Before the first item ¶
00:00:00 Mayor Wilkie: The extraordinary meeting of Thursday 18th June 2026, declare the meeting open at 10am. We acknowledge that we are meeting on the traditional lands and waters of the Kabi Kabi people and I pay my respects to the elders past, present and emerging. And also acknowledge their recognition of each and every one of us as joint custodians and respecting and caring for this beautiful place that we all love and respecting and caring for each other. All councillors are in attendance. Item 4.1 is the confirmation of the minutes. May I have a move and second it for the minutes of the ordinary meeting held on the 21st of May 2026. Moved Councillor Lorentson, seconded Councillor Phillips. All in favour? Councillor Wegener: I might be looking at it wrong but it appears that there's a March minutes that are attached. Do you think I will check that? Mayor Wilkie: Let's have a look at that. Have you got your say on the resolved system?
3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶
00:01:00 Councillor Wilson: Mine says May. Councillor Wegener: Yours says May? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. That's weird. Thank you. Good that you're checking Councillor Wegener. We have one petition. I move that the petition with 41 signatories submitted by Susan Dewar requesting the installation of street lights on the pathway from Yellowood Close to Tewantin Sports Field be received and referred to the Chief Executive Officer to determine the appropriate action. May I have a seconder please? Second. Seconded Councillor Lorentson. Look, the submitter submits that the pathway is one of three access points created by Council into the Tewantin sporting fields. The fields serve as soccer, netball, pickleball, tennis, rugby league, touch football, baseball and the pony club. This pathway is also utilised for other events such as the Red Hot Summer Concerts, rodeos, vintage car club days, the walk, run, bike, race, the circus and many other events during the years. They submit parking from the overflow is always utilised in Yellowood Close and Blackbutt Court through this access point.
00:02:00 They submit that this is a high safety risk to all community members, the lack of lighting that is. Families, women on their own accessing these sporting fields that are there for community use are unsafe without lighting. Use, congregate, damage the park area and playgrounds, smash bottles, play in these areas because of no lighting. And these are among, in our streets we have multiple disabilities in the community crossing a four metre long bridge. People with wheelchairs, visual impairments where lack of lighting is dangerous. All in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you Mr CDR. There are no presentations. We have no deputations. We have two submissions to public question time. The first question is from Ms Hayley Haas. Ms Haas would you like to come to the lectern to read your question which will be answered by Kim Rawlings, Director of Strategy and Environment and Richard MacGillivray, Director of Development and Regulation.
5 PETITIONS ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
8.1 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME APPLICANT: HAYLEY HASS ¶
00:03:00 Speaker 4: Through you Chair. Since declaring a climate emergency, Noosa Council has invested considerable resources into climate related activities including dedicated staffing, strategic plans, policies, programs and projects. This includes the employment of a carbon reduction project officer position with an annual salary exceeding $100,000 in addition to expenditure on associated climate initiatives across the organisation. Council is currently considering how to measure the effectiveness and return on investment of funding provided to tourism Noosa through the use of key performance indicators and measurable outcomes. Similar principles of accountability. Mayor Wilkie: Ms Haas, that's not the question that we... Speaker 4: No, it's the background information which I've been allowed to read at previous meetings. Mayor Wilkie: You have a different...the question itself is that in relation to the total expenditure incurred by Noosa Council about the declaration of climate emergency.
00:04:00 Speaker 4: No, it's the what measurable outcomes. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, question, yes, question two. Apologies. Speaker 4: Council is currently considering how to measure the effectiveness and return on investment of funding provided to tourism Noosa through the use of key performance indicators and measurable outcomes. Similar principles of accountability and transparency would appear relevant to climate related expenditure. Given the outgoing commitment of Red Pad funds to climate programs and initiatives, it is reasonable for the community to understand how Council measures success, evaluates effectiveness and determines whether these investments are achieving their intended objectives. Council is currently considering how to measure the effectiveness and return on investment of funding provided to tourism Noosa through the use of key performance indicators and measurable outcomes. This question seeks clarification of the key performance indicators, targets and measurable outcomes used by Council for that purpose. Question is, what measurable outcomes, targets and key performance indicators does Noosa Council use to assess the effectiveness of its climate emergency declaration and the expenditure incurred in delivering associated climate change, climate resilience, sustainability and emissions reduction activities, including Council's carbon reduction project officer?
00:05:00 This question seeks clarification of the key performance indicators, targets and measurable outcomes used by Council for that purpose. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Ms. Haas. Director Rawlings. Come over here so we can hear you, please. Director Rawlings: Thanks for your question, Hayley. Since declaring a climate emergency in 2019, Noosa Council has endorsed a climate change response plan and a coastal hazards adaptation plan, as well as supported the regional climate action roadmap developed in partnership with the Sunshine Coast Council. Each of these plans contain a range of strategic priorities, targets, adaptation outcomes and actions that Council uses to measure progress in responding to growing climate risks. In addition, Council's Corporate Plan 2023-2028 includes key objectives, projects and performance measures
00:06:00 related to climate change. This includes both measuring emissions reduction and efforts to build resilience. Progress in delivering Council's Corporate Plan is reported on annually. Projects and objectives which relate to climate response are then reflected down to Council's Annual Operational Plan, which is also reported on quarterly. Reports on Council's carbon footprint and monitoring of initiatives to reduce emissions are also reported publicly to Council. In addition, Council provided an update on the progress of delivering its climate change response plan at the General Committee on 16 December 2024. This included measuring progress on governance, priorities and targets, as well as estimates on expenditure and external grants received since endorsement of the plan. Council is working on developing a live, interactive and public online reporting platform, which intends to track progress and individual actions of the climate change response plan to inform the community of progress and strengthen transparency and accountability. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Ms Haas.
00:07:00 Next question is from Mr Nick Cook. Mr Cook, would you like to come to the lectern? I read your questions, which will be answered by Kim Rawlings, Director of Strategy and Environment, and Richard MacGillivray, Director of Development and Regulation. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Speaker 5: Destination Management Plan. A significant strategic document intended to guide tourism and visitor management in Noosaville over the coming decade. Development of the plan commenced with community engagement in 2023. It involved extensive consultation, engagement, workshops, surveys, communication activities, advertising, staff resources and external expertise over a period of more than two years. While Council has reported on the aspects of the engagement and the process and the outcomes of the plan, it does not appear to have been a publicly available, consolidated figure outlining the total cost incurred by Council in developing the plan, from inception through to adoption.
8.2 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME APPLICANT: NICK COOKE ¶
00:08:00 Understanding the full cost of the strategic planning initiatives is important for transparency, accountability and informed public discussion, particularly at a time when Council is proposing rate increases and communities are seeking assurance that resources are being allocated effectively. This question seeks to establish the total investment made by Council in preparing the Destination Management Plan and provide clarity on where those funds have been expended. So the question is, what has been the total cost of the Destination Management Plan, from initial concept planning to final adoption, including but not limited to internal staff costs, consultant fees, research, community engagement, workshops, surveys, advertising, communications, graphic designs and the like, and the other direct or indirect associated costs? Director Rawlings: Thanks Nick. The research and data gathering that informed the development of the DMP began five years ago. The issues the DMP seeks to address have been going for many years and Council has sought to understand these
00:09:00 and address these throughout this period in different ways and therefore allocated resources to these issues across the state. The estimated cost associated with the development and delivery of Noosa's Destination Management Plan today is estimated to be around $600,000 over a five year period, or approximately $120,000 per year when averaged across the five year period. This accounts for less than 0.07% of Noosa Council's cumulative budget and likewise less than 0.0% of the relevant Directorate's budget responsible for the development of the DMP over the same period. This figure estimates the total cost of the project, including but not limited to a portion of internal staff salaries, consultant and professional service fees, research and analysis, community engagement activities over three comprehensive engagement processes, workshops and stakeholder consultations, surveys and data collection, advertising and communications, graphic design and publication costs, associated project delivery and operational expenses to date, including the development of the DMP portal.
