. That's an extensive document that was just drawn up by King & Co solicitors and I guess one of the key points that we've been talking to is previously quite a simple lease document that we lived with for the last 23 years. It basically was an inability to bury the contract. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's what I'm alluding to here, the fact that in the past we've tried to get electronic ticketing or... So how, within this new contract structure that this lease is being arranged, will we have provision to facilitate a timeframe going forward for electrification or carbon reduction within it?
00:39:00 Where has it been written into this lease arrangement? Speaker 7: Primarily it sits in two places. The service plan, which describes how the service is going to be delivered and also requires an undertaking from the tenderers and then the contractor. It includes an undertaking to adapt through the life of the contract and then the service plan is an extensive document that becomes a contract document. So there's basically adaptation to new technologies is an implicit part of the contract and then thereafter, if things emerge that require a variation of the contract, it's an extensive contract that allows for the parties to bury... Councillor Jurisevic: So it'll be undertaken through a variation, a contract variation to facilitate the next stage going forward if... Speaker 7: If a variation is required. As opposed to... I mean, things like payment,
00:40:00 emerging payment technologies, it's not really something we expect to have to be in a contract. It's just best practice and through the term of this contract, we expect the service provider to basically reflect best practice. Councillor Jurisevic: And the timeframes to extract those will be under... will be on council to then negotiate with the leaseholder with regard to timeframes of... producing those expectations of council. Speaker 7: Yeah, and here... Hereafter under this contract, you know, contract management is just ongoing and regular and there'll be a framework around it which is set out in the contract also. So it's essentially around monthly contract meetings around the service delivery and reporting on... on the metrics of the service delivery. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, my only concern is that given it's a 20-year timeframe... Councillor Wilkie: It's a question or comment, Jeff? Councillor Jurisevic: It's a question coming, Frank. Is there...
00:41:00 Are we... Are we... How do we ensure that we get value for money in a change to the contract going forward, i.e. that we're not held over a barrel because of what we want, we get a ridiculous price going forward on electrification, for example? Speaker 7: So initially, it's... It's a negotiation and partnership process. If that falls down, then it effectively becomes a mediation process. Councillor Jurisevic: The back capacity is within the contract. Yes, thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: I'll make it very brief, but I just want to highlight that this is really a great example of how we manage the destination. And, you know, congestion and traffic, that's been an ongoing issue in New South Wales for some time. And this gives me great hope
00:42:00 that there are solutions and we can do it. So, that's it. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Because we can favour the motion, what I think is the most significant outcome of this is that it will minimise the impact on legal street residents, who often lament the congestion on Marimbal Street at peak periods. The additional slip lane and the use of the larger ferry, especially the 27-vehicle ferry, and two of them running side by side at peak times, and the use of online technology will facilitate faster travel times and less queuing. Now, I also particularly am grateful to the staff for building in the flexibility of this 20-year contract, which will be able to accommodate
00:43:00 any changes to access to the North Shore that may come from the State Government. As Councillor Wegener said, it's not the Council's role to restrict access to the North Shore via the ferry. The contract has the flexibility built into it to accommodate any changes there. So, it's a significant piece of work and I congratulate the staff. Councillor Jurisevic: Sorry, Frank, before concluding, can I ask one more question? Yes, of course, Chair. Just with regard to fees for local residents, there's nothing in this that will change any of the fee structure with regard to how local residents utilise the service? Speaker 7: No, there's nothing within this. There's not an intent to do that. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: I won't ask the question. I've forgotten to ask it, sorry. Brian, do you wish to close? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I will. I will close. Now, probably there's a few things we've done. We've looked back.
00:44:00 So, for example, when we're talking about potential for a boat ramp, we look back to previous times when we looked at it as a slipway and said, no, that took 10 years to rule it out because it was a commercial enterprise abutting a fish habitat reserve. We've looked back and said, the problem's been that, you know, we've had congestion and queuing that's not been good for either our residents or our brand. And we've looked back and said, 23 years ago, you were lucky you've had a motor that went Speaker 3: and now we've got, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: you can walk along with your boat. How was that? That's as good as I can do it. You might be all too young. You remember how the motors used to sound in the 90s. They would have all these 120 pounds. So that's when the last contract was formed. So we, you know, the staff have done an extended process to make sure that this contract can move with the times. And then we started looking forward and we, the debate about whether
45 minutes in ¶
00:45:00 it could or should be a fully electric renewable energy service. And I thought once again that perhaps we should look back a little bit there too in terms of when we went out early looking at electric buses. And we found a product overseas and it didn't meet Australian electrical standards. So it is probably good that we haven't locked ourselves in, but that the negotiations around what is achievable by June 2024. I think the other thing is we've looked at technology and we've talked about electronic payment. There's the option if it is a book system or if there's peak periods where we want to limit it that we can actually work with the company to link your bookings to whatever the permitting system allows people to go to the North Shore. We looked at maybe linking it up with the current DTMR posters about boat ramps. And I think that's the other exciting technology
00:46:00 that we'll need to adopt and in my opinion it can be in next budget. And that's in adopting in systems that rely on vehicle recognition software that allow us to discriminate between residents and visitors. And if we have two lanes going to the ferry then it's quite clear that if we could discriminate through a scanning system on a licence place for example, we could give the priority lane to the North Shore residents. So they're not queuing at all. We could give it if we were going to a boat ramp for example, make that boat ramp so it's not congestion or add congestion that that boat ramp is constructed and it's only for residents. So I think we have here a service that's being provided that will have a range of technology that will equip us for the future and provide the opportunity to look at policy reform within destination management such that we do engender the mantra of residents first.
00:47:00 But we do make the experience for our visitors high quality and not one of congestion and waiting. Councillor Wilkie: Could the motion be made in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Janice. Thank you, Janice. Thank you. Thanks. Next item, advertising spending policy which is page 39 of the Services and Organisation Committee meeting agenda. Mayor Stewart, you had a couple of... This was referred because there was some... There was. Issues about some wording. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I just want to talk this out there. I'm sure this is the best way to do this. If we amend the current one or you prefer to bring us a new one. I'm just... I just wanted to expand upon... And again, I'm just... This isn't a motion. I'm just seeking guidance. Yeah, sure. Page 41 there where it says... You got it? Yeah. Yep. Council policy. Yeah. The council may incur expenditure for advertising only if the advertising is for providing information or education to the public and the information or education is provided in the public interest.
00:48:00 Correct. I was seeking to add to that and you're in the interest of the mission of the council and its strategic plan because I think, you know, a big part of our... And again, I'll be guided by this. Advertising is actually able to communicate our mission, our plan and that would encapsulate that more fully with those words was my thought. The second one was... And councilor Lawrence brought this to our attention in the last meeting on page 45. This policy applies to all advertising expenditure undertaken by councillors and council officers that potentially should be... This policy applies to all rate payer funded advertising because it doesn't prohibit us at any time then coming into an election of using our own funds for advertising or promotion. Just for... Just to seek that further clarification. Yeah. Speaker 2: Look, through the chair, I had actually preferred
00:49:00 to have a discussion with the councillors on this but unfortunately that discussion forum was cancelled so unfortunately we didn't get the opportunity to do that. So, the regulation identifies and talks about advertising or information in the public interest so that's the reason for the reference to that in the policy. The other thing that I would say just relative to the point you raised was that when you look at the section in the amended policy that talks about the types of advertising that councillors considers appropriate, we do talk about promoting the achievement of councillors' plans, goals and objectives. So, that would then reinforce that item for you. I'd also like to just bring to your attention too, under the Local Government Act, there is actually a section that speaks to election material and that may shed some light on that paragraph in it. It talks about advertising before an election.
00:50:00 It talks about a local government including an entity of a local government must not during a caretaker period publish or distribute election material. Election material is anything able to or intended to influence an elector about a voting at an election or affect the results of an election. For example, a local government is not permitted to publish a newsletter during a caretaker period that promotes or raises the profile of a sitting councillor. So, that provides a bit of insight as to that paragraph that speaks to before an election. So, Mayor Stewart: that wouldn't prohibit then people, say Brian I know has a newsletter, putting that out on his own No, Speaker 2: not at all. So, the real focus Mayor Stewart: So, Speaker 2: the focus is here is council using council money and council spending. Do we need to clarify that or is that so, is that in Oh, look, I really feel it's ingrained. It's specific in the local government regulation and I did do quite a bit of research on the policy. Mayor Stewart: You're the head of government
00:51:00 so if you think that's implied Speaker 2: collaboration in there and the draft of the policy. But, as I said, it's unfortunate that we didn't get to workshop it earlier but I'm happy to take on that. Mayor Stewart: Yeah, okay. No, I think that was your sixth one for everyone. Okay. Councillor Jones. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I'm not worried about the individual council putting out their own newsletters. I understand that's got nothing to do with what we're talking about here. What I am concerned with is what we currently do in like our two-page spread in the local papers. Does that mean that that cannot continue in an election period or that if it is undertaken it can't mention a councillor or the mayor as opening something or, you know, the mayor opened this this week because that would be seen as, that's where I'm seeing
00:52:00 the differentiation in this is that that's promotion of an individual councillor or mayor in that matter. Is that a, is that the understanding that you have in regard to how this is? Speaker 2: Through the chair our news, that news article that we place, we do actually pay for that advertising so it does fall within this because it's money spent. But it's very much about promoting a particular council, councillor in that period between, before that would, that would towards an election, especially if they were, I suppose, standing again or in that election period. It's, if it's business as usual and part of our normal services that there's a provision in there that talks about our general services, the things that we would normally do whether it be opening a playground or doing whatever. That, to me, is acceptable under this. It's, it's where you're actually promoting a particular council.
00:53:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Well that's, that's, that's my understanding as well. Provided that the council or the mayor's name did not appear as the, within the article for something that it was business as usual from council and correct me, Mr CEO, on this. Provided that that was the, the nature of the article that it would be acceptable but it would, mentioning anybody during an election period would probably be unacceptable. Speaker 2: Press releases don't fall under this though. Councillor Jurisevic: They're saying, the mayor today opened this. Mayor Stewart: But we, there's a policy that means that, that public, we actually, councils don't feature in that double page spread anyway. No, no, Speaker 2: no, no, no. And, and, we have, through the chair, just the relevant section there on that page 44 talks about advertising, advertising activities of council other than in a manner and form that is customary for council to advertise this activity. So, if we normally do that, then. Councillor Jurisevic: I mean, that's, that to me is the most obvious example
00:54:00 of where we pay for. Speaker 2: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Advertising, although it's communicating as much as it is advertising. So, the definition between communications and advertising is the fact that it's paid. So, the only instance that I can think of where we pay within the local, local media is ads on the, the radio ads within the, in those papers. So, that, that would have to be very clear that those don't mention individuals in those, in, in an election period. Speaker 2: Is that the case? Through, through the chair, we actually also pay for social media boosts. If we're wanting to extend our reach on a particular matter, we might be going out to consult with the community on a new plan. For example, we do pay for boosts there. And we may pay for advertisements like traditionally in the past where we've advertised a newspaper for our new corporate plan. For example, we've paid for that advertisement.
00:55:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The, the markup version is missing a page. So, but the one below is what's being adopted. Speaker 2: Yeah, so. So, Deputy Mayor Stockwell: we're looking for the types and going, we've got types mentioned. Speaker 2: No, no, no. So, I'm, I apologise. I don't know how, how that happens in the agenda, so. No, Councillor Jurisevic: I kept mine straight. Yeah, I didn't know. Speaker 2: Good picker. Please focus on the second one. Councillor Wilkie: I'm happy to move this as read. Happy to move. All right, so. Move Councillor Griselle. Yeah. Second move by, Not second. Second by Councillor Griselle. Councillor Griselle, would you speak to the motion? Councillor Finzel: No, I think we've covered it enough. We've cleared up, clarified the policies and what we can and can't do. So, thank you, Deb. That's all I've got to say about that. Thanks. Thank you. Speaker 4: Good. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Any other Councillor to speak to the motion? No, it's the same. Oh, right. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry. It's just a follow up question then, and I think you might send an email that's been too long ago. Okay. Two. Was there any, in that, because I don't have the markup, was there any substantive change
00:56:00 in the types of advertising the council considers appropriate? Speaker 2: We, there was an elaboration on them. The policy that was reviewed in 2016 was not as expansive as this, so I did expand those to, so it was clear for staff in understanding what was. This is more specific? This is, this, this is, yeah, and it promotes a greater understanding of what is and isn't, what's in and what's out, so to speak. Okay. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Deb. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you for coming in. Thank you, Speaker 2: Deb. Blended as you are. And I apologise from the first discussion at committee, I was away and I wasn't well, so. No, that's okay. Thanks, Deb. Councillor Wilkie: Next one is application for building works for a dwelling house at 60 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach. Before we go into this one, councillors, report comfort rate. Sure. Just five minutes, please. Okay. This could take some time. We'll do the next three in the next session.
00:57:00 I'm sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I thought I meant to ask you that, but I didn't. Okay. Did I now? Councillor Jurisevic: Did I not? Belinda Paulsey video? Um. . Speaker 3: .
60 minutes in ¶
01:05:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay. We back? Not yet. Hello, Yada. Yada or Jada? Jada. Jada. Thank you. You're close. Ready, Frank? Okay. All right. Welcome back, everybody. Clever meeting open again, and we're at the Reports Director General Committee, which is item four, an application for building works for a growing house at 60 Seaview Terrace, Sunshine Beach, in the town of Jada.
01:06:00 Yes, it is. And Patrick and also Leo from the Planning Department. Jada, would you like to give us an overview of the application? Speaker 6: Yes, absolutely. Yes, so this is an application for building works for a new dwelling house at 60 Seaview Terrace. The site is in the mapped landslide hazard area in the mapped coastal management district, mapped erosion current area, and it's also got a coastal building line on the property. The applicant has submitted a geotechnical investigation and a coastal hazard assessment, sorry, with the application, which has been reviewed by Council's external geotechnical and hydraulic consultants. It is noted as well that there are a number of non-compliances for this application, including site cover, building height, the inclusion of a rooftop terrace and a building on the coastal building line,
01:07:00 which have been all assessed within the report against the merits of the property. It's also recommended for approval, as it's considered that the variations to the planning scheme won't cause any detrimental impacts to the subject site or neighbouring properties in the surrounding area. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you. Can I ask a question in that regard? Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. In regard to the compliances, as I said, as I look at the table on page 14, the number of crosses against compliances far outnumber the ticks, including a roof terrace that's not permitted. Can you allude a little bit more as to where those non-compliances were able to be overcome in the application or in the conditions going forward?
01:08:00 Speaker 6: Yes. So I'll start with the setbacks, the building setbacks. So the proposed front setback is zero metres to the pool and then three metres to the garage. Many sites along the street, because of the topography of the sites and they've got, you know, quite a steep drop down towards the rear of the site, we do allow, you know, structures within the front setback to allow for the slope of the site. So consistent with the rest of the street and the fact that it drops back at the back, we've allowed them to come forward within the street. Speaker 9: We often find that would be associated with the garage, whereby access is impacted by the topography of the site, and that's the case in this area. Councillor Jurisevic: And in this case, it only applies to the garage and the pool, which are part of the living space. Speaker 6: Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: Correct. Thank you. Speaker 6: And then that's similar with the side setbacks. There's, you know, zero metres to the pool and the stairs on the northern side, and then the southern side is also zero metres to the garage, which is similar to the frontages due to the topography of the site.
01:09:00 The dwelling itself is mostly compliant with those side setbacks. On the southern side, it's a small portion of the window hoods that are within the side setback. Otherwise, the dwelling is compliant with those. And then it's also within the rear setback in front of that coastal building line. The dwelling house that's already on the site is a very similar footprint. It goes 10 metres over the coastal building line, and this proposed dwelling house is also 10 metres over that coastal building line. Councillor Jurisevic: So it doesn't expand the footprint beyond what it currently is within that coastal building line. No, it doesn't. And the other element here within site cover, and I'm assuming it refers to the roof terrace, is the 51 per cent bird's eye view. Can you give us a bit more of an understanding of what the bird's eye view in the proposal
01:10:00 refers to with regard to site cover? Speaker 6: So the bird's eye view has been taken from a bird's eye view, and so it covers 51 per cent of the site. And the way that it's been calculated is we do allow 50 per cent for one storey and 30 per cent for another storey. And if you do have a dwelling that has an element of three storeys, we do the bird's eye view from a 50 per cent coverage. Speaker 9: So just as a clarity, so you've got one level is going to be 50 per cent. The scheme allows one level to have 50 per cent max, and the other level to be 30 per cent. So we want that other level to be within the footprint of the 50 per cent level, so it doesn't effectively elongate the footprint of the building down the slope and end up with a bird's eye view assessment of more than 50 per cent. So looking from above down on it. That's right. So in this instance where it's 51 per cent, I think that equates to approximately 5.4
01:11:00 square metres of built form. That exceeds the scheme, which in context of the surrounding area would not be detrimental and would be consistent with other built form. Councillor Jurisevic: And the element of three storeys is the fact that there's only two storeys to the street view, but the third storey, because the walk slopes away, the lowest storey is the third storey, well below street level in essence. Speaker 9: That is correct. At or below street level. And it relates to a very, very small portion of the ground. Councillor Jurisevic: All right. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying all of those elements. Councillor Wilkie: Sorry, Brian, go ahead. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. So can you bring up figure 13, which is on page 20, please, Alinda? So your last name in the book, it's only over a small portion of the building. Can you indicate which portion of the building it is, and does that include the rooftop terrace,
01:12:00 including making it a third storey, which would be, in my opinion, over a larger area? Speaker 6: Well, the third storey is, you can probably see it better on the floor plan. So the element that constitutes the three storeys is a small portion towards the front of the house that includes some stairs from the middle level to the upper level. So what page is it, Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Page 20. 20. Page 26. I'll find it. 26, is it? Speaker 9: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: But we can look at 20, because I can view. Okay. Thank you. There. So to me, there's, that looks like there's quite extensive areas of three storeys to me. Speaker 9: I think if you go to page 26, it'll give you a greater indication of the footprint of
01:13:00 that lowest level on the left-hand side. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So it's all the lower level constitutes the third storey. Speaker 9: Or first storey. First storey. No, there's no, there's no, there's no, there's no, there's no, there's no, there's There's no roof over this section here, so this is not going to be the story. So the roof's back there? Back here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So that would be three stories there? Speaker 9: Well, no, because on the very ground level, you've only got the steps. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, I see what you're talking about. Speaker 9: So it's primarily this area, just in here. So it's not much at all. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does that make sense? Councillor Jurisevic: Okay, I see how you've assessed that. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And so then, if you go back to page 20, please, Alinda, and just scroll down to the words that say PO7. Yeah, up a bit. So that's a performance outcome. It's a really simple solution. And we've talked about the predominant character,
01:14:00 which I agree that in this area... Is this going to be mine? No, there is a question. Does not dominate the street. So would the beach be considered the surrounding area? Speaker 9: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And it's got three stories. And also, the rooftop terrace, is that in that performance outcome, or is that a different performance outcome? My question is, if we didn't have the rooftop terrace, if we kept it eight metres and we kept it two stories, would the scenic amenity from the beach and the appearance of bulk be reduced? Speaker 9: Well, I don't believe the stories, when you look at that small section of the staircase, would be considered to be significant in terms of built form that would present to the roads, the surrounding properties, or to the beach. And when you look back at the property from the beach,
75 minutes in ¶
01:15:00 J.D. probably talked to this, but that roof terrace is open with sort of wings. It is. And those wing walls get smaller as you go to the rear of the property. Yes. Councillor Jurisevic: They diminish down to the balustrade level that I can see. That's right. That's right. Speaker 6: So from the rear. Councillor Jurisevic: If you look at the figure five on the north and south elevations on page 12, it demonstrates that. Speaker 9: So you're sort of, when you're looking back from the beach, where the solid built form is in terms of the, you know, the habitable part of the building, it's actually quite a, you know, as far as this part away from the beach. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. So the diagram. Speaker 9: And in context, sorry, Brian. Yes, keep going. Of, you know, of that one element. Keep going. And this whole surrounding development, as Jade has alluded to with her image on the following page. I don't think the scale of this development will be out of keeping with the scale of development in the surrounding area. Particularly when viewed from the beach. I think, you know, I discussed that to some degree with 66 Seaview Terrace.
01:16:00 And there's some very, very large houses that are clearly visible from the beach and, you know, painted in a, you know, really bright, stark white colour. So in context of that, I don't think that the elements of non-compliance here will be considerably outstanding or detrimental. Mayor Stewart: Okay. I've got a few questions, Patrick. Just page 22. It says a site inspection. The subject site in terms of proposed rooftop terraces in its current form has capacity to cause issues overlooking to neighbouring properties. As the current dwelling house already overlooks into the private space of neighbouring properties, and as we're going higher with this, it will obviously encourage more. Have we, or have you consulted neighbours? Are they aware of this? And what type of precedent, if we approve this roof terrace, will it set for all others along that? Where it actually very well might encourage and have major concerns for neighbours?
01:17:00 Speaker 6: The neighbours have not been consulted about this. I'm not sure if they are aware of the application or not. And the footprint of the proposed roof terrace, I think, is very, very, very important. We believe that this is a very important area and it is very similar to what's already there. So it was assessed that the potential impacts to neighbouring properties is most likely going to be similar to what's already there. And the inclusion of the roof top terrace we believe will cause some issues of overlooking which is why we have included conditions to reduce the extent of the roof top terrace. So it is set back further and we've also included in that condition that balustrades and walls are to be kept at a height so that no overlooking issues are caused to the neighbouring properties. What height are they to be kept at? I believe they're at 1.8. I'll have to double check, I'm sorry.
01:18:00 Speaker 9: We might have to come back to you that before Thursday if you'd like to know the height of those. Mayor Stewart: That's a concern because it would potentially rip the roof top terrace. No, no, sorry, it is. Thank you for your answers, I appreciate it. Councillor Wilkie: Could I ask why the 0.38 over the 8 metre height limit, why is that necessary for the design of this property? Speaker 9: When you've got a site like this that you've got the topography that you have and then when you're looking to bring access it sort of predetermines what some of the levels, the floor levels will be. And we often find with houses that do, go down the site, as you get to that point further into the site there will be some form of height exceedance. Because, as I said, you're having some predetermined floor levels. And when you're putting stories above that, it just will result in some variation. And we're talking about 37 centimetres at the worst case scenario.
01:19:00 Councillor Wilkie: Could you show us where, on which of the designs give the best illustration there? Speaker 9: I think it was page 20, again, which Brian was referring to. Page 24, was it? The one that had the sort of, yeah, it showed it in, it's on the screen now. Yeah, 20. And it's the area that's... That little bit of red. Red. So from the street it actually sits lower than the height of the building that fronts the street. Does that make, can I, does that make sense? Councillor Wilkie: So the exceedance won't be seen from the street. Speaker 9: That's right. So when you're looking at it from the street, as the building goes down the slope, it's further down the slope than the front of the property. Okay. Which is higher. Councillor Lorentson: Amelia? Just to continue from where Clare, what Clare was discussing in regards to the rooftop terrace. And I'm referencing 66 C Route application.
01:20:00 I'm hitting the third. My question is, and I thought what we discussed last time, that the planning act, seeks to determine whether there's, whether the variation sought will have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the surrounding properties or streetscape. My question, Jada, is, is there an opportunity between now and the ordinary meeting to maybe discuss with the properties that may be impacted and ask whether they believe that their amenity will be adversely affected. Just so that I have confidence in the decision that I make on Thursday. Yep. Thank you so much. Councillor Finzel: Given. Councillor Lorentson: Oh. Sorry. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I may have overlooked it, but in the drawings, I can't find like a line of sight in the, in the previous application on the plans in regards to the overlooking.
01:21:00 It was very specific. I didn't see that in this report. Have we got something that I can look at? I, I don't know. Speaker 6: I don't believe that they've been included in these plans. We, we can try and do a bit of an analysis from the plans, but they haven't been included in these proposal plans. Speaker 9: We can give you some more. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I think that's important given, you know, it has the capacity to cause issues of overlooking and naming properties. And I think that's a, a really key issue when it comes to making this decision. So, you know, I would appreciate more information on that. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Yeah. My questions are on similar lines. I'm looking at figure 17 on page 23, which shows a view from the current dwelling house to the north. So there's currently overlooking, elements of overlooking. And there was another one on the one to the, to the, in the opposite direction. On figure 16 is the view to the south on the previous page. And so they currently have from their balcony.
01:22:00 So the, the difference between a balcony and a, and a rooftop terrace. And I note in the report on that page, it states in order to comply with performance outcome PO 16, a condition is to be included requiring amended plans to be submitted before the issuing of any further approval to reduce the extent of the rooftop terrace towards the rear of the site by further three metres. Can we get an idea of where that three metres would bring the rooftop terrace back to? Is there anything in the report? If you go to court. I just got to where that line would be and what the overlooking would be from three metres back. We go to page 26. 26. Speaker 3: Yes. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: Is that a black line across there? Is the three metres being suggested? Is it? No, no. Speaker 9: The three metres brings the terrace back in line with the wing walls. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So the. Speaker 9: To use the wing walls. Councillor Jurisevic: So currently there's that element of overhang beyond the wing walls. That's correct. So you want to bring it back to the wing walls.
01:23:00 But given that the wing walls come down on a slope, doesn't that increase the level of overlooking? Because, and I'm going back to 66C view in comparison here. Yeah. The issue with 66C view, with regards to overlooking, was the fact that the parapet, not parapet, but the walls on the slope. On the side enabled overlooking, these being on an angle, you freestanding at the edge and going back a certain distance, you'd be overlooking that side wall. Speaker 9: So that wall, the comment before, Joe, was that 1.8 metres in height at that point there? Yes. At the lowest point. Councillor Jurisevic: That's not how I view the drawing based on what we're seeing in those figures presented earlier. It goes down to what looks like the balustrade height, which wouldn't be 1.8 metres, I wouldn't imagine. That'd be more like 1.2. Can we just confirm what that height would be along that section there?
01:24:00 Yeah. If that's possible? Yeah. Because I'm seeing it below 1.8. If it was at 1.8, I wouldn't have a worry about it, but I'm seeing it by what I'm seeing there at 1.2 and some sort of, in figure 17, so some sort of, I don't know, glass top above that. I'm not really sure what I'm looking at there in figure 13, sorry, on page 20. Can you go back to page 20 there? You see on the end, if you can expand to that corner there, Alinda, are you able to enlarge just specifically to that corner? Speaker 9: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: You see we've got a little blue section with the thing coming down. I'm really not sure what we're looking at there. Okay. Well, we'll- I just need a bit more clarity as to what that is. Is that opaque? Is that glass? Is that the full height? Because between that end and the sloping part down appears to be a section not covered in any way, shape or form well below 1.8 metres.
01:25:00 Yeah. Speaker 9: Because that deck would be coming back from there by the conditions. Yeah. So we'll find that point. Councillor Jurisevic: I appreciate the three metres being brought back, but I'm not seeing that that's being covered for the overlooking of the neighbours on the side. Councillor Wilkie: Just to clarify, this section here comes back. Speaker 9: No, it's the upper. Above it. So that's where the terrace is. Yeah. And it needs the end of the terrace to come back. So we need to clarify that height of that wall there. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Speaker 9: If that's all right. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: If you can clarify that, that'll give me a clearer picture of exactly what we're talking about at the point of where you're talking about that three metres coming back to. Yeah. Brian, thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can you get to figure seven, which is page 13, please, Elinda? Mayor Stewart: Sorry, which page, sorry? 13. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Page 13. Yeah, don't listen to the director. When you come back with the information, the top left-hand side render there suggests an extensive, bland, bulky facade to the street, which is where the height of the terrace
01:26:00 overreach is. Can I have the dimensions of that wall, please? Yes. Because I think if we're not worried about the beach, certainly there is no merit from that angle in terms of the public face to the street. Councillor Jurisevic: You get no argument here. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I will, because we have, we can still have questions, but I'm going to move the matter be deferred to the ordinary meeting. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. I'll second that. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Brian, can you speak to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, yeah. Now, I think everyone's raising questions, so I think we won't get there today, and we might as well just try and get as much information as we can for Thursday and come up with our perspectives on it. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. I agree. Let's move. Brian seconded Joe. Councillor Finzel: For a further report? Councillor Wilkie: No. No, just... Notification of the points raised. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Thank you.
01:27:00 Councillor Lorentson: More information. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So... I know we've got to make a further report from this now. Councillor Wilkie: That's seconded by Joe. Any commentary on the motion? No. The motion has been failed. That's carried. Thank you. Next, we have the representative of the City Council, Mr. Tom. Item 5, Representation to Development Permit for Material Change of Use for Short-Term Accommodation of 401 Sunrise Road, Kim Bewer. Again, the report. Speaker 6: Road reserved from Sunrise Road, and we, Council, have recommended to refuse the representation for Condition 12, as the sealing of the shared access driveway will improve the safety of the driveway for visitors and guests, and it will limit the potential impacts on the neighbouring residents' amenity. Thank you.
01:28:00 Councillor Jurisevic: This is... Yeah. Start with the driveway first. That's the Battle Lakes block, isn't it? And the driveway. So that would be the entire driveway, right back to the rear. Speaker 9: Yeah. Okay. That's... I'm fine with that. Councillor Jurisevic: The question I've got is the total number of guests that come on at any one time must not exceed 10. It was originally eight. And the reason being that there's approved plans. I didn't know we actually stated beds and bed numbers in approved plans. When did we start doing that? The approved plan showed five bedrooms? Speaker 9: Or was it... Speaker 6: Five bedrooms. Councillor Jurisevic: There are five bedrooms. So that's how that comes up. Not the number of beds, the number of bedrooms with two per bedroom. That's right. So there are actually five bedrooms, not four. Yeah. My recollection, there were only four bedrooms. That's how we came up with eight in the first place. Councillor Lorentson: Can I also add that domainrealestate.com and the real estate agent advertised a four
01:29:00 bedder. So I'm a little bit confused where we got the five number. It did... And it actually specified a dedicated home office. So I'd like some clarity. Yeah, that's where I'm confused because I only call four bedrooms here. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like some clarity around that too, please. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: You can confirm that there are four or five bedrooms in the property. Speaker 6: Yeah. I will double check, but from memory, my apologies. I think there are four bedrooms and one of the bedrooms includes two beds. Two double bed beds. Two double beds. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. Again, it's not in my understanding that in approved plans we would have the number of beds. We'd have the number of bedrooms, but not the number of beds. So I'm trying to work out where we've gone from bedrooms to beds because any bedroom could host four bunks, I guess, and have four beds in there. That's true. So I'm just not 100% sure on how we've gone from eight to 10. Apart from that, I'm happy with the water element that I...
90 minutes in ¶
01:30:00 I'm not... The rest would be a comment, so I'm happy with condition six running the way it is for that reason. Councillor Wilkie: Condition five, yeah? Councillor Jurisevic: Six. Councillor Wilkie: Condition six. I'll make one. Yeah. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: All right, Tom? Councillor Wegener: I have a question. Could you bring up a photo, please? So when it comes to short-term accommodation, we spend quite a bit of time looking at how many... Pardon me? He's waiting on the phone. Yeah. He's waiting on the phone. There we go. Oh, you're better. This is my photo. And basically, I'm standing on the beginning of the driveway looking down. Sunrise Road. No, actually, no. It's not Sunrise Road. It's Sunrise Road, and then there's several houses on a shared driveway. Is that right, Jada? Yeah. So it's a shared driveway. And it's a very, very thin shared driveway, by the way, with very little ability to park
01:31:00 on the side of the road. And that's where the people that commented on this said, well, we're concerned about the overflow of parking out onto the driveway, which is really, it's not a road, it's a shared driveway and that kind of thing. That business is going to... Their cars are going to be up and down the shared driveway. So is this the entirety of the driveway, or does it go around the back? Because I think this is the entirety of the parking area on the property for the... Accommodation. Speaker 6: The applicant advised that the garage in the dwelling house could be used for car parking. They haven't clarified if this area that's shown in the photo is car parking, but they do have a two-car garage that can be used for guests. Councillor Wegener: Is it... Is it... I can't see it. Is it around the corner? Because it... It looked to me sort of like the garage was...