00:10:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Your second question, Mr Cook. Speaker 5: Second question is about dog registrations. Recently reports indicate that Noosa Council issued over 500 infringement notices to dog owners for unpaid registration, resulting in substantial community concerns and a large number of appeals. Council has publicly stated that the renewal of the Noosa Dog Registration Registration Program was carried out by a postal mail. However, many residents have publicly claimed they did not receive a renewal notice prior to receiving an infringement notice. Council has also reported approximately 200 appeals have been lodged in relation to these infringements and there's rumblings of class actions. Given the number of residents raising concerns and the significant financial penalties involved, it's important the community have confidence that the registration process operated as intended.
00:11:00 The question seeks clarifications as to whether renewal notices were successful or not. The answer is that the dog owners were successfully generated first and foremost in internal systems and sent to dog owners for the registration periods that ultimately resulted in infringement notices being issued. So the question is simply can Council confirm whether the annual dog registration renewal notices for all affected dog owners were successfully generated by Council's internal systems for the registration periods that resulted in the recent infringement notices. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Nick. Um, Director of Regulation and Development, Mr Moop. Can I ask you a question? Speaker 3: Thank you. Thank you for your question, Mr Cook. Yes, Council can confirm that dog registration renewal notices and subsequent reminder notices were successfully generated for all registered dogs. It is important to note that Council has over 10,000 registered dogs. 576 infringement notices were issued in April this year, all of which related to dogs not being registered across multiple years.
00:12:00 Prior to infringements being issued, Council also issued public media articles through various mediums requesting dog owners to ensure that their registration and details were current. It is relevant to note that in the past two months alone, over 1,000 dog record updates have been received by Council staff and more than 220 new dogs have been registered that had not previously been registered across the Shire. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. There are no mayoral minutes. Thank you. We have one notified motion which is included in the agenda, which is 10.1 Divisional Boundary Review. Councillor Finzel, would you like to move your motion? Councillor Finzel: Oh, yeah, happy to move the motion. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have a seconder for the motion, please? I'm happy to second. Thank you. Councillor Finzel, you have the floor. Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you. First of all, we thank you to the Councillors and the CEO for their consideration of this motion. I think it's timely that when we, you know, in a situation in time and place where there's a lot of change, we are leaders and it's prudent, in my opinion, to actually rigorously look at the systems that are serving us.
10.1 DIVISIONAL BOUNDARY REVIEW ¶
00:13:00 Are they currently fit for purpose or is it time to, like, pull them out, illuminate them and have a review to see are they serving us effectively now into the future? This is a matter about accessibility, transparency and accountability. I thank the CEO for his time to put forward issues. His support for this motion to have a look at the Boundary Review to provide clear understanding of the process, identify the regulatory decision-making and outline the expected timeframe. That will provide also to Council an indication of cost and resources required to deliver the overall process. I think it's really important that when we sit in this role of leadership that we are informed by our past, our present and our future. I think it's really important that when we sit in this role of leadership that we are informed by our past, our present and our future. I think in terms of looking at gaps and risks into the future, I think we need to be ready.
00:14:00 There is a lot of change going on, noting that the LGAQ boundaries to the south and the north of us are divisional and I think as we head towards growth in the region, we need to be on the ready. Of course, this doesn't mean that the current process is not working, as mentioned in the motion, but I think it's prudent that we have a look at the best options available to us moving forward. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak to it. I want to speak in support of the motion in front of us. In front of us, the motion doesn't actually ask us to change anything. It doesn't introduce boards, it doesn't cost millions and it doesn't touch our standing as an independent council. All it asks for is a report, one that tells us the process. If New South were to move to divisional boundaries, what are the steps involved?
00:15:00 How long will it take and what would it cost? So we're not deciding on any outcome. We're just asking staff to bring back the facts so that we can have an informed discussion later. I want to thank Councillor Finzel for bringing the report to us today and I want to just reference a couple of the notes that she put in the report. And first of all, it's in the background. It's in the background. So, since the DML Bill in 2014, New South has run as an undivided council. At that time in 2014, that made sense. The Shire was actually smaller and the thinking was that the whole Shire representation would avoid fragmentation. And at the time, there was also very strong community support for it. But that was over a decade ago, and New South has grown since then. And the issues that councils deal with today are more complex and community expectations of their councillors have changed too.
00:16:00 And none of that means that the undivided model is broken. As Councillor Finzel just mentioned and in her own comments, it's still defensible and it still may be delivering effective representation. But I think it's just fruit of the governance that we take the opportunity to just review the process and make a decision, is it still fit the purpose. As I mentioned, right now, we actually have six councillors, one that lives in Kina, one that lives in Cooroy, one in Boring Point, myself and the Mayor, Eastern Beaches, Councillor Jess Noosaville and Councillor Wilson in Tewantin. So around this table, the system that we already have, we've actually got really great representation.
00:17:00 But I think the question that Councillor Finzel puts in the motion is that that's not guaranteed next term. That depends on how people were voted and who puts their hand up. I also want to raise, this isn't a new conversation. It was raised last year. And I remember the discussion really clearly with the Mayor and I think it was Councillor Joe Jerusalem that raised it. Recently, residents circulated a really good argument, an article on this very issue. And what that tells me is that it's still something that people in this community are still thinking about and want addressed formally. Not just flipped to informal debate. I know there are genuine fair arguments on both sides. An undivided model keeps councillors thinking Shire-wide instead of defending patch.
00:18:00 Wards can create rivalry between areas instead of cooperation. And for a council our size, and that's really important, some will actually ask whether a review is worth the time and resource. And then more importantly, whether the state actually considers us big enough to warrant it. And they're all valid points. And I think that's exactly why this motion is the right way to handle this. It doesn't prejudge the answer. It just asks for facts, process, timeframe and cost. So that whenever this council, or a future one, decides to look at this properly, it's an evidence-based decision rather than a guess. So again, I commend and thank Councillor Finzel. And I'm happy to support the motion. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Phillips: I will really quickly. Councillor Phillips. Thank you very much Councillor Finzel for bringing it to the table. And I think you did really well with the process. Because again, it doesn't have an answer. It's just asking council to invest in what that model might look like if it is or isn't
00:19:00 right for our council. I was around for the time where we were. I'm now part of a council that isn't. And I think it's a really good conversation to see if we're continually sort of testing whether things are fit for purpose, whether it's current, whether it's meeting the needs of our Shire. But more importantly, whatever we can do to rebuild trust with our community, I'll support. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, you should close. Oh, Councillor Stockwell. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There's one person, I think Councillor Wilkie also, who's experienced both systems. I have a particular view. This one's not asking for our views. It's asking to do a process. And I think it is sensible after 10 years, and because there are still community discussions on it to do that review, I most often get asked the question that why haven't we got divisions when I'm in the hinterland, and I'm normally stopped in the street in the hinterland when I'm asked those questions and I'm going, so what's different?
00:20:00 In 1988, we had 13 councillors. In five divisions, multiple councillors per division, and a population of significantly less. That council actually decided to take four councillors out, but still keep the divisions one less from memory. I always think about, I've spent a lot of my time, well, the majority of the time since I've been here, 81, living in the Timbewa area, if I get on my electric bike, it's about 22 to 24 kilometres in any direction to get to the edge of the Shire. So that whole thing about what is reasonable for someone to represent, if you can ride there in an hour, an hour and a half, it's probably not too big an area to represent. And I think some of the shortcomings have been identified, certainly parish pump politics and the horse trading around, budget time, I'll give you your toilet block, you give me my bitumen road type of thing, and that whole consensus of a Shire.
00:21:00 But I do agree, it's probably time to bring it up. We've got to get out in the open, let the community see both sides of the story, let the costs. I noted that our councillor, Lorenton, pointed out we've got three councillors who live in hinterland areas and three who live this side of that, plus the mayor. If we were to adopt divisions, it would be based on a one vote, one value. So it's most likely that the hinterland would have locked in a smaller number of representatives. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Wish to close, Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: No, thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, I'll put to the vote those in favour. That's unanimous. It brings us to consideration of committee recommendations. 11.1, Audit and Risk Committee Recommendations. 11.1.1, Queensland Audit Office Audit Committee Briefing Paper. 11.1.2, Crowe Final Report, Internal Audit 2025 QAO Interim Report Recommendations.
00:22:00 11.1.3, Internal Audit Report Queensland Audit Office Forward Recommendations. 11.1.4, Internal Audit Update. 11.1.5, Sundry Creditors Process Improvements Risk Register. 11.1.6, Closing of Payroll Related Actions. 11.1.7, Valuation of Building Leases to External Entities. 11.1.8, Capability Framework and Workforce Planning. 11.1.9, Short Term Accommodation Response. 11.1.10, ICT Cyber Risk Report. 11.1.11, Shell Financial Statements and End of Year Financial Year Update. 11.1.12, Financial Environment Monitoring Exceptions and Escalation Policy. 11.1.13, Financial Environment Exception Reporting, PE 30 April 2026. 11.1.14, Queensland Audit Office's Local Government Financial Audit Report. 11.1.15, Technologione Health Check. 11.1.16, Fringe Benefits Tax Project.
11.1 AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 29 MAY 2026 ¶
00:23:00 11.1.17, Superannuation on Contract Payments. 11.1.18, Financial Services Workforce Plan Update. 11.1.19, Risk Maturity Progress Update. 11.1.20, Insurance Management Update. 11.1.21, Confidential Forward Corruption and PID Update. 11.1.22, Audit and Risk Committee Recommendations on Block. 11.1.23, Mover and Seconder for the Audit and Risk Committee Recommendations to be adopted please. 11.1.23, Moved by Councillor Wilson, seconded by Councillor Phillips. 11.1.24, All in favour? 11.1.25, That's carried. 11.1.26, We go to the General Committee Recommendations. 11.1.27, Bridgeton Beach Active Street. Look, I need to declare a prescribed conflict of interest which has been documented and I will leave the meeting room. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillors, I'm going to move the staff recommendation presented to the General Committee.
00:24:00 Councillor Lorentson: Yeah, no, it's automatic. Speaker 6: It's automatic, it's automatic as the Deputy Mayor. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll second it. And I'll wait for that to get up. Councillor Lorentson: This is the original staff recommendation. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Recommendation to the General Committee, please. Councillor Lorentson: A question to the CEO. Sorry. No, I'm sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, it's been moved and seconded, so the questions ought to come after, I think, especially. Councillor Lorentson: This is a question to the CEO. Procedural question, not a question in relation to the report in front of us. A question to the CEO. Given that the motion was defeated at general meeting and then an alternate motion rose, according to our standing orders, is this standard protocol or not?
11.2.1 PEREGIAN BEACH ACTIVE STREET - STAGE 1 PROGRESS UPDATE AND NEXT STEPS (Deferred from the Ordinary Meeting dated 19 March 2026 - Item 12.2) ¶
00:25:00 Speaker 6: I need to take a moment to actually go back to what I said earlier. Councillor Lorentson: I'll make my ruling. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, it's perfectly within standing orders, so I'll speak to it. Councillor Lorentson: Can I ask through the CEO, Chair, what section in the standing orders gives you authority to re-litigate a motion that was defeated? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: The motion at a General Committee is a recommendation to this meeting. That's all it is. Okay. So, any motion can be moved at the ordinary meeting. Councillor Lorentson: Can I possibly request an agenda of this meeting and seek advice from Governance, just not to challenge the Chair, but just to ensure that proper process is actually being followed, and also to ensure that we don't compromise the integrity of our decision
00:26:00 making in trusting this Council? I prefer that. Please. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You can, after I've spoken to the motion. It's a procedural motion. There is nothing in the standing order that says you can remove the procedural motion before the speaker of the motion has talked. Councillor Lorentson: Can I move to deceit against the Chair, please? Councillor Phillips: I'll give it a second. Councillor Lorentson: My reasons are we had something very similar that came before us. I think it's important for us to understand that this is a very important issue. We sought legal advice, and I think it was in reference to about section 11.4 of our standing orders, correct me if I'm wrong. Legal advice actually said that our interpretation of the standing orders at the time, which was to remove a procedural motion after a motion was defeated, was in fact incorrect. So, again, not to compromise the integrity of our decision making and trusting community
00:27:00 that we're actually following our standing orders. I think it's important for us to understand that this is a very important issue. So we can get advice from our governance and legal team. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just get the correct.
00:28:00 I'm just looking for the procedure of motions. Councillor Lorentson: Through the chair, I have... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So I've got the floor. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Lorentson: We've got a dissent motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, a dissent motion. She's moved. I'm responding. That's how a dissent motion works. Section 31.1 of the Standing Orders states a councillor at a meeting of council may, during the debate of a matter at the meeting, move a procedural motion. A debate does not start until the mover of the motion has spoken to the motion after it's seconded. That is why the dissent in the chairman's room should be voted against, because anyone voting for it would be voted against for the provisions of the Standing Orders. Councillor Wilson: We're asking whether the motion should be moved in the first place. So it would be unfair to speak to a motion that potentially shouldn't be moved. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I accept that that that's your opinion. It's certainly not consistent with the Standing Orders.
00:29:00 I've given the response. You can vote whatever way you feel. Thank you. Those in favour of the move... Motion in dissent of the chairman's room. The motion's carried. Councillor Lorentson: I move that we adjourn and close the meeting to seek advice from governments and legal... in-house legal counsel. I hope to second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone wish to speak to the motion? I think... I'll just put the motion then. Those in favour? Councillor Wegener: I'm not sure of who they are. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Just a... Just a... Just a question, sorry. Just a question. Okay. Yeah. Those in favour? As I think it's contrary to Standing Orders, I'll vote against. So those in favour was Councillor Wegener, Wilson, Finzel,
00:30:00 Lorentzen and Phillips against his Councillor Stockwell. We'll... We'll... We'll adjourn the meeting.
00:58:00 Thank you. And while we can specify the time the adjournment in the motion would continue, it was until such a time as governance advice could be received. I believe the CEO is in a position to provide that advice. Mr CEO? Councillor Lorentson: Do you want to resume? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, there's no motion to resume. If you could provide the advice in regard to the...
00:59:00 Yes, so we are open to the public. The meeting is open. The adjournment has been finished. As I said, 131.8b adjournment motion should specify the time. It did allude to the fact that it would be at such a time that there was governance advice on taking. We do have advice and therefore believe it. Speaker 6: Yes, so following discussion, the position is that the best method forward was to... We are able to bring a new motion to the table because from the general committee meeting to the board meeting is not a resolution, it's a recommendation.
01:00:00 So a new motion is able to be brought. The fact that it is the original motion being brought is allowable, however it's not necessarily the best practice, governance practice. Again, interpretation of the standing rules. It's not clear, but that's our interpretation. But it is allowable, or it's not necessarily the best practice, but it is allowable to bring the original motion back as a new motion because of the fact that it's coming from the general board meeting. So the board meeting is where the resolution happens, the general is where the recommendation happens. Councillor Lorentson: Yes. A question to the CEO. Again, seeking clarity. At the general meeting, the staff recommendation was debated and an alternate motion was upheld. My question is that the alternate motion then becomes the decision or resolution,
01:01:00 whether you're turning on the news. That becomes... That becomes the decision or resolution of council... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Question, please, Councillor. Councillor Lorentson: ...at the general meeting. I'm still challenged and seeking any further advice how a recommendation that is defeated and replaced with an alternate motion is now resurfaced without applying section 34 of the... Councillor, can you sit down? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Councillor, you asked for advice. You've got advice. That advice, asking the same question in a different way, is not respectful of the Chamber. Councillor Lorentson: Through the CEO, can I ask another question? Did the government give you any advice in terms of section 34 repealing or rescinding resolutions and why that section doesn't apply to the situation that we're in right now? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll answer the question because I am the chairman. As the CEO clearly stated in his advice,
01:02:00 the recommendation from the committee is not a resolution of council. Okay, so we have in front of us a motion. The motion is up on the panel and I'll speak to it. So, councillors, I think it was very important to once again give councillors the opportunity to respect the expert advice we've received, to respect the strategic direction that this council has had for many years. In 2022, we had a cycling and walking strategy that really set the current strategic direction. In 2020, we had the Coastal Pathway Corridor Study, which identified this as a high-priority corridor strategy. We've had two liveability studies where we've asked a large number of people in our community
01:03:00 what their priorities were and priorities at the highest level were walking, jogging and bike paths, access and safety of walking, cycling and public transport. Now, I appreciate that what is proposed is something different. Thank you. And what we're dealing with is a small local area that is challenged by the change that is proposed. Our role as councillors is to listen to what their concerns are, to listen to how the experts in the field respond to those concerns, and to make a judgement that's in the best interest of the whole Shire. We had a notice of motion. We had a motion about this, about whether divisions may or may not be good.