01:32:00 Filled in, and it was more of a room than a garage. Just from here. So I'm just really asking. Because we refuse a lot of Airbnb, or short-term stays on car parking. And this, four cars in this driveway is a log jam, and you'd actually, it's a very steep driveway, actually. It'd be very difficult. They'd have to work around each other and back in and out to get in if there's more than four cars. So you'd be, you'd be ending up parking on the shared driveway outside, which has very little space. It's a very tight, tight, cramped little car parking area. Can you, can you inform me? It's because it just seems as though if we go from eight to ten people, you've got another car which wouldn't fit in the driveway. Speaker 6: Hmm. Um. I may have to get clarification from the applicant. I'm sorry. Dee. So, the applicant had stated that the garage would be used for guests. Um, and it didn't clarify whether or not the driveway would be used for car parking as
01:33:00 well. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: We, we, we. Can I ask you a question in a different way? Yeah, go ahead. Yep. Have they designated the car parking spaces for the, for the ten guests? Speaker 9: They don't need to have five car spaces for ten guests. You don't need to designate to comply with the planning scheme for 5 spaces. Councillor Jurisevic: So what is the parking requirement for a short stay accommodation of 5 bedrooms or 4 bedrooms? What's the difference? And is the capacity available within the block to house those vehicles if it goes to five bedrooms? Speaker 9: I'm not familiar with, I haven't personally been to the site. I'd like to go back and have a look at the plans, Joe. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the thing that's missing for me here is that we've got a supplementary report and we haven't gone back, we haven't got the original report before us.
01:34:00 And maybe that if we had the original report might see this a bit more clearly. Councillor Wilkie: So was it an error of the applicant in the first instance that led us to believe that there would be eight guests accommodated? Speaker 6: The application material stated that eight guests, a maximum of eight guests would use the property. But then in the proposal plans provided it did state ten guests. So the condition was in relation to the eight guests that was mentioned. Councillor Wilkie: But they applied for it? Yes. But they also submitted other plans that showed. Potentially ten guests. Yes. Is there a, under any STA, under the STA local law, is there any limit for people per bedroom? Speaker 9: We have a bedroom limit in, it's a low density residential zone, I think it's five bedrooms.
01:35:00 It doesn't limit the number of people. Speaker 7: Okay. Councillor Wilkie: It doesn't limit. Does it limit the number of people per bedroom? No. Okay. Speaker 9: Does it limit the number of people per STA? No. The only limit is around the number of bedrooms. Councillor Jurisevic: That determines the number of people that are technically staying in an STA. Councillor Wilkie: Are we able to impose a number? Speaker 9: Well, our numbers generally reflect the number that's put forward by the applicant. Councillor Lorentson: My understanding is that under a material change of use application, we can condition we can impose conditions. So that's our opportunity to actually limit the number of people. Is that correct? Speaker 9: Through the material change of use application, yes, but not through the local law. Councillor Lorentson: Not through, but this is, this application is coming under an MCU. That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic: So that, just to further from that, so in this process of this MCU, we could restrict it to eight if we, as part of this process.
01:36:00 Yes. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: Does anyone want to venture a moment? Councillor Jurisevic: I'm going to move a deferral motion, the same as Brian did, just for a bit more clarification information to come back based on the questions asked of staff today before making a decision on this one. Okay. Councillor Wilkie: New judge, seconder for that? No. Second. So more information? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. Yeah. I think we need to go back and look at the original application and have all that information in front of us as well as this change here is to be fully informed. Speaker 9: So you'd like to clarify the extent of the driveway and the car parking available and the number of bedrooms? Councillor Jurisevic: And the number of bedrooms because, again, to my understanding and my recollection of the original application was there were four bedrooms, not five. Councillor Wilkie: And they haven't indicated that there's more than four bedrooms. Only five beds. Yeah. And that's clearly not at all.
01:37:00 Thank you. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if I can clarify the, just confirm the, for me, I've gone on Google Earth and Google Maps. The shared driveway is actually, this block has easement only access, therefore the conditions of the easement will mean that they won't probably be allowed to park. That's just it. Just looking on Google Earth, it's about, the driveway is up to seven metres wide and 25 metres long within this property. So I can see a car with a trailer there. There's probably enough for four or five cars in the area. I've got about 160 square metres underground. Councillor Jurisevic: Again, that's what's missing in front of us today. I mean, yeah, it was in the previous thing. We're just not seeing it today. Yeah, I know. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I just took over the website. I thought I'd better mention it up there. About 160 square metres. I'll probably need to do the same. Councillor Wegener: Because when I drove, I went, oh my gosh, you know, this is a tight situation. Plus, this is a shared driveway.
01:38:00 It's not a road reserve. And what are the implications of having, you know, numerous guests at that, at the short-term stay, and then parking along the driveway, the shared driveway, versus a road reserve? Speaker 9: The car parking should occur within the subject site and not on the driveway. Councillor Wegener: Okay. Councillor Jurisevic: I guess we just need to ascertain where the driveway begins and the... Councillor Wegener: Yeah, so you just answered that, that you're going to have a good look at that and see how many cars can fit in that space there. Kind of irregular space, in fact, so a pretty steep drop-down to get to it, and very little opportunity to do a three-point turn in the driveway. Councillor Jurisevic: So, just to clarify with Tom's image, was that the driveway from Sunrise Road, or that was the... That was the... That was the... That was the driveway access to this property, because I can see another driveway to the right there.
01:39:00 Is that...? Councillor Wegener: No, that's just a walkway. Councillor Jurisevic: That's a walkway, is it? Yeah. Councillor Wegener: And so, this is from the shared... Where the shared driveway ends and the private property begins. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Thank you, Tom. Anybody else wish to speak to the deferral motion? Yeah. I'm in favour of the deferral motion, because I'd like to do a bit of research and get some opinions about the appropriate number of people in a property like that in a rural setting. So, yeah. Thank you. It's my pleasure. Joe, do you wish to close? No. Okay. I've got the motion. Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Joe. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. No, no, no. Sorry. Councillor Jurisevic: I thought you'd finished answering the questions. No, sorry. I wasn't trying to talk out.... Yeah. ... I wasn't wanting to talk over you. Councillor Wilkie: Number 6, MCU application for minor change to development approval. The digital hub, 255, Davelow Way, Bridge and Beach, decided under delegation. That is 37. And we have Patrick here with a report from Kerry.
01:40:00 Speaker 9: So this is a minor change application to the development occurring digital hub. The approval allowed for some additions to the northern extent of the site. A minor change application came in seeking to expand the area of those additions. When you look at page 38 of the report, it's got an image that shows, so looking from the corner of David Lowe Way and Woodland Drive and sort of to the right hand end of that building is the addition. It was assessed as a minor change. The purpose of the report to advise is that the application has been decided and approved. This is a matter that generally would have liked to report to council having been an application that is a council application currently approved. And has previously been before council. Just due to some contractual obligations that
01:41:00 we were advised of, we were asked to expedite the application and accordingly it was decided. Councillor Wilkie: So just to clarify, council approved an MCU approval for all the works on this lot back in 2016? Yes. And this is a minor change to that approval? That's a minor change to that approval for part of one of the buildings. Yeah. And that was publicly known for the project? No, no, no. That MCU at the time. Ah, yes. Yeah. Speaker 9: I'm happy to hear that. Councillor Wilkie: Move now to Scott Waters, seconded by Mayor Stewart. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I did have some questions for the author, but she won't attend. She won't attend. Because he doesn't work with us anymore. And just to say, just looking at the rendered picture on page 38, I think it's really nice how that sort of reflects the rear deck of the building.
01:42:00 And just to say that there are a lot of the initial digital hubs that are sort of tying the concept in. And anyone who's been to the Bridging Community Hub during the middle of the day knows that that space that's been enclosed was always one that was a bit betwixt and between. It was a hot sunny day and dry. Councillor Lorentson: Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Just a quick noting. It would be great, or an opportunity at least, to have maybe an all-active building built. We just had the experience just recently where wheelchair, it was difficult for a lady in a wheelchair to access the bridge and beach community. Councillor Jurisevic: Talking about the new? Councillor Lorentson: This is the existing. This is the old community house. Excuse me. Excuse me. Opportunity to make sure that it's still access compliant. Thank you very much.
01:43:00 Councillor Wilkie: Okay, put the motion those in favour. It's carried unanimously. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Next one, Noosa River Oyster Ecosystem Restoration Project Final Report, page 40, Report Director-General. We have Kim Rawlings, Director of Environment and Sustainable Development. Welcome Kim. Hello. Hello Trent. Could you give us a bit of an overview on this report please? Speaker 11: Sure, absolutely. Morning Councillors. Morning. This report essentially provides Council with the final report as required under the Alliance and Funding Agreement with the Nature Conservancy. The project has been delivered. And all milestones and requirements of the Alliance Agreement have been met.
01:44:00 Which is fantastic. You will see attached to the report the very comprehensive final report which includes all previous reports, monitoring reports, all the permits achieved, all the substantial community and volunteer involvement in the project throughout all phases of the project, culminating in a A launch of the project which, love it or hate it, was called the Shalabration, a bit quirky, but anyway it was a fantastic event with representation from our schools, our community groups, council, government agencies and most significantly the Kabi Kabi. And I just thought it was really poignant, I guess, and powerful to include part of Uncle Fred Palin's speech in the start of the report, but his whole speech is actually attached in the final report.
105 minutes in ¶
01:45:00 And significantly Uncle Fred Palin said, restoration of the shellfish reefs therefore represents a significant reconciliation step to renew the cultural links of the Kabi, Kabi to the sea country. The Kabi Kabi vision is to unite our people and address the degradation of our traditional country and the continuing erosion of our cultural heritage sites and landscapes. Restoration of shellfish reefs at Noosa and other waterways indeed, oh sorry, included in our native title claim is important to us. The Kabi Kabi welcome the opportunity to work with our non-indigenous brothers and sisters who are making a valuable contribution to caring for country. I thought that was really powerful. Mm. So. Thank you. The other aspect of this report is reporting back on the council resolution of April 2022.
01:46:00 It closes off the requirements council asked for through that process. Thanks. Mayor Stewart: Thank you. I have some questions. I have some questions. Go ahead. Trent, you're the CPA here. You're our director, acting director of corporate services. I think you're probably the best person to answer this question. Fantastic that TNC have audited financial statements. Thank you. I'm just a bit confused because wouldn't those invoices form part of those financial audit statements that they have stated? They have provided, which is great. Wouldn't that form part of that information in that financial audit? Speaker 10: Through the Chair.
01:47:00 Yes, it would obviously, like any financial audit, independent auditors are assigned to organisations to review their financial statements. It's not a take sample auditing to ensure their financial statements are duly constructed and accurate disclosures. Now, in terms of process, we've requested that... Simple information per Council's last motion, and at the time, the state of that information was on hand and practical to compile, and noting the majority of the cost incurred for that first invoice to Council was based on staff time, I guess by way of update. Subsequent discussions with TNC through Director of Environment and Sustainable Development, they have actually come back over the last, over the weekend, with some of those invoices and done some of those invoices out, which completes.
01:48:00 So that's obviously subsequent to the preparation and distribution of the General Committee report. Is that correct here? Yes. Mayor Stewart: So they have been provided. Speaker 10: So in terms of the reconciliation of that first invoice payment, where there were gaps in terms of the total costings for... for their salaries contribution, as well as the invoices surrounding that, they have provided more samples of those invoices. Okay. Now, obviously, given the timing of that, I haven't sat down from a review perspective and undertaken, as our accounts like to call it, a complete reconciliation to join the dots with all the numbers, but they have provided some more invoices in relation to that first financial year of work. So looking at G, which was the resolution, Mayor Stewart: there's contact with TNC in writing with the request to see the receipts and financials as per the Noosa Shire Council project acquittal form. And that project acquittal form says Council may wish to see receipts and financial records.
01:49:00 So similar, similar thing, yeah. So is it then, are we able to then obtain, and I'm just doing this for complete, we just won an award on risk and good governance, so this is just crossing all the Ts and dotting the Is, and I'm just, and I'm acknowledging that it's fantastic that there is a lot of the financial statements, but I'm just wondering if it is now practical, as what you've said, to obtain those FY21 historical minor consultancy invoices, because any invoices in financial year 21 have to form part of the financial statements and all records required, you know, we all know that we have to keep 70 years of all our records, so I'm just wondering if we are now able to obtain those. Speaker 10: Yes, so through the Chair, I can take on notice to do that final cross-check now with that information that's just come through to see whether that does reflect the full costs as per the first milestone payment.
01:50:00 Obviously, as stated in the report, for all subsequent invoices and milestone payments, all invoices have been provided as a process. The key focus area for that review and the commentary I've provided in the report was about that first milestone payment, so I can take on notice to do that piece of work between now and the ordinary term of the year. Brian? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, I'll move the staff recommendation with a couple of minor amendments. So I'll read it out and I'll let you know when I'm going to make a couple of additional words as well as changes. The Council note the report by the Director of Environment, Sustainable Development to the General Committee meeting dated 24th October 22, and note, include the word that. The Noosa Oyster Restoration Project Final Report, in brackets, has met, rather than as meeting, has met.
01:51:00 So take out the words as meeting and put in the words has met. And that's the only changes I wish to make. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. Seconded, Joe. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do so. This has been a significant groundbreaking project, which has resulted in Australia's first at-scale estuarine oyster reef restoration. There are many benefits that will flow to our community, to the river itself, and to recreational fishermen, to name a few. The Director mentioned Uncle Fred's welcome to country, and it's really important to reflect on the meaning of when we say I'm going to respect elders past, present, and emerging, because this is a project about respect. And there is, I won't repeat what Kim has said, but I will repeat some of the other things that he said, because he gave it to me on the day and said he was happy for me to share it.
01:52:00 And his story that he told was, before Europeans settled in this part of southern Queensland, the Noosa River was known as Huon Eumundi Noosa's River, and now they're going to name the reef after that individual. So named after the Dulling Borough spiritual leader in Tarrawan, who lived around the time of shipwrecked Eliza Fraser's existence with the Dulling Borough tribe at Wawa, near the land of Point. The loss of shellfish reefs to the Noosa River represented a significant loss of ecosystem services to the river. The environmental loss has been accompanied by substantial economic losses that have related to declines in inshore oyster fisheries' productivity over the past 125 years. The restoration of shellfish represents one of many steps to improve water quality of the Noosa River. As evidenced in the number of oyster shell middens that once lined the foreshores, it was apparent that the two Kabi Kabi tribes, the Dulling Borough and Ndumbi, who occupied the area, relied on the oysters as a vital protein source in their diet.
01:53:00 Restoration of shellfish reefs, therefore, represents a significant reconciliation step to renew the cultural links of the Kabi Kabi to their sea countries. And that's one significant outcome that has been achieved and will continue to be something that we can build partnerships with our local First Nations people. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Sopho. Councillor Jurisevic: Question for Kim. And it's a good question. It's around exactly what Brian's read out. In the report it alludes to Uncle Fred's speech being part of the final report as attachment one. I can't seem to find it. Is it in the final report or is it a separate attachment to the report? Speaker 11: It's a separate attachment to the report. Councillor Jurisevic: I think I must have downloaded it or it's not included on our... Was it included in our link? Speaker 4: So what we did was there's a webpage that... That has all the annexes on it.
01:54:00 There's about 45 annexes. Councillor Jurisevic: Okay. So in the links that were sent to Councillors with regard to this, that wasn't included as an attachment? Speaker 11: Yeah. Because there's so many attachments, it actually... That's cool. Councillor Jurisevic: I was wondering where it went. I'm sitting there looking through it going, I can't find this attachment. Where is it? Speaker 11: Also, we note that Joe's name was spelt incorrectly in the final report. That's now been corrected, Joe. Thank you. So I'll make sure that the correct spelling is included in the final report. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Councillor, would you have me move in there a minute? Yep. To what I originally had, but it probably will be tweaked now based on what our Acting Director said. Trent, you said that they have provided where it's originally said it's impractical. You said they have provided the FY21 historical minor consultancy invoices. Speaker 10: Yes, that's correct. That came through this morning. Mayor Stewart: Okay. So just to confirm, just so we've got it on the right, that for you, Trent, so as an information for you to follow up on that, we've got it.
01:55:00 Great. So that... Okay. So that the Council note the report, and Council resolution, and further information pertaining to the receipt and expense, including information provided or on page 43, including information in regard to obtaining FY21 historical minor consultancy invoices from their financial record archives. 21.
01:56:00 Is that what they referred to, Trent, that they were now a verbal bond? Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just confirm that the opening part of that is as per what Brian has actually moved? That's an amendment to Brian's original motion? Mayor Stewart: This is your sign in that one that's a metacognition of climate change. Councillor Finzel: Aren't we debating that wording? Because I don't agree with that wording because we haven't met it yet. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Aren't we debating that? Councillor Jurisevic: It's an amendment to the motion that Brian has moved. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll ask the CEO of the question. Considering the motion that is at hand says has met, does the amendment constitute a direct negative?
01:57:00 Speaker 8: This does, but not against the original motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's right, but the original motion has no standing. Councillor Finzel: We didn't vote on the council's motion. Councillor Jurisevic: But the motion before us is the motion that Councillor Stockwell has moved. There is no other motion on the table. Councillor Wilkie: This is an amendment to that motion. The amendment to the, yeah, the amendment we're about to, the motion we're about to address is actually the amendment. The Mayor's amendment, which is in the process of drafting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And as written to date is a direct negative of my motion, in my opinion. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, but when are we debating that has met the requirements? Councillor Wilkie: After we deal with the amendment. Councillor Lorentson: It's a new motion, basically. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah, so if Clare's amendment is a, it becomes part of the original motion, but the wording will be difficult because it takes out the intention of the, the original motion.
01:58:00 But the amendment that you circulated, Clare. Mayor Stewart: Well, that was prior to. That was based on the staff recommendation. But that was prior to hearing that they had provided some of those invoices. I'm happy, I'm happy to move that one in for ease. But I mean, based. As Trent said, they have provided some of that information, so. This morning. Well, what time would have been helpful to know? Speaker 8: I would say if it's 12 now, maybe 10 o'clock there. It's only decided in this meeting. The meeting is. Councillor Lorentson: Is it too late to move a procedural motion to defer the matter until that information is being actually assessed as meeting the final requirements? Councillor Wilkie: We count at the moment we've got an amendment on the table. But once the amendment is dealt with, we can deal with that motion. Thank you, Councillor. Thank you. We seem to be a bit of an impasse here. Councillor Finzel: Well, we are because. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So if, in my reading of the final.
01:59:00 Speaker 8: The Mayor's amendment. Can't we just debate this, sir? Can't we debate? That's got to be dealt with first. Okay. And then the Mayor has the ability to. Yeah. So could you say your advice, please, Mr CEO? That the Mayor's amendment as it currently stands is ultra vires to the amendment that is on the floor before us. The motion is on the floor before us. The motion that's on the floor before us. That should be dealt with first. And then the Mayor has the ability. If it's lost, then the Mayor has the ability to be able to amend the original. Mayor Stewart: Okay. If it's not lost, then I don't have any ability to amend it. That's. Councillor Wilkie: But you can move as many amendments as you want. Speaker 8: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: So if this amendment is lost, Clare, you can try again. So do you want to let it lapse for one of a second or. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, you can't allow it to go ahead. You've just had a biceps ultra vires. Councillor Wilkie: So you can't allow it to go ahead. We can't allow it. We can't allow it. Speaker 8: So we have to. Not in its current form then. Yeah. Yeah. So you can. Mayor Stewart: Well, the other motion that I circulated would be ultra vires too, wouldn't it?
120 minutes in ¶
02:00:00 Because it asks for similar things. Two. Councillor Wilkie: Two. If it adds conditions. Correct. It adds conditions. If it adds conditions to the original motion and just sits below it, which concluded on 30 September 2022, and further requests, blah, blah, blah, that might work. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. But the words has met, which Councillor Stockwell has changed from the original motion, would then lend itself to be. In contradiction to what I'm saying. I'm asking my motion. Councillor Wilkie: Well, I'll just ask the question then. If the terms of the alliance agreement have been met, as you said, are we, by adding these extra conditions, but if they're not, we're not seeking to change the terms of the agreement. We're asking TNC to do extra. Mayor Stewart: That's correct. But perhaps I then can change it and say by council resolution, because our council resolution
02:01:00 is different. Has it to the alliance agreement. Is that correct? Speaker 11: So the staff recommendation is that TNC have met the alliance agreement. What we, the agreement we set up with them, they've met. Yeah. Council's resolution of April went over and above, asked for information over and above the alliance agreement. Yeah. So staff's report back to you is to say TNC have met the alliance agreement, which is what, and Brian's changed the word slightly. Yeah. The resolution of April asked for information over and above what the alliance agreement asked for. Councillor Wilkie: Yes. Which is what this amendment is seeking. Further information. That's right. Correct. That's right. So it would be an addition to this. It doesn't contradict the statement that the terms of the alliance agreement have been met. So it's like, and further information. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And if I can just ask a further question, if you'd scroll down to the now lapsed amendment,
02:02:00 further down, further down, further down. Oh, sorry. No, to the red. There you go. We would be in breach of contract if we at all tried to do what that last sentence suggested. Is that right? Not only being really bad partners, we'd be in breach of contractual obligations. Councillor Wilkie: What is the legality of it? Speaker 10: Okay. Through the chair's move. We would be in breach of contractual obligations to confirm that. But at face value, if we have met all the conditions of the contract, then us withholding payment on an executed contract would put us in breach of the contract. But we would defer that for formal legal procurement advice. Councillor Wilkie: The mayor has questions about some of the conditions that were imposed by council outside the contract. By council resolution? By council resolution. Which is separate.
02:03:00 Okay. Yeah, and so you're saying that to withhold payment could be a wholesome breach of that contract. But we would need to confirm that. Okay. So perhaps we, as a way forward, today we could debate the original motion, get advice on what the mayor is seeking to do with the amendment, and have that advice prior to Thursday and debate that then. Is that okay? Thank you. Mayor Stewart: But if we debate the original motion and it's upheld, then that's it? Councillor Wilkie: Well, this is only a recommendation today. Remember, motions passed today are only recommendations. And it's not become a resolution by the government to appeal. Do you have a question? Councillor Jurisevic: Ms. CEO, can I ask, if the motion and the, I'll ask in a different way, can you just bring up the amendment there, please? Amendment? Mayor Stewart: That was the original amendment. Councillor Jurisevic: Yes. Yes, because it was based.
02:04:00 Sorry. If these were conditions beyond that and putting it as, and in addition to that request these additional items to be sought by Council resolution, A, B, C, and D, whatever conditions are sought there, would that be ultra vires or in keeping with accepting that the conditions have been met but making further requests? Speaker 8: Yeah, maybe. Through the Chair. That's correct. Councillor Jurisevic, that if the Mayor is just asking for additional information and enacting what would be a future resolution of the Council, we would ask. We would seek advice whether we legally have the ability on the funding agreement, can withhold funding in not meeting what we're requesting. But yes, we do have that ability to request further information. And also, we do need to review the additional information that was received mid-morning today. Mayor Stewart: But we are in agreement. We have a Council resolution requesting that information.
02:05:00 Correct. So that's what I'm just actually following up on. The Council resolution on the 26th. Councillor Wilkie: I just realised the way your amendment would have worked as if it was moved as an original motion. Councillor Jurisevic: That's the point I'm raising. Councillor Wilkie: If it was moved first as the original motion, it would have worked rather than as an amendment afterwards. That's correct. Mayor Stewart: But it can't be ultra-virus if it's talking about, if we're talking about now a Council resolution that's not ultra-virus to the funding and alliance agreement. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The ultra-virus component is your license. Mayor Stewart: Where's that? Well, I'm happy to strike that out. In 30 days. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And adapt that. Councillor Lorentson: I've also got the same thing twice in there as well. Mayor Stewart: As you're asking for information, send top sentences and then again. I think it would be. Say that again. Sorry, Linda. Sorry. Say that again. Sorry. You're asking for the receiving expenditure for FY21, but then also on B you're saying all consultancy invoices might otherwise be atoning.
02:06:00 So you've got it in there twice. So you could almost leave that. Councillor Jurisevic: It's only that last part of that. Yeah, yeah. I'm happy. Council could request more information within 30 days. But it doesn't necessarily have to withhold to the part that would file would be. Mayor Stewart: Yes. If that's, if that points stand up legally, I'm happy to have that withdrawn. We don't have that advice. But we don't have that advice. Speaker 8: No, we need to seek that advice. Mayor Stewart: So can we defer this to the ordinary? Speaker 8: If you like, you can move it forward. Mayor Stewart: Sure. Councillor Jurisevic: You can move that motion if you want to. Councillor Wilkie: Do you want to withdraw your amendment? Mayor Stewart: Well, no, because I, well, I'd like to, I'd like to have it in, but I'd like, we need further advice. We can't really actually make any decisions on whether or not we can actually. Councillor Lorentson: I'd like to move that procedural motion to consider. We've got to deal with the amendment first. No, no, you don't, you don't. No, you don't. Procedural motion to move at any time. That's what I do. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Mayor Stewart: Okay. Yeah. And, and I'd like that advice to be possible, please. Thank you.
02:07:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second. Thanks. Okay. So to deferred the matter. Councillor Wilkie: You can't do an amendment to a procedural motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, procedural motion. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it. Councillor Wilkie: I'll second it. It's seconded by Mayor Stewart. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I can't do an amendment. I can do a procedural motion. Councillor Wilkie: Procedural motion to defer. Councillor Lorentson: Just to allow Council staff to assess paperwork that was submitted at 10 o'clock this morning. Speaker 3: So for more information. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: For more information. Councillor Jurisevic: That's all there is. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
02:08:00 Councillor Lorentson: Just simply to enable complete reconciliation of the first milestone payment. I think it's just prudent that we assess the information that was submitted very late or early this morning. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. So just a question. That first milestone payment's always gone. It's already paid. Speaker 11: Which one? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: But the information hasn't been received. The information from the council resolution of the previous meeting was to gain that information. That information arrived this morning as the meeting commenced, as I understand it. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak to the motion. Councillor Lorentson: Further information.
02:09:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think it's really clear. The motion in April was seeking additional information that wasn't required by the agreement, therefore wasn't required at the time of signing off Stage 1. The information is over and above what's required. It's just information. We can't do anything if we deem it to be acceptable or not because we've already signed off saying it's been done. Mayor Stewart: I'll speak to it. Okay. I'll speak to it. Yes. Look, I would like my motion to go forward because I'd just like some further clarification. Are we speaking to the deferral? Are you talking to the procedural motion? Yes, because I appreciate that information came at the last minute. Up until 9.58 this morning there was a motion on the table that was requesting that further information by the TNC. I'm putting it in the hands now of our Director of Corporate Services to go through that information and he won't be able to do that until Thursday night. So that was my motion was I'd like to obtain those FY21 historical minor consultancy invoices
02:10:00 which would have formed part of the audited financial statements and I'm previously being unable to do that. It would be great to see the play I provided and I'd like to see that. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: Can I just clarify a point mentioned there? There was no motion on the table at 9.58 this morning. Mayor Stewart: There was a motion that was going. Councillor Jurisevic: There was no meeting until 10 o'clock this morning. There's no motion on the table until the meeting commences. There was a proposed motion by you but there was no motion on the table. I just want to clarify that there's, you can't have a motion on the table before a meeting's even commenced. Mayor Stewart: The proposed motion was very different to the proposed motion. Councillor Jurisevic: We'll keep the debate to the, just getting the technicalities of what's been suggested there. Thank you councillors. Councillor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the deferral motion? Amelia would you like to close? No. Okay, I put the motion. Those in favour? That's in favour of Stockwell, Stewart, Jurisevic, Lawrence and Finzel and Wilkie against.
02:11:00 Councillor Wegener? That's carried. Thank you Kim. Thank you Trent. Thank you. Next item is contract, item 8, contract McKinnon Drive Community Sports Facility Replacement. Tender award on page 68 and report direct to the general committee. Councillor Jurisevic: I'd like to move the motion Mr Chair. Councillor Wilkie: Second it. Second it. Councillor Jurisevic: Councillor Stewart, have we got a staff representative to talk about the motion? Councillor Wilkie: Kerry, whichever, oh Larry. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: , do you expect the last debate to go on a bit longer than 10 minutes? I think so.
02:12:00 Larry, you have to speak to it while you give us an overview of what's been proposed. Speaker 1: Certainly, this is a, probably a long time coming in terms of the, of this report. This is for the replacement of the facility at McKinnon Drive, previously known as the McKinnon Drive. The, um, um, what's it called, the Navy Cadets? Navy Cadets. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, previously known as the Lion's Den, but. Speaker 1: The Lion's Den and the Navy Cadets. Um, so, um, we've been out to tender on this. We've had, um, we've had it now designed, we've gone out to tender, or concept design gone out to tender. We've managed to, um, successfully get a number of funding bodies to, uh, come to the party with this. Um, and we've taken this through the PCT and the CWE, um, in terms of where it's at and the, and the, the tender that's on the table. The tender is $1.8 million.
02:13:00 Um, we've secured the funding for that through the various funding bodies and through council commitment. Um, and we're now seeking, uh, endorsement to go forward with that, um, with that tender to get this in total. There was three stages. There was always debate of whether we do one, two, three, um, various stage, various times. It's now much more economically viable to do all three stages at once. Councillor Wilkie: Joe, you still want to move that? Absolutely. And move Council Jurisdict, seconded Council Stewart. Joe, you've got four. Councillor Jurisevic: About time. This has been years in coming and trying to go through various stages. I have advocated that this needs to be done as one project to save funds. This will cost council $810,000 towards an almost $2 million project now. But if we'd done it five years ago, it would have probably still cost council the same amount of money. Um, but at the end of the day, this is a, a building that was built back in the 1970s,
02:14:00 somewhere around that era. Uh, well out of date, uh, asbestos laden that, uh, has had the asbestos removed. Uh, and we'll provide a 21st century change room facility, as well as some pickleball courts, uh, and advised change rooms and the like to, uh, bring this, um, facility into the current standards required for, uh, the participation of sports at the McKinnon Drive complex. So I very much look forward to councillors supporting this tender to be, uh, this contract to be awarded and for this facility to be built. At the earliest possible opportunity. Mayor Stewart: I'll speak to it. Uh, yeah, I'm fully spoiled with this. This is grassroots spending at its best. It's a multi-purpose community facility in line with contemporary standards that will meet current and future demands of the sporting complex. This replacement facility will consist of four change rooms, kitchen space, six unisex spectator toilets, umpire first aid rooms, storage area, and large multi-purpose undercover
135 minutes in ¶
02:15:00 area, including two pickleball courts, which is the fastest growing sport by over 55 in the world. Um, it is home to a number of community groups, car club, maybe pivots, or will they use it? Netball, cricket fields, the whole kit and caboodle. So as councillor Joe said, this is only consisting of, well, not only, it is, it is costing us a substantial amount of money, but, uh, certainly in comparison with the overall funding, um, we are paying a, um, far less, far less amount because of, um, grants and the like. So I think it's prudent. I think we do it all now. And, uh, thank Larry and the team, because I know you've got a lot on, but this is one that we really drove home in the capital works, especially Joe, um, and supported by councillor Wilkie and myself. So we're really thrilled with this and the capital works. Thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: And I look forward to the remainder of those facilities being reviewed and put forward for, uh, reconstruction or, uh, uh, bringing into, uh, 21st century, uh, in the near
02:16:00 future. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Motion those in favour? That's carried unanimously. Thank you, Larry. And, uh, next item, Flood Event Recovery Update. Welcome, Chris. Uh, thank you for your work on that report. It's just been passed you now. Thank you. Speaker 4: Sorry, the Western. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We got there, Chris. We got there. Why are we not? I was looking at the history. I think it was 1973 when there's a line. There would be a year or two later that we'd build. Councillor Wilkie: Yes, I'm nine. Flood event recovery funding update. Director Larry Sengstock. Okay, Larry, could you give us an overview of all these good work things that needs to be done? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh. Speaker 1: Sorry, I don't have it in front of me. I was clicking, um. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Do we want to have a? No, no, no. Comfort break. Yeah, let's do it. Speaker 1: Yeah, let's do it. We'll give Larry a chance to have a break. Thank you.
02:17:00 Have a five minute break. Thank you. Sorry. I thought Julie was.
150 minutes in ¶
02:30:00 Councillor Wegener: Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: We're up to item 9, 2022 Flood Event Recovery Funding Update. Thank you, Larry. Speaker 1: Okay, councillors, this is an update. We have provided you with various information through workshops and other means over the time, but I just used time that we brought some of this to the table. Obviously, we've been working very hard with the QRA, Queensland Reconstruction Authority, to understand what funding opportunities there are and what amount of work needs to be done. Currently, we're up around $44.75 billion worth of reconstruction work
02:31:00 that's required to be done between now and the end of June 2024. That's when the funding is, well, that's the deadline, finish date currently set. So that on top of our existing workload is quite significant. The, so this is all, emanating from the, the event that we call ALPHA on 22nd of February, this year. The, there's a, there's a table there that outlines the amount of money and the work that's currently been done in terms of the counter disaster operations at the time, $202,000 worth of work, emergency works, another $300,000. But I think it's more, even more significant is the, for you and, and for our community to understand the, the extent of the, of the works that we've got. There are pockets and parts of the, of the community, obviously, that are more effective than others,
02:32:00 but we also need to understand that it is a broader, broader than just those individual pockets. The major landslide that we all know about at Black Mountain currently has a, a construction estimate value of $25 million. So it's a, a lot of money that's attributed to it, to reconstruct that work. We're about to to go into a tender exercise for that, but we've got the, the immediate options finalized and we, and we think that that's the number. At this point in time, just so we're aware as well for that huge amount of money, that's just an estimate. And it's, it's funded completely by the Queensland Reconstruction Authority. So they're hand in glove with us in terms of how we go through this exercise. If eventually we go to tender and it comes in at a larger sum or a smaller sum, then that's something the QRA have agreed to be partners and fund.