01:04:00 But regardless if you're representing a division around Peregian or the whole of the Shire, it's always been the fact that your decisions have to be in the broad community interest. Being popular as a councillor is quite easy. Making the hard decisions that sometimes mean that the perceptions of the community and the concerns of the community in one area may be listened to, but perhaps don't carry the weight of the whole Shire. And in this case, there is clear, strategic steps that have been taken that suggest that what is in front of us is not only an outcome that is a high priority that's been there for six years, but it's also an outcome that has been there for a long time. It's also one where ratepayers' funds won't need to be used to address the current deficiencies
01:05:00 in pavement, in stormwater, in pedestrian and cycling safety. Supporting this means you do support access along that street, not just for young, but for the old, and it is part of a process that will help build the current momentum towards a more frequent use of active transport by our residents, by our visitors and by our neighbours. It is one that, yes, you may need to show leadership in this instance and understand that some people will be unhappy with the decision, but it is a decision that is supported by strategy. It's supported by overwhelming community feedback about what the priorities are. And it's supported by grant funds that means it is cost-effective and won't put burdens
01:06:00 on future ratepayers. That's why I think it's important to start this debate again from where it ended in terms of a six-year process to get here. Councillor Wilson: I'm just going to say that I want to say my offence at being told that being popular is easy. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor, you may sit down please. You talk to the motion or you move and point of order. Councillor Lorentson: Can I make a point of order on behalf of all of our councillors on behalf? Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And what's your point of order? Councillor Lorentson: Point of order, through the chair, through the chair is a complaint of all, not a person. And in reference to local government, I'm sorry, so I came in reference to local government
01:07:00 section 150d, which says that we must talk with respect to one another and we have minimum standards around the state. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Councillor. As I said, Councillor Wilson, if you want to move a point of order, I'm going to move a point of order about offence and what I've specifically said that offended, I'm happy to receive it. Otherwise, if you're talking to the motion, please talk to the motion. Councillor Wilson: I'll talk to the motion and say that an extensive community consultation process occurred and valid concerns were raised by the community. We're being asked by Councillor Stockwell to ignore those and to show leadership. In a way that I don't understand, even that we want to listen to the community. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Others who took the motion? I will.
01:08:00 Councillor Phillips: Okay. I'm going to also just say that I also take offence to being told that the job, it's about being popular, because how I, Councillor, I'm going to speak to the motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's how I'm standing on the chair, so you need to sit down. Councillor, you've misrepresented me. And so I talk in apology. I did not say that the job is, or called any council being popular. I said that sometimes if you just want to be popular, that, it's sometimes you can't just be popular. Because you don't achieve anything. I couldn't specify any councillor, and I didn't refer to anyone. I said it in the process. So inferring that that's what I said is incorrect.
01:09:00 Councillor Phillips: I'll speak to the, against the motion. And I'm going to say that I don't just respect recommendations. I respect the needs of this community. That's why we are here. And that's the job that we were elected to do. Our responsibility is not just to rub a stamp. It is to listen to our residents, to the people who live here, and the consequences of our decisions every day. Recommendations are incredibly important, but they are one part of the broader picture. If every single time we came into this chamber, we simply voted in line with recommendations, then I would ask, what is the point of our role as a councillor? Why would the community even elect us if it is not to apply judgement or bring lived experience and represent their voice? Good governance requires more than process. Our job is to find balance, to balance expert advice with community sentiment, to balance policy with practicality, and to balance what is recommended with what is right.
01:10:00 But more importantly, I'm going to respect this community, and I will continue to make decisions with them at the centre of every vote that I cast. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor LORENTZON. Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Regardless of what was happening today, I was going to give this speech. I was in Paris a few years ago, and there's a very nice streetscape there, shared street pathways, bikes, zooming back, people, and the whole city moves so much nicer than London a few weeks before and other places. So I really understood the streetscape, and I thought, this is wonderful, and I'd love to do this. And since then, we've had consultation after consultation. We've had consultation with the community, and our number one goal is traffic congestion and management.
01:11:00 And that has been asked of us over and over again as our number one priority. We've had lots of consultations, and of course, we have our adopted walking and cycling strategy 2021. And the goal of this strategy is to make riding and bike and walking so convenient and safe that it is preferred mode of transportation for the Shire's residents and visitors. And that's what I saw in France and other places in my travels. The Peregian Beach Active Street Stage 1, 2, and 3 are steps towards this goal, towards answering the request of the larger community to please do something about congestion and traffic. And here, Stage 1 has been funded by the Southeast Queensland Livability Fund to the amount of $880,000. And on the website of the Southeast Queensland Livability Fund, it states, the project comprises
01:12:00 of 800 meters of wayfinding signage and 800 meters of cycle street to enhance the accessibility and connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists. The project will provide a seamless extension of the Sunshine Coast pathway. And I would love to see a seamless pathway along the entire Sunshine Coast. That would just be fantastic. The Federal Active Transport Fund is also supported. And that is supporting with $1,570,000. And on the website, it says, the program has been created as a part of the Australian Government's commitment under the National Road Safety Strategy to improve road safety outcomes for people walking, wheeling, and riding. The aim of the program is to encourage and increase the safety of people walking, wheeling, and riding through the upgrade of existing and construction of new bicycle and walking pathways across Australia.
01:13:00 So we have an alliance between our local government, the state government, and the federal government. And I feel that to reject the active street is out of step with the vision of Australia. We have an identity in being leaders and saying, you know, we're not afraid to try something that's going to be really good. We have long-term vision. Noosa's specialty is long-term vision. Now, of course, I have listened to the residents' concerns. Definitely. Putting boats in and out of driveways, the parking issues, speed. And I've listened very carefully. And I don't believe they outweigh the benefits the rest of the Noosa will enjoy as a response, as a result of one, two, or three of the stages. Because I live in New South Wales. I live in Croy. And I would love to ride my bike up there. I would love to see all kids of Noosa, all the young people saying, yeah, let's hop on
01:14:00 our bike and safely go down Lower Keep Drive and into Peregian, down to Coolum, and have that safety aspect. They don't have that now. Lower Keep Drive is, in my opinion, and I'm down there a lot, is not safe. I think a safe streetscape is something that should be a given, especially in our Noosa community, where we are working so hard for an active street. This last week, I was actually at a party. And a man was talking to me, and he was so angry at the Old Coast government, local government. And he said, you know, Tom, I grew up in a beach house. I'm so sorry. It's supposed to be on silent. He was OK. So I was talking to the guy at the party. And he was like, oh, yeah, you know, local government, blah, blah, blah. And what happened? He said, well, we had this house on the beach. And it was just right on the beach. And we'd go out in the morning.
01:15:00 And we just felt all by ourselves. And then the council put a path in front of the beach, between his house and the beach. And I said, was that a public property? Well, yeah. Whoa, whoa, whoa. And I said, dude, that's public property. Your private property ends here. And the public property starts there. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So yeah, I tend to agree. Your story is perhaps going a bit too far away. If you could draw the conclusion that you got from that conversation towards the active street. Councillor Wegener: The conclusion is the active streetway is about public property used best for the majority of the residents. And the majority of the residents would love to have this active street riding pathway up and down the coast. It would be a wonderful thing to have for ourselves and the next generation. And that's what it is. The vast majority of the people would enjoy this. And a few people are affected, just like this bloke that had a beach house. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you.
01:16:00 Councillor Finzel or Lawrenson, would you like to have a motion? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I'll just speak. And we spoke a lot in general meetings. I'm going to go over those points. What I do want to say, firstly, on the record, I'd like to convince Chief Councillor of Stockwell's... So, point of order. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Point of order. This is the third time I've ruled against that as being the case. This is the third part of the debate. I'm going to rule that you are conducted because you have not listened to inappropriate meeting conduct. And please desist and talk to the motion or, as I said... Councillor Lorentson: Can I seek advice from the sitting O? That in the current order, O comes to not all interest. And that's why I said, again, can I seek advice from the sitting O, please? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker 6: Can I ask a question?