02:33:00 So it's not when we as council are not at risk. The funding for this work is particular to the QRA and they are working with us. So as we go to tender and if there's any changes, they support us all the way through on that. We've got 10 other major high priority landslips, which come to an assessment. Again, these are all still estimated numbers, $3.26 million worth for those other landslips. And then the further smaller ones, 18 of those across the Shire at $2.33 million. We've got Stryvers Road, which has a major water duct that goes through. And it's requiring some serious reconstruction as well. At the moment, we're not under any major threat, but it does need to be reconstructed and built properly to support and secure that water source going forward. And that's another $6 million to reconstruct that road or roadway through there.
02:34:00 Golden Gully, another $1 million. And then there are another 75 roads. Construction areas on the roads with a value of another $2.14 million. We've also been able to access money for cleanup grants, which is anywhere between $100,000 and $120,000. Community recreation grants, we've got in train at the moment for, for example, Trail 4, Boring Point, Foreshore and Investigation of the Fire Trails at $4.62 million. And then we've got community development grants. And we're going to talk more about other parts of that as well in terms of getting the ability to have staff to support our community. And Kerry is going to talk to that in a future report. There are also with the QRA, there are also a number of funds that as they as they become available as this work rolls out, obviously we've had to really, they had to focus on the major reconstruction works initially, which is the Blackstone.
02:35:00 Black Pitch, the Black Mountain Road exercise, exercises. Now there's future, in terms of studies for future flood studies, resilience studies, they're now becoming available and they become, as they become available, we put our hand up for those as we identify them and as they're suited to us. We've been lucky enough to have Julie Colbert as our, as supported by our QRA as, as a now a contractor or staff person in here. Who's been able to be across all of this and as these funding opportunities come up, then she's been able to identify where they fit, but also have been integral in, in just pulling all this together with people like Scotty Austin, you know, in our procurement, it's a major part of this exercise as well. So we've identified all these things.
02:36:00 Now we need to get out there and then procure them. So there's, there's more work to be done and the QRA does support us in terms of being able to provide extra staffing and extra resources. So we're in the process of understanding that because there's additional works on our finance department, our procurement department, all of those that, that need to be resourced up and QRA recognise that and are willing to support that. So we're just going through that process now as well. So it's a massive piece of work. There's a lot to be done and, and. It doesn't end here always, either, you know, in terms of, as we saw over the weekend, there's always more activity and more flood events or, or disaster events that potentially will come our way. So we're working quickly. Some of these things will take a while. And as we know, the Black Mountain one has got a two year odd timeline on, on reconstruction. Others we're trying to get done prior to Christmas, or at least prior to the, to the wet season, as we currently know it.
02:37:00 And. And just to get, get some things shored up before that, so that we can make sure that the public is safe and, and we, and we minimise any future areas of concern. Councillor Jurisevic: I guess that was my, my question, I think you've answered it there, Larry, with regard to when, you know, we got that funding agreed, when does work commence? Speaker 1: Well, we're, we're out to, out to tender on a number of these. Erskine is the other company that we've been lucky to, to, they've done a massive amount of work in being able to just identify and understand and work with us and QRA to, to get to these estimates and then get out to tender as soon as we possibly can. Some of the work, this is where it gets messy because some of the work is our work. We're out there doing grading of roads and some of it is where, where there's been scouring, you know, who, who funds what and who does what. So sometimes we've had to hold back on some of the reconstruction works until we ensure that the funding and we, and therefore minimise the cost of the road park.
02:38:00 Councillor Jurisevic: So if there has been any delay, it's just been a, a matter of working through, trying to get, ascertain the funding and, and, and ensure the funding is there so that we can do the upgrades that are required to. Speaker 1: So the important thing is, is to, yeah, try to make sure everything's safe, but then make sure that these, the funding is, is available to us and we're not, and we're not putting, again, council and ratepayers at risk of, of increased costs. Councillor Jurisevic: And the opportunity for further, you mentioned flood studies, the opportunity for further flood studies for areas like Lake Entrance Boulevard or Pomona that are still being, or other areas that are being inundated by, by flood waters, they still exist in the, in there and that could lead to further works in the future. Speaker 1: So we are reviewing the flood studies and, and creating new studies in terms of particularly with the, with the Lake Entrance initially, and then we'll work our way through that. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, some of those flood studies date back a, a little while now and, and works have, some works in particular in Pomona have, have been undertaken over time, but we haven't gone any further. So there's, and with climate change and the like, there's probably a, a prudent time to review some of those studies.
02:39:00 Absolutely, yep. Councillor Wilkie: Larry, we were meant to meet with the residents of the Black Mountain community on the weekend at Federal Hall, but it was called due to the weather warning. Can you just give us a bit of an overview about what the message that would have been delivered at the Federal Hall on the weekend had we been able to meet regarding the Black Mountain incident? Speaker 1: There's a number of things there. The, the, the work that we've been doing to try to make sure the community is, is being serviced as best we can. Obviously, the, we're, we've, we've built up Anderson's Road, the causeway, and it, it survived the week, the weekend, which is great in terms of the height. It's a, it's about a metre above what it currently used to be, and it still is. So that, that worked well. So the, the people from Black Mountain weren't cut off during the, during the last weekend, which is a good thing. But it's really about, we were talking about, you know, where we, where we've got to and where we can get to in terms of the waste management. And, and because it is now a longer period, the fact that we, we can't build a track across the top of the, of the landslip because it's just too, the territory is just too dangerous.
02:40:00 So we're not able to do that. And just talking them through that. The concept, we've been through five different options for the concept of how to fix the Black, Black Mountain landslip. Again, it looks quite simple from the top. But the fact that it's so deep is the biggest issue. The amount, the amount of movement of, of, of soil and, and land. So it's really talking them, talking the community through that and the timelines on that. So again, we've, we've finished the concept. We've got the QRA to agree to the concept. And that was what we were looking to, to, to talk to them about. And then it's a matter of getting the detailed design, going out to tender and starting work after the wet season. It's no use starting during the wet season. So again, when is the wet season? We used to know, but it's, it's changing. But getting in there after the wet season and then, and then the timeline to do that. And hopefully we can, we can expedite it and get it through the moment we say in June, 2024.
02:41:00 But we hopefully will have it done before then. But again, until we get out to tender and understand exactly what the contract visibility is, we can't, we can't be sure on that. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's the challenge with all work at the moment. Lots of, lots of construction crews are very, very busy. Lots of, lots of work, not only in our area, but other areas as well that have suffered through the flooding and the like. All seeking support at the same time and all seeking contractors at the same time. Yep, exactly. Mayor Stewart: It's 15 metres deep, isn't it? Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, 15 metres deep and it's still moving. And that's the, that's the difficult part about it. Councillor Lorentson: I have a question. Larry, if, what if, if our, bless you, if our natural assets were integrated into our asset management plan, would they be identified as an essential asset and therefore eligible for, QRA funding?
02:42:00 Speaker 1: That's a wonderful question. Councillor Lorentson: Say that again. Just say that again. So, so what, so what I'm referring to is at the moment QRA identify grey infrastructure. Yes. I'm talking about green infrastructure, our beaches, our rivers, our creeks. If we integrate our natural assets and identify them as a council, as an asset, then are we, are we eligible then? If they're damaged by a major flood event which, you know, stormwater and sewerage outflows and stormwater outflows which damage our beaches, would we therefore become eligible to QRA funding? Funding, flooding, getting, so rather than just repairing our roads and potholes, we have an opportunity to address issues like polystyrene spillages over our beaches during a major flood event, erosive events.
02:43:00 Speaker 1: So we, we do get, we do get funding to, as a clean up funding for the polystyrene. We do get funding for issues with our, with our dunes, sand dunes and the, and the wash aways and the, and the gouging of that. To put them as our assets would increase our asset base to the point that we potentially would, would, would cruel our, our financial situation because I don't know how critical this is. We've got that much, that much of an, that level of asset could be appreciated over an annual basis would be, would be very difficult. I honestly think that, sorry, do you want to talk to that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, because our policy doesn't mention how we deal with natural assets, doesn't it? Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Come to the table and please translate it. Speaker 1: But the, but, you know, the, the current position is that QRA is funding our landslides because they're still very much part of what QRA are prepared to fund because they still become a public asset if you like.
02:44:00 Right. And a, and a risk. Councillor Lorentson: So we've just got to prove there is a direct, direct correlation between a storm event or a flooding event and the damage. Yes. Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. And, and, and make sure that, you know, we're, we're looking after our own assets as best we can. And if a, if a major flood or a major, um, disaster event happens then, um, you know, we're in a position where we can claim, I think. Speaker 10: I think, just to answer Larry's comment through the Chair, um, the, the critical issue is not whether the assets are on our register or, and we wouldn't depreciate our natural assets, we would appreciate them. Yes. Sorry, just using a canon pun there. Councillor Jurisevic: See how you'd appreciate a grain of sand there, Trent. How's that? Speaker 10: Um, the, the, the critical factor is the, the guidelines and the, the grant funding guidelines through QRA in terms of allowing for that would be the, the key, the key issue. Um, we could, we could have asset management plans and put all our natural assets, it could
165 minutes in ¶
02:45:00 be, um, it could be trees or, or environments or foreshores of, of natural significance and have those on our asset register. Um, and we would then need like the rest of the assets that Larry's team looks after to undertake regular assessments on their condition and status, et cetera. But the triple B is down to the, the grant funding guidelines, the QRA issue for each individual event that occurs. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm thinking of a situation like, um, a, a cyclone where the Gold Coast beaches have been eroded away and Tom goes and gets the, the machines in and, and replenishes the beaches or we do a sand, sand re-nourishment on Hastings Street. Are those sort of things covered normally by that sort of funding? Speaker 10: Not, not that I'm aware of. Yeah, that's right. Mayor Stewart: So, so the question with Black Mountain, $25 million, it's a road, but it's also, so if it's a road, we're going to have to depreciate it, but it's the natural asset we want. So will that determine how we look at that? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Mm.
02:46:00 Speaker 10: So the land itself, um, is not a significant component of the construction works on the site. It's actually clearing through the landslides itself. Yeah. And the natural, the natural environment. It's shoring up the, the hills from the mountains. Yeah. So it's an important question for Black Mountain. Councillor Lorentson: Mm. Councillor Wilkie: Mm. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. That gives me... Sorry. That gives me food for thought for the next year's LGAQ conference. Yeah. Something that I'll be moving to the state. Thank you. Okay. Good. Councillor Wilkie: Someone like to move the motion? Councillor Wegener: Quick question. Tom? Councillor Wilkie: Question. Councillor Wegener: The, the, the parade. Off base here a little bit. The parade is done. It's pretty much done now, right? Noosa Parade. Noosa Parade. Yes. Congratulate. Do we... Does Larry deserve a congratulations for that? No, not me. The team. The team. Because that was amazing. Yeah. Because that was a miracle to get that done before the last rain. Oh my gosh. Mayor Stewart: And the tri. And the tri. Councillor Wegener: And the tri. So good work. Mayor Stewart: So good. Councillor Wegener: So I... The, the real question is can we continue to expect miracles out of you?
02:47:00 No. Only with the bus. Only with the bus. Speaker 1: No, it's, it's, again, it's the team downstairs and the contract, contractors have done a massive job. We accelerated and they worked, you know, day and night to get there and they've done a great job. So moved. Councillor Wilkie: Chair. Seconded by Councillor Finzel. Chair. Mr Speaker. Councillor Jurisevic: Larry, to you and your team and to all those involved in QRA and the state that have assisted us through this, I'd just like to say a huge, great thanks from the community. The ongoing work that we've got ahead of us is daunting, to say the least, particularly with more rains on the way and the weather event of this weekend was a classic example of that. We're all sitting there on the edge of our seats watching what the weather will do and we'll continue to do that as the weather forecasts more ongoing rains and more La Nina events. So to the extra effort that is required on top of your normal workload associated with all these disaster events, we say thank you.
02:48:00 A huge, a huge thanks to all of the, all of the team and everybody involved. It's great to get funding but the work is still ahead of us so there's a lot of, a lot of a challenge here going forward to try to deliver on that. So again, thanks. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. The motion has been taken. Oh, sorry. Councillor Lorentson: Just, just quickly. I, I, I just think it's really important to put all this in perspective. Rain fell over a period of 13 days and the devastation over 13 days included one major landslide in the Black Mountain, 10 landslides of high priority, 18 further landslides, a roadway at Shrivers Road, Cooran, damaged, reconstruction of a section of a road at Kin Kin, and 75 other roads were assessed as requiring reconstruction, plus, plus, plus clean up. That was over a period of 13 days.
02:49:00 So thank you to your team and for people in the community that wonder why some things have been delayed or not being addressed immediately, the answer is in this report. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's a good report to reflect on so this disaster recovery effort and reconciliation of forty four million seven hundred and fifty one thousand estimated value comes hot on the heels of the 2019 black summer bushfires now forty four million seven hundred thousand dollars may not be charged to our ratepayers in rates because it's paid for by the state but a quick back of the envelope it means for every worker in our Shire based on census data they're contributing about twenty thousand dollars each out of their income tax
02:50:00 that's what the equivalent amount is now if we continue to have such disasters the reconciliation reconstruction support from the state has to diminish there is no doubt about it now when we look at what we're going to do to recover from disaster the most important thing we can do to recover is mitigate our climate impacts and to adapt because what we're seeing in the world and in Noosa is what's being modeled as I mentioned something like 12 years before the black summer bushfires the Gardner report predicted that summer would be where the threat of bushfire was going to be excessive by the time so this is a really good salutary lesson to learn that lack of action to address our impact on the atmosphere is resulting in huge costs to this community and to the
02:51:00 state and it will take years to recover you know one job alone will probably be several years to finish if we don't want that to be business as usual for the decades to come we have to take it seriously and I know this council does but our community is on board but it is just a really good reminder just how much Councillor Wilkie: disasters cost it's a very good point Brian I promise a question Larry could you just tell tell us briefly how climate change and climate change resilience has been factored into infrastructure design how to give us a few examples Speaker 1: well it's I guess it's now just a factor in everything we do in particular with the
02:52:00 water levels along the river and how we how we deal with that because if those things do in terms of их All of those just need to be factored in everything and everything we do all about all of our thinking but it's a difficult one it's not something that it all comes at a much higher cost so you end up sort of saying you can you can only do so much and you have to you have to either reduce your scope or pay more one of the two and that's that's where we get caught in everything and in preparation everyone you know it's like everything you sort of go well we'll deal with that later so we have to we have to be careful we don't leave it till later but we also have to be cautious of how much money we've got to spend and how we can invest to spend it so it's a difficult difficult balancing act. Mayor Stewart: Mr Chair, just to clarify, we might have a town planner here but I'm not so sure as a mathematician. I was going to do that. I was going there.
02:53:00 Oh my zeros didn't line up. Councillor Wegener: It's closer to about $1,300. That would have been a $400 million damage bill. I've counted it. Thank you for your direction. Mayor Stewart: It is. There's escalation. Into the town planning run. Councillor Jurisevic: Use calculators. Councillor Wilkie: Joe, you want to close? Yeah, I will close. Mayor Stewart: And I just want to thank Larry. Thank you. I've seen firsthand how much work you and the team do, especially in disaster during that time. So I want to thank you because it's an inordinate workload and you guys are just managing so incredibly well. So thank you and to the staff. Speaker 1: Like I said, I'll pass it on. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I was going to bring up Brian's mathematics as well. Thanks. Bit of a stretch there, Brian. Point one, mate. It's not just during the disaster that the disaster management team is part of it. It is a long going and ongoing element of them trying to rectify the situation after that disaster, years after the bushfires.
02:54:00 This will be years after these floods and hopefully we don't have another event in the meantime that compounds on this. But the element that you raised there, Frank, was a good one. And one of the points in what we reconstruct, one of the things that we enforced in the recovery strategy for the state was resilience in all we build. Not just building like for like and not returning like for like because it's just going to happen again and again and again. If we do not build resilience into the infrastructure that we reconstruct, it's a pointless exercise. So resilience. And looking at building above the floodplain, building flood resistant, building fire resistant, all the cyclone resistant componentry for all the elements that we face. It's an essential ingredient going forward. So hence the costings get even more expensive than the original could ever be to reconstruct
02:55:00 because it's got to have that additional element built into it. And these are the things that all of our capital works have got to consider going forward. The climate change, the climate change impact. The impact of ongoing climate change and the impact of these ongoing weather events that if we don't build more resilient infrastructure, we're going to suffer the same fate. So again, the additional time, not just during the events, but this ongoing time in addition to your normal workload is much appreciated. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Put the motion at the favour. Carried unanimously. Speaker 1: Can I just say one thing too? This is the physical part of it as well. Yeah, exactly. All we're doing is reconstructing the physical. There is the emotional and the community stuff which Kerry's about to talk to. And that's the ongoing long tail of this that's really, really important. So we're just one component of it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Larry. Thank you, Frank. Well done. Item 10, Community Disaster Response and Recovery Grant. Alison Hamblin.
02:56:00 Caricom 10, welcome to the table. Councillor Jurisevic: And here's the other half of the equation, ladies and gentlemen. Councillor Wilkie: Hello. Hello. How are you? Do you want to give us an overview of the grant, please? Sure. Not a problem. Speaker 4: So hopefully this is a really good news story as well. So the Commonwealth Government, through the Mental Health Support Package, approached the Public Health Network, which is called PHN. We've got a really good working relationship with our PHN unit here on the Sunshine Coast. They believe that nursing council is the best place to respond to the needs of the community. And they support those to recover and build resilience in the community from the flood affected. We've accepted their offer. And through that offer, they said we need to go out through a grant program. So they said we would allocate $60,000 towards a grant program and $15,000 towards grants administration. So we followed our processes through the grant program and opened it up.
02:57:00 But prior to that, we actually consulted with our Northern Sunshine Coast Social Services Network. Asked them what the needs of the community were. So they were best placed to let us know. Their biggest needs in the community was to have a social worker based out in the hinterland. So even though we advertised the program openly and widely, our target was to try and find that particular organisation out in the hinterland to employ a social worker. We were successful in doing that and Pomona Community House has come forward and written their application. And with part of this report, we would like to endorse their application and provide them with $60,000 to employ a 19 hour a week social worker to be based out at Pomona Community House. Councillor Wilkie: Just clarifying, it was an open process and they were the only other people. Speaker 4: Correct. It was an open process. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll move the staff recommendations. Speaker 4: Moved by Jo, seconded by Amelia. Jo. Councillor Jurisevic: Here's the other half of the equation when we talk about resilience. Yeah. We can build resilient infrastructure. We can build elements of that into everything we do. We've got to recover.
02:58:00 Our community has got to recover from events like this and grants like this go a long way to helping support our community. Of course, it's not a lot of money, but it is, and every little bit helps. Speaker 4: Yes. This will actually give us 19 hours a week for the social worker to be put in place. They'll be based out at Pomona Community House, but they've agreed to also bring themselves into the Cooroy Library as well, so they can have that focus on that hinterland area. It will be until the end of the next year. They'll work very hand in hand with our category C recovery officer that we've also received funding for. Councillor Jurisevic: I trust that 19 hours a week is sufficient to help, but I'm sure that there's a lot of, and we've still got a lot of angst out there in the community with regard to the issues that have occurred from this event, from the previous event with the bushfires, it's ongoing. So needing this support on an ongoing basis and being able to provide an element of this support on an ongoing basis is essential for the community to recover from the events that we have. Speaker 3: Certainly what we saw with the bushfires councils is that a lot of the call is around support
02:59:00 for mental health. Our recovery officer in the space of the bushfires did an amazing job, but they're not really an expert in mental health. They certainly, you know, we provide training around mental health first aid, but that's not their area of expertise. And so in recovering from the flood, this gives us that additional, a really critical support. So we'll have our recovery officer and we'll have the social worker to add. Councillor Jurisevic: And that's where the recognition from the PHN that we need a mental support health officer and a social worker to be able to facilitate it within our community is much appreciated and a great opportunity to turn around and help facilitate the recovery of our community going forward. Thank you. Speaker 3: Alison might be able to just provide a little bit of an update on the category C recovery officer as well. Sure. Yeah. Speaker 4: Yeah. So we were successful in receiving funding for the category C recovery officer. We've gone out to advertisement and we actually interviewed on Friday.
180 minutes in ¶
03:00:00 We look like we will have a preferred applicant and hopefully they'll be starting within the month. So that'll be really exciting. So this particular one though, with the social worker, it's going to be community led, which I really like as well. It's not actually a council position, even though it's been funded by council through the PHN, it will be very much community led. So, and to support the resources out of Pomona Community House, they've quite under-resourced out there as well. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Sorry, go on. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. This is a good outcome. I think basically in Pomona is also very fitting. The community house does a great job and does have a really good catchment of people where there's services. But also, Councillor Lorentson talked about 13 days. Well, over four days, people of Pomona had over a metre and a half fall in their roof. So it was one of the most impacted areas in terms of the flood event in Pomona.
03:01:00 And, you know, of those four days, one day we hardly had any rain because we had 500, 400, 400, 500 or something like that. So it is the centre of where the disaster hit. So it is good. And it is good once you're in a community that you get a much better feel for it rather than operating, say, from that level two in this building. So I think it should have many benefits. Councillor Wilkie: Tom. Councillor Wegener: I'd just like to reiterate. I like the community involvement. And they're not directly a council, but the community group, Pomona House, congratulate them for stepping up. Speaker 4: Yeah. No, I think it's a great example of how effective partnerships work. So not only through the Commonwealth Government, through to PHN, PHN recognising Noosa Council and recognising the needs of our community and now us working back with Pomona Community House. So, yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: One last question. Is there an opportunity for that officer also to maybe head out to Federal and be a bit closer to the people of Blackman? Absolutely. Speaker 4: Absolutely. So even though they're actually based at Pomona Community House, we can house them
03:02:00 or they can house them wherever they see wish. They will be. Yeah. It's a hinterland social worker. It's not Pomona. Councillor Jurisevic: Pomona being the closest urban place within location of that, but I'm hoping that we can be a bit closer contact. Speaker 3: Certainly so that they can be embedded in an organisation that is, has strong links into the community through the hinterland. And as Ali has said, having them placed in community and making it community led is the most effective long-term recovery. But that role will work right across the hinterland. It's important for us to have both of these roles in place as soon as possible and so that they're settled before, you know, mid-January, February, et cetera, given the predictions around a potential additional wet season. Councillor Lorentson: A question.
03:03:00 Is there any requirement for the social worker to submit any reports to Council? Yes. So that we're in touch with what's actually happening in the community and what are the issues? Yep. Speaker 4: In the grant program, we always ask for progress reports and final reports and acquittals. And certainly we need to report back to PHN on their progress as well. So yes, absolutely. Speaker 3: But I think importantly, this will actually be a very close working relationship. It won't be at arm's distance. We expect that the social worker will work very closely with our recovery officer. Councillor Wilkie: In a sense, the disasters, recent disasters have really just been a catalyst, thrown a spotlight on issues of social isolation and the quiet desperation that a lot of people feel, underlying high levels of depression. I think we still have suicide, one of the highest suicide rates in the world as a country.
03:04:00 Is there any opportunity for a position like this to be ongoing? Speaker 4: So this is something that we've certainly talked about. Yeah, absolutely. So this funding as such, it has a clear deadline. It's a clear deadline. However, we need to look at the success of the program as well and see where that leads us. So what brings that? Speaker 3: It will be a really good opportunity to test whether psychosocial support like this embedded in community is able to assist. Yeah. Given a... Councillor Wilkie: It can't just be a field. It's got to be a focus. Speaker 3: No, it has to. And it has to be more than output. We have to be able to look at what sort of outcomes this is able to drive. But, you know, what we critically know is that those people who are in crisis at the moment, it is very difficult for them to get an appointment in a timely fashion. For, you know, they're feeling crisis now. That's not something one is able to schedule at the time that you can get an appointment.
03:05:00 So having somebody that's working part-time within community, it's interesting to see Mayor Stewart: whether that is able to help in a more timely way. Kerry, we've got the first permanent... We're not on a Permanent Living World program now. Could this form part of... Potentially this working form part of that program? Speaker 3: That's an interesting point. Something, as I say, we're looking to explore the value from this. It's 19 hours a week. And that's fantastic. So we need to see, well, what can you be able to deliver? Speaker 4: Yeah. So, you know, what we actually had received, what they decided to do is actually top up their existing grant program. So it went towards infrastructure and programs and so forth. Whereas we, through our consultation with the Northern Network, really want to target this particular one and look for that social worker. Councillor Wilkie: There's a gap that you identified. Speaker 4: Yes. That's correct. Yeah. So that's why we went down that pathway. Speaker 3: We could clearly see it in the bushfires that, you know, when the news has passed
03:06:00 and we've moved on to other things, the people that are most heavily impacted by the disaster event often are only processing the emotions of that months afterwards. Yeah. And so that was a critical gap that we could see. And it's a really great opportunity to be able to try something new at this time. Speaker 4: And don't forget too, if we're working with our community, if we're working with our community as well, we've got to have strong partnerships back with Lifeline. So we're able to bring in Lifeline at any time to support residents. However, often it's a different person from Lifeline that would come out. And so this is a regular person, 19 hours a week that they can become familiar with. That's fully qualified. So, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: It's up to Pomona House to procure that person. Speaker 4: It is. Yeah. Yeah. And they'll work with us to do so. Yeah. Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. Yeah. That's really good news. Peregian Community House, we went to the opening last week or the week before, fantastic. Is there opportunity or is it already in place to also provide that social worker down
03:07:00 there or across the Shire given that crisis doesn't know where the geographic boundaries Speaker 4: are? So this particular position was for the Noosa Hinterland. That was the identified need. However, we're looking to be placing the community development officers, placing them both at Pomona Community House and Peregian Community House one day a week to make sure that we're in touch with the community as well. Not just sitting here at level two. Yeah. Fantastic. Speaker 3: Yeah. Just to add to that, Karen, the criteria around this funding was that it had to be delivered in line with flood recovery. So that's why it's on to land base because that's where the major impacts of the floods were. Yeah. Thank you. Councillor Jurisevic: One of the things we forgot about is COVID and the impact of COVID over an isolation site. Frank mentioned that. But in years gone past, I've heard of community models being spoken about about healthcare
03:08:00 going forward. Is this an opportunity to work with the community? At PHN to talk about the elements of community health needs and community health centres that provide these sort of services going forward? Speaker 3: Possibly. And health provision is complex. So Primary Health Network, who are funding this, are a federally funded body that sit aside from Queensland Health. So they do provide programs, but they're not part of Queensland Health. So we've talked about the value of partners coming together. And that's when we've been able to most effectively respond to COVID. It has been when all of those levels of government and partners come together and work together and use our strengths collaboratively. So once again, this is a great partnership and we're hoping to demonstrate the value
03:09:00 of it for other issues that the community might face. Councillor Jurisevic: Excellent. Councillor Wilkie: Chair, do you wish to close? Councillor Jurisevic: I think all the questions have been asked. I said just ongoing support for our community is wonderful. Thank you for thinking about a social worker for the funding. And I think it's a great opportunity for us going forward. I look forward to the support things provided out there to the community that need it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. All in favour? Thanks. That's carried unanimously. Thank you, Alison. Thank you, Kerry. Next item, organisational establishment. Thank you. Speaker 8: I'm on this one, Frank. And we have the executive for our level as well. Great. So we can assist. Any questions or any format we'd like to go through. And I'll assist Ed in the presentation. Speaker 2: Okay. So would you like me to provide an introduction to the report?
03:10:00 Yes, please. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So we routinely report the establishment changes to Council, normally twice a year, budget time and around December. But the purpose of this report is to bring forward to Council a number of changes relating to the conversion of some temporary roles to permanent. And these temporary roles are project positions which have been in operation for some time to deliver specific projects for a fixed term. And they're the ones that we're looking at converting to permanent. So the ones where we've continued to renew these position terms, but also where we've identified an ongoing need for the role going forward. An example might be where we might have originally developed a plan or a strategy, and then we've endorsed that plan and we've moved to implementation. So that just gives you an example of where that would occur. The other parts that the report deals with is the creation of two new permanent full-time
03:11:00 positions in the development assessment branch. And the ICT branch. And the reasons for those are quoted in the table within the report. The creation of two new long-term temporary project positions, which adds to the list of temporary positions. And the review of casual positions within community facilities. So this is where there are casual positions, where there is a component, an actual number that is incorporated within the approved establishment. And where we have provided the service using mainly casual staff, what we've done is recognise the need to convert some of those positions to permanent, to provide continuity of service, but also to provide some reassurance and security for staff. So that deals with the J, the Noosa Aquatic Centre and the Leisure Centre. And there's also a slight amendment to the customer service area where there's a similar provision for casuals within the establishment to allow us to meet our rostering times. And converting a part of that to permanent.
03:12:00 And then finally picking up the structural changes that have occurred as a result of the Field Force 4 review within the infrastructure services and the movement of the asset management over into the new asset and civil operations branch headed by Brian O'Connor. So there's a few things in amongst this. It does result in an increase in the FTE, which is full-time equivalent positions in the establishment by 21.5%. From 394.91 to 416.11. What I would like to stress within this is in the long-standing temporary positions in those 21 positions that we're recommending to go to permanent, we have got salary provision for those. So we wouldn't be asking for additional funding, but going forward, of course, we have to build that within our budgets. And then the other point I'd like to raise is we will still have some long-standing temporary project positions. And these are positions that we really do need to be able to complete projects in progress.
03:13:00 But we do need to also manage those positions. So they do have end dates. They will end at the end of those terms. And they range from one to three years. And the decision to actually put forward the conversion of the positions was done by the directors and the executive team and the CEO, critically going through and evaluating each project. So that's in a nutshell the content of the report. Councillor Wilkie: So the tables contain about 57 positions. Yes. And you're saying they've been rationalised down to 21? Speaker 2: Attachment two, which contains all the long-standing temporary positions, which we normally report to Council twice yearly. And within that are the details of each of the positions. And we flagged over in the final report that we're going to report to Council twice yearly. So that's in the far right-hand corner in the recommendation, those positions which we are recommending
03:14:00 to convert to permanent. And then the ones that remain will remain as long-term temporary project positions, which we'll continue to monitor through the duration of their terms. The attachment three, which is its own attachment, deals specifically with permanent positions within community services department. And this is where there has been casual provisions for people like, you know, people with disability, casual receptionists, learn-to-swim administrators, learn-to-swim coaches, et cetera, and converting those casuals over to permanent roles. Councillor Wilkie: So where is the reference to the casuals? Speaker 2: That's on attachment three to the report. Councillor Wilkie: Page 99. Speaker 2: That's for community services. Page 99. Sorry. All right. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: So they mentioned part-time positions. Is that when they... Oh, sorry. Speaker 2: Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Substituted. Speaker 2: So what is recommended is the conversion of the far right-hand column, casual
195 minutes in ¶
03:15:00 positions being made permanent, majority part-time, and that's in that third column. Councillor Wilkie: So the casualties be converted to permanent part-time. That's right. Thank you. Mayor Stewart: Deb, just a question on attachment two. I guess I'm just wondering why there's been a casual position since 2016, temporary full-time since 2016. Like, there's been a lot of, you know, that's six years. Yeah. Just on those positions, what's been the, I guess, the reasoning behind that? Speaker 2: That particular casual position that you're actually referencing is a bit of an anomaly. That position was to do with the individual as well as the work requirements, and Kim might like to talk to that one specifically, but it is one that we felt we needed to address because it had been continuing for a long time. So that's the strategic planning one. Mayor Stewart: Yeah. Yeah. Temporary full-time, six years.