01:17:00 What was not properly addressed? Did the Chair... In my opinion, or I understand that the Chair addressed each of those points in the order, is that okay? Councillor Lorentson: He did not address my point of order through the seat. He also did not address my point of order. That was not addressed. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. So, you feel I didn't give a solution? Yes. Sorry. Okay. So, I didn't accept your point of order as being one that is raised in that you suggested there was a motivation behind what I said that wasn't accurate and that you argued that it was... Your point of order was saying that councils should be able to raise matters other than what's under debate and not through a point of order. I thought I made it clear that I didn't accept it, but I will do that now, is that a point of order is in accordance with the standing orders. The Councillor was open at the time I said something or to raise a specific issue. As I said, what I said, is it easy?
01:18:00 What appears to be what's taken offence is when I said it is easy to be popular as a councillor. Sometimes you have to make hard decisions to work to that effect. I didn't make any accusation of any individual councillor. I wasn't offensive or make offensive remarks directed at any individual and, therefore, I did respond to both these councillors giving that advice. You then sought to do it, but I will withdraw the finding of inappropriate meeting contact because you might be right. I might not have clearly articulated my response to your point of order. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Like I said, I've already spoken a lot about my position on the approval of the interactive street. What I'm going to say just briefly around this table is that, as I said earlier, I'm I think we're beginning a funnily lit course. What's in dispute and what's still in dispute about the approach of the interactive street study is whether the specific design, the specific design at the district project, whether
01:19:00 this specific design of these residential streets has been properly assessed, has been properly consulted on and has been properly justified. Go to reference, you know, again, reading the report a couple of weeks ago now, Council received correspondence and in some ways the views of over 94 people that were surveyed locally around the area. 62 of those residents are in South Cooridgian, more than 30 from Cooridgian Springs. Of those, one recollection of only two supported the project. To me that's an overwhelming signal that something, again, I mentioned this at the general meeting, it's an overwhelming signal that something has gone wrong in how this has been developed and presented.
01:20:00 Again, I'm going to just quickly repeat the report. You might communicate a lot of prominent waitress submissions from cycling advocacy organisations. And again, those organisations have a legitimate voice. But again, they don't live in those streets. The 94 people surveyed live in those streets. Those 94 people plus the whole precinct, they're the ones that are going to be affected by the daily reality of potentially reduced parking. And Australian roadways. Or a path design that raises genuine safety concerns to the children who walk into school and also conflict between users. I had an email sent to me recently by a resident in South Cooridgian who referenced our risk appetite statement. Which clearly says we have zero tolerance for anything that puts safety in front of our residents.
01:21:00 And yet we've got a design plan that potentially puts at risk the safety of children that can serve, we're going to mention, and pedestrians. So, in summary, to me, the risk of proceeding with a recommendation in front of us is not just a design risk. It's also a public trust risk. This community is watched. A consultation process that started with less than 24 hours notice for the first information session. They've attended meetings during work hours and raised concerns that near the end were not recorded or estimated. They've asked for survey data and not received it. Proceeding now on this report sends a message to our community that none of that matters. The lesson here is not that cycling infrastructure is wrong.
01:22:00 It's that a consultation that is done poorly costs more than a consultation done properly. In community trust, in time, and ultimately in outcomes. So we have an opportunity to get excited by supporting the alternative motion and not by supporting the recommendation. Which in my opinion, disregards the voices of the community that we are meant to work for. Councillor Finzel: Through to the Chair, question to the CEO, item number B of the last meeting was to direct the CEO to engage with South East Queensland Livability Fund and Active Transport Fund to determine whether available grant funding can in fact be reallocated to deliver practical
01:23:00 infrastructure improvements in Corrigie Beach South or alternatives including but not limited to pedestrian footpath connections, stormwater, infrastructures, warm water park and street planning, consistent with the priorities expressed by the community through the engagement process. Through to the Chair to Mr CEO, can you please advise us if any or what information you receive in the fact that we're going to turn it out? Speaker 6: You could correct me if I'm wrong, Director, but my understanding is that we haven't had any response at this point in time and we, as we said at the general meeting, that we can't control that. We can ask questions but in terms of their response we are in their hands and that's currently where we are and we haven't got our response. Director Walsh: If I could probably further support that as well is that we have made informal communication with the funding communications area and general committee recommendations
01:24:00 but we're also aware that we need to wait for the resolution of Council to formally act, which is the resolution that will occur at this meeting. So we have faithfully made initial approaches to them but in terms of us making the formal request we have to wait for the resolution. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: While you're here there, Director, in some of the information that was provided prior to the committee there was a suggestion that the existing what we did on the existing arrangements that the active transport fund would need to see construction completed by October 26. Is that the case as it stands now? Director Walsh: The information presented in the addendance to the report showed that there was an extensive extension to that time period which didn't allow us to achieve the works. Councillor Finzel: Another question please to the Chair and to Mr CEO. Is there opportunity at all to proceed with funding to address the community's expectations that just the basic infrastructure be upgraded and replaced?
01:25:00 Is there opportunity that we could proceed forward with that and then address other issues around the gaps that I see around the lens of education to the broader community about our higher order to meet our strategies and our corporate plan with regards to a whole Shire active street idea to support. Council we can walk to the table in terms of the higher goals of nationally around dealing with congestion and activating for health and wellbeing these streets. Speaker 6: So I think it follows on to what the Director just said Shaun is that we have to wait for the funding bodies to come back to us in terms of whether we can utilise that money for something other than what we've prescribed at this point.
01:26:00 Yes the new recommendation or recommendation that was made in the general meeting looked to see if we could use it to do guttering and upgrade of the road and footpaths. We don't have an answer on that at this point in time. If we aren't able to utilise the funding for that then that would come out of, that would be a project that would then come back into us as an organisation to fund out of our own. But that's not been included in our current budget for 26, 27 years so that would have to be something that would be looked at as a future. It is on our list as we all know. There's a long list of projects that we'd like to undertake. It is on our list but it's not been scheduled because it's been focused through this funding.
01:27:00 Councillor Lorentson: Question to the senior. Speaker 6: My understanding is that if this one's not up held then the recommendation from the general meeting needs to be put to this, to this report for decision, for primary resolution as it would normally be. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Or any other alternative motion someone wants to make. Speaker 6: Yes, sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Finzel. Any more questions or talk to the nation?
01:28:00 Councillor Finzel: Well the question I guess to staff or CEO I guess is probably going to have to be on notice but off the top of anyone's head in terms of that street and prioritisation when, where is that sitting on the current register? Director Walsh: Probably to give it a bit of context, we have streets with our curb and channelling and footpaths across the whole of the Shire. So at the moment our footpath, new footpath budget across the whole of the Shire over the previous years is only about 1.4 million. So it's not extensive to address all of the requests for our footpath, new footpaths and also curb and channelling across the Shire. And Noosa Council over decades has been very advantageous actually taking advantage of grant funding to actually meet more requirements.
01:29:00 So getting back to that core question is that we can tap into funding. But it would be quite a significant amount increase to actually achieve it in this location. And it would need to be balanced against other priorities. Councillor Wilson: Question about prioritisation. Director Walsh: Yes. So there are other, in isolation, there are other footpaths in the Shire that are actually higher priority in this location. The advantage of this one is it met funding criteria of external agencies. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Just a question please. It won't be to you. That's fine. Thank you. Probably to the CEO. Has there been a body of work done previously when we talk about grants pushing a, I will get to a question, I'm just going to work out how to, when a grant funds a project that
01:30:00 takes it from 90 something on the list to now a priority. So, there's no operational cost things included. But in the capital works executive, I see that when we do capex there's no operational cost things included. How does this change the prioritisation for community? So, one thing that I'm noticing is something will bump up on the prioritisation because of a grant. And then we have a grant that's not a grant that's not a grant that's not a grant that's Speaker 6: We have a long list of projects that we've scoped out to win the ring, so I'm all in.
01:31:00 So when a grant comes along, an opportunity comes along, we then look at that list and which ones meet that criteria and then if it's possible to bring it up the list because it meets a certain criteria then we bring it to council and that's what's happened with this. We brought it to council and we all decided that that was a project that met the criteria and was something that we could fund and move forward with because it actively met the criteria of what the funding body was looking for. In terms of OpEx, currently we've got OpEx on that street, on all of our streets. We're continually upgrading, maintaining, we're doing work on them all, fixing things.