03:16:00 That's quite lengthy. Speaker 2: Yeah. And they've been renewed term on term. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 11: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, Deb's probably covered it, but that position was originally appointed as part of the Noosa Plan project team, and the term for that project and the nature of the work was potentially casual. That just continued on. Mm-hmm. The Noosa Plan project took longer than was originally planned. And then out of the Noosa Plan project came a range of ministerial conditions, work that we didn't anticipate. So that position was extended to help do that. Then there was a local law, advertising signs, then a local law short stay. Sure. So that position has been extended to deliver on those type of projects. Councillor Jurisevic: They were different roles. Yeah. Speaker 11: They were different roles. Councillor Jurisevic: Different roles. But the skill set- Yeah. The skill set was identified as the right person to continue on. That's right. Yeah.
03:17:00 Yeah. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And as a very diverse individual. Yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Yeah. Yeah. And Deb, were any permanent part-time positions offered to casuals that they were happy to stay casual? Speaker 2: The conversations and the actual conversion still has to be worked through with the people and culture branch. Every situation is a little bit different. But I know within community services, for example, those conversations have been had in line with some structural realignment, especially in Kerry's area. A permanent status is definitely an advantage for people. Like, if you're a casual employee, for you to be able to even secure a lease on a rental property or to get a home, it's very, very difficult. And this provides some certainty. Mayor Stewart: And no doubt increases that. Councillor Wilkie: The casual rate is normally a bit higher than the part in the full-time rate. How has that got them paid, accommodated or compensated?
03:18:00 Speaker 2: Well the casual rate, there's a loading on top of the standard hourly rate. It's normally around about a 30% loading on top to compensate for sick leave, annual leave, things like that. But if you looked at then a permanent employee with their added benefits, it pretty much evens out. Councillor Wilkie: Are they happy to convert? Speaker 2: Yep, from what I'm understanding with new services, yeah it might be coming up, seeing most of them are yours. Speaker 3: So councillors, there's three branches within my, our three teams within my department, where we're looking at a conversion of casual to permanent part-time. Each of those historically would use a lot of casual staff, but over time actually what we're doing is using those hours, our set hours at a set time. And what we've certainly seen is a change in the labour market, which we've seen everywhere. And that labour market is shrinking and we're wanting to be able to retain good quality people who have knowledge, experience and skills.
03:19:00 Equally, they are wanting to be able to have job security, whereas in the past they were often very relaxed about it and wanting to come and go. With the changes to tenancy, et cetera, they're wanting to see some more security. So in each of our teams, there'll be a slightly different approach. So in some of them, we may well have had the same person undertaking that role for several years, and that may well be a direct conversion. In others, we will go through a recruitment process. And so therefore, the staff that are interested will be able to put up their hands and apply for those positions. In each of those teams, there will still be some casual work. So for those staff that are wanting to remain as casual, that option remains. Councillor Wilkie: Just one more question. It's been said that there are 100 positions unfilled that have remained vacant in the Noosa Council,
03:20:00 because of the difficulties that a lot of councils are facing, and employers generally. Do these changes affect that? Speaker 3: I'll ask Deb to respond to that. Speaker 2: What it does do is that with the security, it means that you haven't got the turnover, as much turnover. That's my opinion, and you could probably prove that if we got the figures for you. So reducing that turnover is definitely an advantage to us. It's not only a cost, but it's a time factor, because some of the reasons why some of these have been turned over is that some of these temporary positions, especially in the DA, for example, have had about three or four occupants to those positions in the terms while they've existed. Speaker 3: And certainly some of these casual roles, we're seeing a lot of turnover. Council is a provider of excellent training.
03:21:00 And so we invest a lot in our staff to train them and qualify them. And what we're seeing at the moment is our very well-trained staff. Then in an environment where there's not a lot in recruitment pools, private industry is going great. We'll have those staff. And so this is a way of securing those highly trained staff. Speaker 2: It's also an attractive proposition, because if you're looking for talent, a person will not give up a permanent role to come to a temporary role. Or a casual role. It's definitely part of our attraction strategy. Councillor Jurisevic: And that was the comment I was going to make. It gives an advantage to Council to have these roles secured, so that we have security of position, security of tenure for those staff, which enables them to find somewhere to live in the region, because that's the challenge. If you're here on a temporary capacity, you've got to find rent. All these things.
03:22:00 So it's an advantage both ways. It facilitates a need for us. It also fills holes for us. But it also gives security to staff to ensure that they've got a permanent place, somewhere to live, the capacity to buy or borrow, to live in the area as well. And we all know how challenging it is to live in the Noosa region at the moment, how difficult the rental market is. We've got a lot of staff travelling from locations like Kinpin. Can I move it and speak to it? Yes. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Morrison. And in essence, I was. Councillor Jurisevic: I'll continue on if that's all right. Yes, I was speaking to it. Thank you, Councillor. The conversation was alluding away. But I guess I've said everything I wanted to say in that regard. So, I mean, we understand this. And my understanding as CEO, and I'll ask a question in the middle of this, is that in some ways we weren't meeting our obligation to staff by keeping them on these long-term casual or part-time contracts. And in fact, we needed to review our situation so that we were being not only fair to staff,
03:23:00 but meeting the occupational conditions under which staff were employed. Speaker 8: Through the Chair, that's correct, Councillor Jurisevic, in that when we do have a casual or a temporary employee that has a regular span of hours over a 12-month period, under Queensland industrial law, and also the changing industrial relations space with the new federal government, that person does have a claim to permanency. We do see throughout the attachments where some staff, through a whole range of reasons, have had extension on extension or longer-term tenure within a casual or a temporary capacity. What this does in consultation, not only across all of the directorships, but then through the staff themselves, is to be able to ensure that we can convert those roles, which are genuine permanent roles, within all of the different positions we have here within Noosa Council.
03:24:00 We'll still need casual staff. We'll still need temporary staff. But not having that regular span of hours demonstrates that they are true and clear casuals, or delivering projects of a temporary nature. And that project has a beginning and an end. And what we need to ensure as we move forward and what the executive is committed to, is being very disciplined in how we then manage our headcounts into the future, and that we don't have a situation where we'll be coming to the council and saying, look, we will need to have this high level of conversions. But over time, it's just crept up on us. The economic circumstances are now calling on us to be able to do this. But when we break it all the way back, and absolutely to your question, we do have to do this to ensure that we comply with QALC. Councillor Jurisevic: So that goes to the second part of my question, is that going forward, thank you for the review since you've come on board,
03:25:00 and that we are looking at these situations. But as part of that staff review going forward, can we have a mention as to the occupational conditions under which that person is employed and how long they've been employed under that situation? So that we do understand where we have to meet those obligations of... Speaker 8: Through the Chair, we will, Councillor Jurisevic, and as the Director has advised... There's something that's been missing. Those bi-yearly reports that we have demonstrating all of our staff, we can make that amendment. We've been able to do that within this report. Something that we can continue that gives council full oversight and council the ability to say... Sorry, that was a word I was looking at. This staff member has been with us a long time. Where do we sit from an IR perspective? Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: A few questions. So the conversions, as I understand, is really a recognition of the correct status
03:26:00 of a lot of these employees. As you inferred, a casual is not necessarily a casual. If they can prove regular hours over long periods of time, So is that correct? Through the chair, that's correct, Councillor Williamson. Also, past my past life, we used to have calculations. We used to actually be able to calculate the correct staff requirements, the numbers. So my question is, does the council have a similar calculation? Is it based on workload or service levels? So is it, for example, do we have service level objectives? So 24 hours of work at customer service might mean that we need more staff with our level of service. You know, we want to answer a phone in five seconds and not 20 seconds. Do we have similar calculations? I'm looking at Scott, but you're the expert, Deb, so I'll throw that in there.
03:27:00 Speaker 8: I'll start. Oh, OK. And then Deb can make sure she can fill in the gaps. Through the chair, Councillor Lorentson, through our branch plans that we have. So we have our corporate plan, our hire. We have our order document that gives us the strategic direction. We have our budget that is linked to the operational plan. And then on the basis of that operational plan, our individual branch plans are delivered across the business. That then really drills down into X amount of calls that are, you know, for your example, X amount of calls received on an average basis in customer service to ensure that we have a standard of service of calls that are delivered within X amount of time or answered or an abandonment rate of calls. So if the number of calls is less than 2%, we would need to provide X amount of staff appropriately. So we do work through that process. Where, and this is a really good example, though, of where we've had projects and large-scale projects
03:28:00 that Council have said, we will now take on this additional work. We've said, great, additional work. We'll get some temporary staff in to be able to deliver that additional work. What has occurred for us is that may, while that additional work may have had a beginning and an end, there's been another piece and another piece and another piece. And before long, they're just delivering business as usual. And, you know, we take the example of strategic planning. The workload and the ongoing different pieces of work that's strapped planning do, that won't end. So that's a brief example. And through the Chair, I'll hand to Deb if there's any gaps there. Speaker 2: I'll just compliment that, if you like. Excuse me. So Scott mentioned our branch plans, but we also have our service profiles. And that's been previously reported to Council, which outlines the different activities and services we provide and the standards within those services. So then there's an expectation that we meet those standards. Customer service was a perfect example.
03:29:00 If you looked at the hours of operation for customer service, it goes beyond a normal standard day of seven and a quarter hours. And... with the opening times of 8.30 to 5. So we have to be able to roster staff on shifts. And to do that, we need to be able to prop up the staffing numbers in the casual employees, for example, allow us to do that. And it does go back to those standards that we talk about answering calls within specified times, the length of time that we spend on the phone and helping to assist customers. So we do have a KPI in that space that we aim to achieve. But it's not just customer service. Libraries also have different operating hours that they have to... that they provide the service to the community on. There are also the safety requirements for things like our... at our pools, for example. So exactly. Speaker 3: So we would have ratios there about how many staff that are qualified in being able to undertake lifeguard duties at any one time. So areas that have a big safety...
210 minutes in ¶
03:30:00 there will be ratios. The Aquatic Centre is one. There's community support in terms of the number of people that they might have within the centre at any one time and depending on what the needs of those clientele might be. So, for example, if they were clientele that were... have dementia, there's a much higher ratio. So some of them absolutely have ratios which drive how many staff, base level staff. Thank you. And just last question. Councillor Lorentson: Have we embraced digital services? Or technology to overcome staffing shortages? And I raise this because we've just spent three exciting days in Cairns and amongst motions and changing the world, there are actually all these new technologies and tools that, you know, increase staff productivity and efficiencies. So question to you guys. Has Council looked at that as a measure to address staffing shortages?
03:31:00 Speaker 8: Happy to answer through the Chair, Councillor Lorentson. I think there's more to come, would be the answer that I provide to your question in that we do have a very robust system framework that sits behind all of the multitude of work that we deliver within our community. You know, noting how diverse local government is and the LGAQ really demonstrated that last week. There are a lot of vendors out there providing a lot of different services. What we need to be able to do is get what is the best fit for Noosa, how we take that forward into the future. So we'll always need our hands on the ground. But how can we get hands on the ground delivering more efficiently? The amalgamation of assets and civil ops is a really good example of that. That, you know, the utopia is that the civil ops crew walk into the depot on the day, there's the sheet that prints out. The maintenance that's being delivered is aligned to our asset management planning and
03:32:00 that's then ticked off and delivered and done. We're a step away from that, but most councils are. So we're incrementally working through technology. What we need to establish though is what is going to be the boots on the ground going forward and where can we get efficiencies and back of house. That's something that the execs really committed to. Talking about it continually. Our ICT PCG that we have internally. There's a lot of work that we deliver around that. But I think once we work through some of particularly this change that we have with conversion of our temps and casuals, we then have a look at our structure. Our corporate plan is then delivered. Systems, processes, policy improvements. That's what 2023 is about for our administration. That's what we'll be firmly focused on. To be able to look at what are those areas where we can start to get some improvements. Technology's a big part. That's perfect. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 8: No question, Joe?
03:33:00 Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, I've got another question. Starting the day on the job as opposed to in the depot would be a good start with some instances. But alluding to the service level catalogs, within that, and one of the things there, to ascertain the number of staff hours required for each of those, do we actually have the number of staff and the number of hours required under in the service level catalog for each of those elements or each of those items that have been identified? If not, can we? Speaker 2: And Trent may cut in on this one as well. The service profile says they exist at the moment, have a description of the activities. They do identify things like if it's, you know, I'll use this example at my present time, Jemele Park and things like that. It does identify the budget, which identifies the salary component, and therefore you could flow down to the staffing numbers with that. And each of them are a little bit different. Some of them have KPIs, some of them don't. We do have to revisit them and review them.
03:34:00 Trent and myself started a review of those prior to the budget. And we're going to continue to review them, especially in line with the development of the new corporate plan and any review of our service or service levels, and then how we capture that data. At the moment, that's being done all manually. And it would be great to have a corporate reporting system. Councillor Jurisevic: There's the technology we're talking about. Speaker 2: Yes. And we're looking at it. It's part of that piece of work. Councillor Jurisevic: To me, the breakdown of that down to zero-based budgeting and starting is knowing how many hours have to be allocated to each task, and starting at that point. So if that's the way, if that's the opportunity going forward, if there's an opportunity to look at those, then yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Look, I'll agree to the motion. I want to applaud the CEO and the executive team and the managers for doing this piece of work, because it gives us a realistic picture of where we're at and what's required to do the enormous work that this Council does on a daily and ongoing basis.
03:35:00 We know the Council's never been working harder. The demand on the development assessment department and also building and plumbing, because there's a construction and renovation boom that's underway. Enormous pressure there. And also infrastructure services delivering a record with the Capital Works Program. And this is, we're talking about services being provided to the community for the benefit of the community. Capital Works projects that are being done out in the community for the benefit of the community. And that's what we're looking at. And it takes staff to deliver that. It's one thing to get enormous amounts of grant money to spend, but someone has to do the work out in the community. And this huge volume of work shows us what we need to do to deliver that. The other thing I like about it is, it's showing that the executive level, the councillors and management, are walking the talk when it comes to valuing staff.
03:36:00 Nothing tells a staff member that they're valued and putting them from casual, you know, permanent to permanent. Recognising the work that they do. Giving them the security of tenure. And saying, we value it. It's what we are trying to deliver here. And this is one way of showing that the fed income can value on your staff. So I really want to thank the executive team and the CEO for bringing this piece of work before us. It's a reality check as to where we are and what we need for this council to work effectively and deliver for the community. So thank you. Brian. And then Tom. Sorry, Tom. You can stay patient. No, no. Tom's first. Okay, Tom. You go ahead. Councillor Wegener: I'm very happy to see ICT and Development Assessment, the two full-time employees there. That's really important. Being in the Audit and Risk Committee, it really opened my eyes to some things. And that's all the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. It appears as though you have outward-looking and then you have inward-looking parts of this organization. And the inward ones is actually the skeleton and the steel that keeps the thing going.
03:37:00 But we don't really know. At least I didn't know what was going on down there, the importance of probity, for example. So my own thinking going forward and the corporate plan coming up is looking at the differences between the areas within council, the kind of invisible bones that are in the middle versus the outward-looking sides. And we cannot forget about the bones. That's my thought. Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Tom. Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Look. On the face of it, if we looked at it from the pub test, it was like, oh, oh, look at Councillor Wegener: all those new permanent positions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we have to step back and think, what is driving it? Part of it is the creep. But why are they still needed? And why they're still needed is we're in a living hell. We're living in a post-COVID world. And a lot of commenters are saying the post-COVID era is also the post-neoliberal era. The days of economic rationalism and government are most likely over because the expectation
03:38:00 of people living here has exceeded. So we look at a number of those staff started in one thing and moved on to short-term letting. So short-term letting is not going to go away anytime soon. And that whole issue of amenity. But it's not just that. It's obviously post-COVID, people have chosen lifestyle, nature, and where they live over what they do and where they work. And so the migration post-COVID means we're going to have continued forward planning requirements. And so, so many of those positions are in strategic and land use planning and in development control. That's not going to go away. That's not going to go away. We're going to see a level of change over the next decade that warrants more staff. But it's also, if you look in the lifestyle area in terms of community services, in terms
03:39:00 of the library, that's where people will see value in local council. So the role of local council will build on what was traditionally done. So, you know, roads, rates, and rubbish, as I say, they'll be really replaced with landscapes, lifestyles, and livelihoods. So there's also a number of economic pieces in there. So I really think where an efficiency argument in the past may have been a good one to look at when looking at staff numbers, where the framework now has to be what is the role for this council in the next 10 years, what will, if we're going to create the environment for residents to live here, enjoy here, and keep ahead of the challenges, the challenges that we're facing, the challenges of social housing, what is it that we need to do as a council? And I think it will be bigger government.