01:32:00 This would, what this does is actually brings in a new piece which then technically pushes OpEx budget out further which we're capable, we do that through our asset management plan so when it's required to be upgraded or maintained or have new work done to it, that then fits into our asset management plan. So what it actually does is by renewing it, producing new, then it actually pushes our OpEx budget out which is technically a good thing because we've now got a new piece that shouldn't need work on it for a number of years and we can build that future working around, you know, our future budget. So that's the principle and the model that we run with and how we do it. And that's how this one got a higher rating authority because it met some of the criteria. We reported that, we had this opportunity, this is one we thought was a reasonable opportunity for us to take and it was agreed by Council to go forward with that project.
01:33:00 So that's how it's come about. Councillor Lorentson: Just a question. So we now have a report which formally tables some syndicate, say business, in terms of if an active street project goes ahead, there's the potential you've got pedestrians running in the middle of the road with fast-moving cars, cars that aren't on both sides. The report focuses a lot on reputation and financial risk, not so much on safety risk. My question to the CEO, now that it's been tabled and given that our risk antics statement is very clear with a zero tolerance level of safety, regardless of what happens in terms of the funding, will these unsafe residents, and I'm talking, you know, in South Bridget,
01:34:00 that are now being identified and tabled as high safety incidents, will they be pushed up in terms of priority? And if so, do you have any concerns which amount will be tabled? Speaker 6: I can't give you a direct answer to that, Councillor, because we have, I'm just talking from around any community, any Shire, not just Noosa, but there's areas that have got similar risks or issues and we deal with them as best we can and that's what we do. Certainly this has been identified. This would now potentially go back into the mix and when we do assess all of our projects and future projects, then that would be part of it. But it's not, I can't say that it's more, it's a higher safety risk than some of our other streets. And again, you talk to residents and they all claim different things and we have to measure them against each other
01:35:00 and I can't say where it would fall. It would fall against other priorities within the Shire. Councillor Lorentson: Just in terms of discharging other locations and obligations of councillors around the table, I'd just like to just table that I think that pockets of South Bridget are high risk safety concerns and you might be more should be managed. Thank you. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, Councillor Finzel, I believe you're the only one that hasn't talked to the motion. Would you like to do so? Councillor Finzel: I'm not really sure. This is really challenging I think. You know, again, I think sometimes we're at a point in history where our aspirations and our systems are not yet aligned. I think for me the big issue here is when you look at the gap in education and awareness.
01:36:00 Across the whole of the Shire around those safety and active transport benefits. That is a big gap in this decision making manner. I think all the issues have been raised. I mean, I think in terms of being a councillor and leadership, our role is to ensure that it's in our corporate plan, which is what I bring to every meeting, and that it's well used and reliable. You know, our objectives, 5.6 under exercise, states increased opportunities for the meaningful collaboration and community engagement, which is highly representative of our community, especially our youth. So, I think we've got a bit of work to do in terms of that.
01:37:00 I think as a council, around we actually, when we look at the future and we talk with the Polar Shire, when we look at high strategic thinking and decision making, I think we've still got a lot of work to do. So, I think this highlights that for us today. How can we actually head towards excellence? Because clearly there are some gaps. And we need to work towards excellence. And engender trust in our community. So, I think there's a few issues. As this stands today, I've still got a few matters, especially the one raised that until there's a resolution on this, apparently we can't hear back from the livability funding. Is that correct, Mr. Senior? Can you please clarify that? Speaker 6: No, as Shaun said, we've been formed to go that way. To formally do it, we need a resolution. No, no.
01:38:00 We're waiting on it. So, we've done it informally, but it's part of the process. Councillor Wilson: Okay, thank you for the clarification. Councillor Lorentson: So, in terms of the informal communications made with State in terms of funding, has Council got any indication that part of the funding could be reallocated to genuine infrastructure projects, not exclusively to South Brigham, but across communities, that we're not going to lose the funding? Speaker 6: Again, no, we haven't had any. And we haven't asked. We haven't got any response put in that way. All we've done is said this is a position that we're currently in in terms of the recommendations coming to us. This is a position just highlighting to them and getting them ready. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'll close the debate.
01:39:00 So, there has been good discussion around safety. So, refer back to the original report. It tells us that for Peregian Beach Beach South, segment six of the corridor, four route options were looked at. Multi-criteria analysis looked at safety, comfort, directness and coherence, connectivity, strategic alignment, and feasibility. Laura Keith Drive scored the highest or equal to the highest across all criteria and ranked the highest in both unweighted and weighted scoring. Key differentiators in scoring between Route A, David Lowe Way, and Route B, Laura Keith Shearwater, were connectivity, strategic alignment, and feasibility. Okay. Several design treatments were also explored, including cycle street, active street, advisory bicycle lanes, and shared path lanes. These treatment types were scored against the following criteria. Safety, connectivity, feasibility, and impact. The active street concept supported by TMR performed best for safety and feasibility.
01:40:00 So, if we went with the recommendation from the committee, we are locking ourselves into a sub-optimal use of funds, whether it's state or Councils, because the analysis has already beaten that. The design put before us is supported, performed best for safety and feasibility. So, then we looked at the valid questions around prioritisation. And this is where, without a detailed understanding of the different ways this particular path has been prioritised, it can be murky. So, we know in the report it talks about the cycling and walking strategy of this specific link being quite low. But if you link it through to the shops, it goes up in ranking quite significantly. And that was something, when we did the cycling and walking strategy, it was really heavily debated about how we showed the priorities.
01:41:00 But because, as the director told us in answer to one of the questions, because we only have budgets for small sections, it would determine that it's best to keep it at that small section. From memory, when we did the first prioritisation, the highest priority link was between the Noosaville State School and St Theresa's and the District Sports Complex. That whole link, I think, came up with one or two. But if you look at the individual segments that need to be done in there, in the walking and cycling strategy, they'll be much lower. So, we go back to say, well, how is it best priority? And as Councillor Wegener argued convincingly, it might be. The priority is based on the fact that it's part of the long-term coastal pathway corridor that has looked at connecting Caloundra to the Tewantin shops.
01:42:00 And we've been progressively doing that, both along the beaches, both coming from Hastings Street along the river, and currently working on others. So, it's not a matter of reprioritising. It's about choosing what of the high-priority areas are best to be achieved with limited impact on the ratepayer. And in this case, the bucket of funding identified that this section for Cycle Street was, or the two buckets funding, was most beneficial. So, I'm not going to discount the fact that, yes, there was a lot of concerns raised by people in the immediate locality. And we talked, you know, loss of car parking. Yes, but if we're going to do anything for safety, we'll probably lose car parking because at the moment, when it's busy, you go to a one-lane road
01:43:00 with two lanes of parking that are uncontrolled. I then, because there is competing objectives, you know, people want to keep it the way it's been ever since South Peregian came across the Noosa Shire many years ago, that sort of feel, pretty laid back, pretty coastal, or whether you want to start preparing for the future. And for me, if I owned a house on that street and I looked at the stormwater systems and I looked at the pavement, I would be over the moon to have a council wanting to do what is proposed here. I'd be over the moon because I do like riding to the shops or walking to the shops. I'd be over the moon because I know it would increase my property value significantly. I'd be over the moon because I know it's starting to create an atmosphere where residential streets are for the residents, not for cars zooming up to go and catch a surf.
01:44:00 OK? It's for the residents and people who want to visit in a low-speed, high amenity area and the design, I am confident, if it went ahead, would be one that in two years' time that the local residents will be thankful for. I put the motion. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wegener and Councillor Stockwell. Those against? Councillor Wilson, Finzel, Lorentson and Phillips. The motion is lost. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. I would like to move the... the alternate motion that was supported at the general meeting. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And do we have a seconder for that motion? Councillor Phillips. You have the floor, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I think everything's been said. I just present this as the right way forward. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to talk to the motion?
01:45:00 Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Can I ask a question? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You may. Councillor Finzel: Could we somehow be able to add an extra bit into this that talks about, like, looking at broad community engagement through education around this map? Is that relevant to this today? To be able to include that? Support the development of education awareness around active streets in the whole of the community? Where can we include the assets? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm sorry, I'm looking at the motion. The report is only noted and there's only one action which is about the CEO to engage with South East Queensland to fund an active transport return with available grant funds.