03:40:00 And I think all councils are likely to be coming to that realisation. And we're seeing it now. As soon as a council on one side of us has a vacancy, they probably ring up our relevant officer doing it. And if they're sitting on casual or part-time, they'll say, oh, I can get a bit extra down here. We can see that if you're on a part-time project six months out, you're looking for your new job. If you're permanent, you're more happy. You know you can see a career path. So there's all these things we need to do, because as Councillor Fontini, that'd be interesting. Kerry Contini. Not yet. She's too smart. Councillor Wilkie: And she's going to become a councillor. Councillor Finzel: She'll have to take a pay cut. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: As she mentioned, the labour market's changed. It is about trying to create positions that are attractive to people and to retain them. Because the turnover we're having and the casualisation of the workforce, which is something
03:41:00 that the IR laws, driven by those economic rationalists, led us to, no longer work. And the next step, I believe, is looking at some of those services we provide, like the scale of roadworks and maintenance we do. Because I don't think, in this environment, that outsourcing a lot of that is going to work too much. We'll be competing. Now, we compete against the mining boom. We're now competing against others in the reconstruction boom. We need to look at our outside workforce and say, what is it we need to do there, so that we're more self-sufficient, less reliant on the vagaries of the market and competition for limited resources? So it is a big chunk. It doesn't have a budget implication. But I think it's important to think about what's actually underlying this, not just the processes leading to it. Councillor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak in motion?
03:42:00 Mayor Stewart: Just for those, I want to thank, first of all, the CEO and for the executive team. This is a lot of work, and it's being done by all of you. So I want to thank and acknowledge that, as Councillor Wilkie said. For those watching at home, I just want to reiterate that this isn't irresponsible governance. This is actually putting us in line with the required Queensland Industrial Relations Commission laws, the labour laws of this state. So it is an absolute requirement of this Council, and it's something that is very prudent, and I'm glad we're doing it right now. There are no changes to the bottom line, so it will make no effect on rate-paid funds. And as it's been alluded to, this is about morale. It's about security of tenure. It's about being part of a team. And all those things, in line with our legislative requirements from the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission, are very important to our organisation and our staff. And so I just want to, again, acknowledge all the hard work that's being done. This is work that has needed to be done, and I'm pleased we're doing it now. So thank you.
03:43:00 Thank you. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you, Minister. Anyone else wish to seek a motion? Change is to close. Yeah, I will. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you all for your comments. I think they're all pertinent with regards to things going forward. I won't reiterate them all here. I do see the role that has been undertaken here is to provide that security, provide that need. We've seen in the previous couple of items as well, we have disasters. This is business as usual stuff. What about the other stuff that we see? Day in, day out. You know, the amount of effort required by Larry and his team with regard to disaster management and disaster recovery, and Kerry and her team with disaster recovery. These are things outside the realm that we can't account for the hours that are going to be required to be put in. And we need that structure behind the people that are at the top to be able to support them, to facilitate for the community when these things occur. They're not things that we can put in a service level catalogue, or we can account for the
03:44:00 hours for. Those things work, just go by the wayside. People step up to the mark. It's an amazing, and it's an amazing crew that we have here. The turnover of staff over the years, I mean, I've been here nearly 10 years now, and there are a lot of faces that have gone over the years. And I lament all of those, few retirements, but a few staff that were really good in their roles that have been poached and taken by other councils that we've trained up and have worked here and have got their experience here. Good luck to them, and I don't begrudge them the opportunity to go and, you know, take that advancement where it finds. But it means that we've got to put those, you know, new people in place, and we've got to go through that process again and again and again. But we also need to support those people with the staff on board that have the capacity and the security within their roles. So I thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this. The ongoing opportunity to continue to review our service level catalogue and the services
225 minutes in ¶
03:45:00 that we deliver. The additional things that we throw on, like wanting a new gallery and the effort that that requires, or disaster, you know, disaster recovery and things like that, that that requires, that we do have the staff in place, that we do have the expertise in place. And I think Brian alluded to something there, that maybe we look more, more permanent positions for in-house delivery of stuff, because going outside isn't always the be all and end all, and having the resources inside maybe can actually be a cost saving. In the long run. It's not all about outsourcing like we thought in the beginning. We found that in a lot of instances, that's not a saving. It's actually a cost, a greater cost than if we had those facilities inside. But we have to have the sufficient work to be able to deliver those. So all of those things being taken in consideration, you know, going forward, it's, it's one of those things that we constantly review the staff requirements. It's twice a year we have that, that, that come before us. And I, you know, I acknowledge the fact that staff are always looking to deliver the best
03:46:00 outcomes for this community within our organisation. And I thank them for it. Councillor Wilkie: Thank you. We'll put the motion those in favour. That's unanimous. Thank you, Deb. Thank you, Larry. Thank you. Now item 12 is the financial performance report. I'd like to call the esteemed Pauline Coles to the table, please. Your Honour. Councillor Jurisevic: All rise. You can speak, speak along me. Pauline, your status is just. Hello, Pauline. Councillor Wilkie: Welcome. And welcome, Trent, again. Pauline, could you give us your overview of the financial performance report? This is the financial performance report for the month of September, please. Speaker 5: Sure, Ken. So financial performance continues to be strong with operating revenues outperforming forecast and operating expenditures slightly under forecast for the September quarter.
03:47:00 Operating revenue is $1.5 million above budget, which is comprised of $352,000 from general rates and waste utility charges, $520,000 from interest income due to the investment of surplus cash into high-yielding term deposits. $247,000 from waste disposal fees, $168,000 from holiday parks, $87,000 from our community facilities and $170,000 from operating grants. This has, however, partially been offset by lower-than-forecast development assessment and building and plumbing applications. So that could be a timing issue. We'll just have to see what happens for the rest of the year. Operating expenditure is $272,000 under spent year-to-date, with $195,000 of that being employee costs, and $103,000 relating to materials and services. Tourism and economic development expenditure remains on track year-to-date. We've also included a quarterly legal update that shows legal costs are currently tracking behind budget year-to-date, but the timing and quantum of this spend is largely dependent
03:48:00 on appeals and claims, so this could change during the year. Capital revenue is above budget at $11 million, and this is largely due to the advance payment of the QRA. QRA disaster funding for Black Mountain. Capital expenditure is $1.8 million behind budget due to timing and delivery of projects. You should note, however, that we have delivered $12 million of capital projects in the first quarter, which is the highest we've done since the amalgamation. So we are on track towards delivering Council's $57 million capital program. With the receipt of the QRA funding for Black Mountain, this has pushed Council's cash reserves to $124 million. So we will be looking to invest further funds into high-yielding investment. I'd also like to bring Council's attention to Attachment 4, where we've included an additional column for last year's spend, as requested by Councillor Lorentson and at the last committee meeting. And that's all I have for you, unless you've got questions.
03:49:00 Councillor Wilkie: I just have a paraphrasing question. Speaker 5: Sure. Councillor Wilkie: Page 102. Interest received. Am I reading this correctly? Yes. We've almost earned the budget of annual amount for interest. Speaker 5: Correct. So when we put the budget together last year, we weren't forecasting interest rates to move to where they are now at 4%. So we were quite low in our forecast and very conservative. So with our additional surplus funds, we've invested $40 million at about 4%. And we will look to invest further funds. So that has pushed our interest forecasts higher. So we will actually do about $1.3 million. $1.3 million in interest revenue. Councillor Wilkie: This year, 1.4? Speaker 5: If not more, depending on how much more we invest. Councillor Wilkie: Well, hang on. If it's $804, we've earned $804,000 now. Speaker 5: So some of the term deposits are shorter in time, so they're not necessary for the whole year. So we have to manage our cash flow projections, the capital program.
03:50:00 Yeah. So while we have invested some for 12 months, we have invested others on shorter terms. Okay. Yeah. Councillor Jurisevic: I'm looking forward to the extra $2 million. Thank you. Speaker 10: And I guess just to clarify that, Councillor, when we were preparing the budget in May, the public distribution comment was at the front end of the Reserve Bank starting its recent cycle of quarterly, quarter percent interest rate rises. So what we're seeing now is our investment in the bank seeing the benefit. Conversely of that, where we're now looking and seeing those term deposits sitting at around 4% as opposed to half a percent, which they were six months ago. So it's a significant difference. Councillor Wilkie: And the significance of that is that if for every million dollars we earned, it's at 2% rates increase, we don't have to impose on the residents? Correct. Yeah. Speaker 10: Now, the challenge for Council for the rest of this financial year and next year is that whilst we have interest rates increasing, so is our cost of securing goods and services.
03:51:00 So our cost of our construction works is increasing. Our inflation is rising for contracts is increasing. We're about to reach the end of the subsidy on the- Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Speaker 5: Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Speaker 10: Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Councillor Jurisevic: Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies. Speaker 10: Subsidies. Subsidies. Subsidies.
03:52:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I was just going to raise the point to ask the question about what inflation means. Speaker 10: And for context, Councillor, with inflation, if the cost of materials increases by 10% at appreciation budget next year, which currently sitting around $20 million, 10% of that is $2 million just in depreciation and renewal spend alone. Councillor Jurisevic: That's what I was looking forward to, the extra $2 million to cover what we need. Councillor Lorentson: And our PBAs enterprise bargaining agreements with staff, that's also rising for inflation, isn't it? Correct. So that'll be impacted as well. Correct. Speaker 10: Thank you. And, Chair, we have factored some increase and we did allow for some increase above what would have been traditional CPI, but we sit and wait just to see what the, you know, what
03:53:00 CPI is come December to inform that. Councillor Jurisevic: Very much swings and roundabouts, isn't it? Yeah. Speaker 10: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I do have a question for Pauline. Yeah. The last person in your job did, just trying to find the graph here, that he only went up to 2.8%. Do you think, for you, we should have put up to 3% just so you can keep performing? Investment return. Speaker 5: A little bit. Some of that's out of my hands. Speaker 10: And through the Chair, the Chair, the Chair, the Chair, the Chair, the Chair, the Chair, Councillor Lorentson: On page 101, local laws fee $36,000 below the year-to-date budget. On the street, community are really noticing that there are fewer local laws offices, particularly during the swell period down at Noosa Main Beach. Just for clarity, has that got anything to do with the assault incident of local laws offices in Cooroy?
03:54:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a question, I can't see the relevance to the matter at hand. Councillor Lorentson: Oh no, I'm just wondering, sorry. Councillor Wilkie: Question about the costs incurred by local laws, what factors are at play there? Councillor Lorentson: Excuse me, let me rephrase that. Are there any reasons why there's fewer local laws offices patrolling the street? Or, sorry, let me rephrase that again, why is there $36,000 of revenue below budget? Speaker 5: Local laws tends to be driven by parking infringements and those sorts of things, so it depends on, I suppose, what's happening in the market, the volume of people. It could be down, given that we've had a change in COVID, we have less people travelling by road and flying in, but I'd have to investigate that further for you if I could take that on notice and come back to you on it, if you'd like. Councillor Jurisevic: Who am I actually obeying the laws? The laws of parking. That's right, that was my other option, that's right.
03:55:00 We've got more compliance. Speaker 5: There's also registrations and payments, but usually it's infringements that drive it. Councillor Wilkie: So, you still take the educated over the enforced route as the first course of action, is that true? True, correct. Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Professor, I have a question. Hey, you are out of order too. Councillor Wilkie: What was the question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, but it's not debt finance. No, it is. Councillor Wilkie: It's relevant. No, it isn't. Okay, Councillor. Councillor Lorentson: Substantial coverage. Substantial coverage. Speaker 5: And that's driven generally because we've received so much grant funding in advance as well. Councillor Wilkie: Okay. Happy to move it? Councillor Jurisevic: I'll second it. Councillor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Grissom. Thank you. This is very comprehensive financial reporting. Everything's laid out. It makes it very clear. It's going on. It's good to see that we're on track. Conservative budgeting. And it's very assuring for those payers that their money has been well managed.
03:56:00 And that we're on track to achieve budget. Perhaps a little surplus at the end to absorb any unexpected shock should there be any. Thank you, Cooran. Thank you, Trent. Mayor Stewart: No, councillors? Yeah, I'll just quickly. Yeah, I just find them really comprehensive and comprehensive. Easy to read. And you're making a lot of difficult information. You simplify it well and the graphs are great. So I just want to thank you guys. Because again, I know how hard you had the big audit, all the information due to the audit last week. So I know you guys have worked very hard over the last few months. So I want to thank both of you. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. And the risk and audit committee also said great work with the graphs and how clear it was. Councillor Jurisevic: Thank you. It makes a difference. Instead of having to go back and look at trying to find our streets. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Since Councillor Lorentson is going on the journey, and we have over previous years looked
03:57:00 at accounting for nature, there is a new corporate standard being developed about just like your climate risk, your nature risk. Are we looking at what that means in terms of their reporting? Speaker 10: Once that's at a point where it's finalised, then we can assess the impacts and how we present. Yes, we will obviously incorporate that into our financial reporting and ESG obligations through that. So that will feature in future financial reports as we progress down that path. Joe? Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah. An oddity that sticks out. I always look for the oddities in the figures. In the statement of income and expenditure under capital funding, cash revenue minus 7%. And actually negative figures there. Can you explain? Councillor Wilkie: What page is that? Councillor Jurisevic: On page 110.
03:58:00 And we're going backwards there. Speaker 5: So for the capital section, it always balances out. So where we've overspent or where we've got additional revenue, it will be the balance in figure that comes out in terms of our expenditure and our revenues. That cash surplus revenue which is funding it. So we've actually got, so what's actually happening is we've actually bought in more revenue than we actually spent for that particular period of time. That's where the negative will balance those two sections out. Councillor Jurisevic: In relation to the- Speaker 5: At the present time. It's cash positive. Councillor Jurisevic: In relation to the grants that we've- Speaker 5: Correct. So the grant funding that we've come in is more than what we've- Councillor Jurisevic: I assumed it was, but I just wanted to- Correct. I saw the anomaly there. I thought I'd ask the question. That's okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I want to speak to, yeah, I think the key statistic that came out that was interesting was the $12 million in three months. And we think about that in relation to the last report about how the world's changed.
03:59:00 From memory, and don't check my fingers. From memory during the amalgamated area, Noosa Shire area was getting about $15 to $17 million worth of capital works a year. So within four or five months we're going to be doing what used to happen in a year. And so the scale of operation is not just a minor increase, it's a significant increase. And I think the fact that all these other indicators are still not going haywire is really a testament to that. Yeah. Two people sitting here, their predecessors, and their predecessors in terms of people, you know, some of the hard yards that were done in the very first council as well. It's all about how the books look now. Great. Councillor Wilkie: Notion, Peter White. Councillor Jurisevic: Yeah, it's a relative point to bring there. I mean, added to our normal capital works, we've got a disaster budget of over $50 million.
240 minutes in ¶
04:00:00 That's, Doug, two years' worth of capital work. Two years' worth of our normal capital works coming in on top of a $57 million capital works program. It's an astounding amount of work and management and maintaining not only the financial elements, but the actual final delivery. So, yeah. Councillor Wilkie: Are you all right, Larry? I'm just checking in because you're the one. He's juggled basketballs before. Okay. Unless anyone else wishes to speak or ask a question, I'll put it to the vote. Those in favour? It's carried unanimously. Thank you, Pauline. Thank you, Trent. Thank you, Caroline. Thank you, Longboard. Thank you, Longboard. Tom, you had an announcement? Councillor Wegener: Well, we should give a congratulations to Harrison Roach for taking out the world title in longboarding this last week. He won. He won. We have another world champion amongst us and for the females, number three, we have
04:01:00 living in Noosa, Mason Schremer. So, it's really quite ... It's utterly astonishing events, yeah, for us. We are champions of the world in a genre of surfing that's very big and worldwide. We are the very top. Councillor Wilkie: Former champion of surf that carried the world by the helm. Oh, it's Tom. Councillor Wegener: Amelia. Councillor Lorentson: And can I speak as a surfer and as a parent of two aspiring Olympians and world champion surfers? I want to thank Harrison and Mason on behalf of every competitive junior and senior surfer in Noosa. Thank you for showing our kids the true meaning of grit. Thank you for reminding us that the business of surfing is the long game and that it takes passion and persistence to finish what you start and to survive setbacks. Most importantly, thank you Harrison and Mason for showing us that it can be done. You guys are role models to our children and legends.
04:02:00 And finally, a shout out to all the people who saw the greatness within Harrison and Mason before they did. Your mum and dad and of course the Thomas crew. Shout out to our world surf longboarding champion Harrison Roach who waited 16 years for this moment to be crowned. Noosa Council salutes you. Mayor Stewart: Thank you.