01:46:00 If you don't understand your desire to have it looked at, it wouldn't be an amendment of that motion. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you Mr Chair. Through the CEO, could Councillor Finzel request the interest operationally? Director Walsh: Thank you Councillor for the question. Council every year considers the Go Miss report and uses sustainable transport living, which is all about encouraging active transport. There's actually a report coming to the Journal today. There's a meeting about how we extend those funds, which would include scope for education programs for active transport. So we'll offer further discussion with that at the next round of meetings. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Director Walsh: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are you happy to let that address your issue? Councillor Finzel: Yes, thank you.
01:47:00 Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Would anyone else wish to talk? Councillor Lorentson, do you wish to close? All those in favour? That's Councillor Wilson, Finzel, Lorentson and Phillips. And those against would remain at Wegner and Stockwell. And we can invite Councillor Wilkie back to chair the meeting. All right, the motion is passed.
11.2.2 2026-2027 COMMUNITY GRANTS PROGRAM - COMMUNITY PROJECT AND SIGNATURE COMMUNITY EVENT GRANTS - SUMMARY ¶
01:48:00 Speaker 6: Thank you. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Councillor Stockwell, for chairing. We're now at item 11.2.2. The 26-27 Community Grant Program, Community Project and Signature Community Event Grants Summary, 11.2.3 2026-27 Community Project Grants Program Projects, 11.2.4 26-27 Community Project Grants Program Facility Development, and we have a few, Councillor Wilson?
11.2.3 2026-2027 COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS PROGRAM – PROJECTS ¶
01:49:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm already up. Mayor Wilkie: Oh, Councillor, hey, sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I've got a conflict of interest. Yes. Is it clear? And it's in accordance with the relevant section of the Act. I wish to declare a prescribed conflict of interest. Yeah, for that, for item 11.2.4, for the Community Grants Program, Community Projects, and City Development on this agenda, as I'm the current President of Noose Alliance Football Club, who I recommend it for funding. As a result of my conflict, I will now leave the meeting while the matter is considered and voted on. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act 2009, I, Councillor Nicola Wilson, inform the meeting that I have a prescribed conflict of interest in relation to item 11.2.4, 2026-27 Community Grants Program, Community Project Grants Facility Development, as Noosa Arts Theatre has been recommended as a recipient of a facility development grant.
01:50:00 I am the subject of this meeting. I am the senior Vice President of Noosa Arts Theatre. As a result of my conflict of interest, I will now leave the meeting while the matter is considered and voted on. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. I also have a conflict of interest to declare. In accordance with Chapter 5B of the Local Government Act, I, Councillor Frank Wilkie, inform the meeting that I have a declarable conflict of interest in the matter, Community Grants Program, Community Project Grants Facility Development, on this agenda in relation to the application for Noosa Arts Theatre. While I am no longer in a decision-making position on the Noosa Arts Theatre Committee, I continue to volunteer my time in productions at the theatre. Although I am making a declarable conflict of interest, I do not believe a reasonable person could have a perception of bias because Noosa Arts Theatre is a not-for-profit group and I am participating in an unpaid capacity and am not involved in any decision-making capacity.
01:51:00 Therefore, I will choose to remain in the meeting room, but I will respect the decision of the meeting on whether I can remain and participate in the decision. Councillor Lorentson: I am happy to move that Councillor May Wilkie remains in the room and participates in the decision before us. I do believe that his, if I can have the correct wording, probably easier than improvising, but I do believe he can remain impartial in making the decision. He's no longer sitting on the executive and his association with the Noosa Arts Theatre, though involved, is as a member.
11.2.4 2026-2027 COMMUNITY PROJECT GRANTS PROGRAM - FACILITY DEVELOPMENT ¶
01:52:00 But I'll use the standard wording, Vicki. Oh, there we go. Okay, so can the Councillor direct that? Mayor Wilkie: Yes, I'll just, it's a small point of procedure. Thank you, Councillor Lorentson, but we do need to appoint a chair before these motions can be accepted. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to recommend Councillor Jess Phillips sits as chair. Happy to second. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So. All in favour? Councillor Wilson: Do I vote on that? No. No. Yes. Yes. Councillor Phillips: So, thank you, Councillor Lorentson. If you wanted to move that Mayor Wilkie stays in the room. Sorry, if you still want to. Councillor Lorentson: I'll just move the chair. Mayor Wilkie: No, you don't need to sit. Councillor Lorentson: Oh. Councillor Wilson: Okay. Well, there you go. Councillor Lorentson: Look at that.
01:53:00 I know. Speaker 8: Now I'm going to move the chair. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Okay. Okay. Community Projects, Crank Corrigan, Facility Development. Councillor Phillips: Do we have a seconder? Happy to second. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. All those in favour? And that's carried. Mayor Wolfie, you can stay and take your position as Chair, I believe. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Very well done.
01:54:00 Now, can we have a mover and a seconder for the committee recommendations, please? Councillor Wilson: Happy to move. Mayor Wilkie: Moved, Councillor Finzel, seconded, Councillor Wegener. All in favour? That is carried unanimously. And can we have Councillors Wilson and Stockwell back in the meeting room, please. 11.2.5, 20, 26, 27, Community Project Grants Program Equipment. 11.2.6, Community Progress Grant Program Events. 11.2.7, Community Grants Program Three Year Signature Community Event Grants.
01:55:00 11.2.8, Legacy Plot Reservation Management Policy. 11.2.9, Support for All Access and Inclusion Program. 11.2.10, was referred to the Ordinary Meeting for a further report and we will deal with at item 12.3 on the agenda, which was Fees and Charges. 11.2.11, Noosa Botanic Gardens Master Plan. 11.2.12, Further Report, Tourism Noosa Funding and Performance Deed. 11.2.13, Noosa Biosecurity Plan. 11.2.14, was referred to today's Ordinary Meeting for two further reports, which we will deal with at item 12.1 and 12.2 on this agenda, which is Environment and Climate Change Response Grants and Environment Project Grants, Round 21, Climate Change Response Grants, Round 6. 11.2.15, Planning Applications Decided by Delegated Authority, April 2026, and 11.2.16,
01:56:00 Confidential Not for Public Release, Proposed Land Rationalisation, Land Yarn Away Lot 2 on RP889596 and Noosa Drive Lot on RP884396. 11.1.7 is the General Committee Recommendations on Block. May I have a Move and a Second for the General Committee that Councillor Wilson is off the mark. May I have a Second? May I have a Second? Thank you Councillor Finzel. All in favour? That's unanimous. We now move to the Ordinary Meeting reports. And we have a further report, the Environment Project Grants Round 21, which was referred to the General Committee from the 9th of June. And we have Ben Derrick here. Thank you Ben. To give us a summary of the report please. Speaker 2: Thank you Mayor and Chair and good morning Councillors. The Environment Project Grants Round 21, which was referred to the General Committee from Thank you all for joining us today to discuss the environment that supports the implementation of the Noosaville Environment Strategy as well as Council's other key environment strategies and plans.
11.2.17 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC ¶
Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.
12.1 FURTHER REPORT - ENVIRONMENT PROJECT GRANTS (ROUND 21) (referred from General Committee dated 9 June 2026 Item 7.14) ¶
01:57:00 The Environment Project Grant Program is designed to enable collaboration with the community in initiatives that work towards outcome and targets identified in the Noosaville Environment Strategy. All initiatives funded by the Environment Grants Program must have tangible and measurable outcomes and the total budget for financial year 26-27 is $35,000. This year we received nine applications for a request totalling $162,282. In accordance with the Environment Grants Guidelines, each application was assessed by a panel of three officers against a set of criteria that are detailed in our program. Applications were open from the 9th February from 2026 until the 23rd March 2026. Promotion of the Grant Guidelines included social media advertising, specific emails to not-for-profit community groups that had been involved in the grant program previously, direct conversations with NRM groups and details published on our website.
01:58:00 The grant required the applicant to engage with a relevant Council officer prior to submitting the grant. The application was presented with clarity and site on the development of grant applications as they were being developed. This year, following discussions from Council meetings last year, this year introduced more robust governance enhancements to improve defensibility, objectivity and transparency of the evaluation process. To ensure the integrity of the program, the assessment methodology was executed in four stages. The first being programming conflict of interest screening, the second one being an expert technical review by an internal member of our staff, the third one was a cross-disciplinary panel evaluation undertaken by the same three panel members for all grant applications in this program, and the fourth one was independent scoring and executive moderation by our director.
01:59:00 The recommendations for the environment project grants for this year is to fully fund two applications, totalling $24,129, and partially fund one application, totalling $10,870. Information on the grant applications is attached to the report. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Any questions for Ben? Some care to move the recommendation? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Happy to move. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell? We have a seconder. I'm happy to second. Councillor Stockwell, would you like to talk to the motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, I shall. It's really good. Sometimes we don't get many applications for these small grants, and this time we have well and truly nearly five times the amount of funds available, four or five times, that's being issued.
02:00:00 We do have the larger grants that come up less frequently, but what we've got here is three really good local projects. And while we would love to have more money, it's also important that we maintain the environment levy, so that the long-term modelling does allow us to do big projects, and also allows us to keep a kitty to acquire land for our environment reserve network. So the Teewah Turtle Trackers funding, it's a great local initiative of a species that are of significance, and it's in an area where we get a lot of funding. We've got a lot of exposure from both our residents who like to go fishing and surfing up that way, and also from a lot of visitors. The Wildlife Nurser obviously that plays a great role in the river, and in this case looking at reducing the potential threats to birds like the pelican, no doubt.
02:01:00 And yes, the Pinbarren project, there's lots to be done in Pinbarren, and providing any funds to address the issues there is a good initiative. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? Wish to close, Councillor Stockwell? Do you agree with everything you said? I'll put it to the vote. That's unanimous. Thank you, Ben. Alright. We now move to 12.2, which is a further report of climate change response grants, referred from the General Committee dated 9th of June. Councillor Stockwell, I believe you have a conflict of interest. I do. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And I'll start. Under the normal section of the Act, I have a prescribed conflict of interest in regard to, Matt, item 12.3, environment and climate change response grants, environment project grant, round 21, climate change response grants, round 6.
12.2 FURTHER REPORT - CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE GRANTS (ROUND 6) (referred from General Committee dated 9 June 2026 Item 7.14) ¶
02:02:00 Oh, is that the right descriptor? Or does that refer to how it was referred to in the general? Is there a copy from that? Yeah, so it'll be just, sorry, it'll be in regard to item 12.2. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Of the ordinary meeting agenda. Right. Yeah, OK. And, yeah. And as I am the current president of Noosa Lions Football Club, who I'm aware submitted a grant application for climate change response grant, although I take out that. I'll just put this, this is the title of the one. Yeah, sorry, I shouldn't. Yeah, OK. Take out the, I declare a conflict of interest, take out everything that follows that. Speaker 8: I just want to say, I declare.
02:03:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Write down second last line. Speaker 8: Oh, OK. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Although, I take out although. Oh, OK. Hang on. Actually, take out that whole sentence and say. This makes sense. I will now leave the meeting room while the matter is considered and both gone. OK. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. Isn't it prescribed? Didn't we say it's prescribed? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, that's what I said up top too, didn't I? Oh, yeah. I tried to do it as declared and changed, if you remember. Speaker 5: Right. OK. Councillor Wilson: Hold on. No. You want to leave? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah. Yeah. And if you change on the first line, change the declarable to describe. Councillor Lorentson: Sorry. This was just. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: It's OK. Could I go there? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah.
02:04:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Okay, we have Cheyenne Barman here for this report. Welcome, Cheyenne. Speaker 1: Thank you, councillors. Through the chair, thank you for the opportunity. Noosa Council's climate change response grants aim to advance the implementation of the climate change response plan, the coastal hazards adaptation plan, and the regional climate action roadmap, as well as the objectives and priorities in the corporate plan related to climate change response. Subject to budget outcomes, the current total financial year 26-27 budget for the response grants is $50,000. The climate change response grants are funded by general rates, and this is the sixth round of annual grant funding to date.
02:05:00 Nine applications were received for the current round for funding requests totaling $145,753.06, and a total combined project value of $269,000. $269,000. These figures illustrate the strong desire for community support, as well as the willingness to co-invest in measures that reduce emissions which cause climate change and adapt to growing climate change impacts by building resilience. It is noted that the caliber of grants received in this round was strong and represented actions across emissions reduction and climate change adaptation. The projects all reflected well against the themes of the climate change response plan. The projects all represented well against the themes of the climate change response plan. Applications were open from 9th of February, 2026 until 23rd of March, 2026. Applications were then evaluated internally through a more robust governance process this year to improve defensibility, objectivity, and transparency of the evaluation process,
02:06:00 as mentioned by Manager of Environment Services, Ben Derrick. Four projects have been recommended for funding based on a thorough assessment against the evaluation criteria, community benefit, and council priorities. The funding requests across the four projects totals $48,869.06. Staff have also identified a number of minor conditions that would be required for each successful applicant to implement during project delivery, which would be included in the notice of successful grant outcome. Further information regarding the applications and individual funding recommended are provided in Attachment 1. Council staff plan to reach out individually to the successful applicants to let them know should they be approved by Council as well as the five unsuccessful applicants in this program and work with them on their projects to improve the identified gaps in their applications and see how they can be supported through existing programs and opportunities to meet the need as that has been articulated.
02:07:00 Overall, most applications worked highly against the relevant grant criteria, and we are incredibly grateful for the time invested by all of you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Any questions for Cheyenne? Councillor Phillips: I do have a question please. Yes. Cheyenne, thank you. Just in relation to climate change response grants being funded by general rates, can you talk me through how that sort of came about? I would have thought, and I think the community would maybe think that it came from environmental levy. So could you just talk me through how it comes out of general rates? Speaker 1: Yes. Thanks for the question, councillor. I wasn't here when that decision was made. That predated my time, but it comes out of the operational budget in relation to our sustainability bucket, which is an operational budget that is separate to the environment levy. The environment grants come through the environment levy, and it was a decision of council at the time, as I understand, to allow that to come out of operational budget.
02:08:00 Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Councillor Morrison. Councillor Lorentson: Probably just a follow up, and just I'm going to reference a public question that we heard earlier today in terms of measurable outcomes, targets, and key performance indicators. So I think I raised this question at general needs in terms of outcomes, looking at all our grants, not specifically this one, but whether we can report the outcomes that we have in terms of the outcomes that we have in terms of the outcomes that we have in terms of the grants that we support. I understand that information already exists within council, but it's not publicly shared. So question or noting, can we expect some public sharing of that information in terms of what outcomes were committed and what outcomes were delivered, particularly when the projects are committed over multi-years?
02:09:00 Speaker 1: Thank you for the question, councillor. I agree, that is very important. Thank you. And we can definitely do that. We can definitely look back and make sure that outcomes from previous grants and the current ones that have KPIs and outcomes against them can be reported and shared with communities so they understand the impact value that these projects have. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: For the benefit of those who may be listening, could you talk us through and give us a summary of each of the projects that were successful? Speaker 1: Yes. Sure. No problem. So thank you for the question, Mayor. So the first recommended project for funding is from the Noosa Biosphere Reserve Foundation, and the project is called Future Tide, 2027 Noosa Youth Climate Summit. So NBRF, in partnership with the Noosa Environmental Education Hub, plans to host the free youth-led
02:10:00 Future Tide Noosa Youth Climate Summit at the Jade Theatre on 27th of May. And the project is called Future Tide, 2027 Noosa Youth Climate Summit. The event plans to empower young people to take practical climate action through keynote presentations led by youth, student-led sessions, hands-on workshops, and a sustainable careers expo. It will also embed First Nations knowledge sharing to highlight cultural stewardship and deepen connections to country. The second project recommended for funding is by Zero Emissions Noosa Incorporated called Swap the Drive, supporting modal shift from cars to bikes. This project would build on the Noosa e-bike library and Go Car Free Noosa campaign. It is called Swap the Drive, and the initiative will promote cycling as a healthy, low-emissions alternative for short-level trips. The program will provide 120 free two-week e-bike loans, that's the target, deliver presentations and demonstrations on safe, legal, and practical cycling, and run a social media campaign encouraging
02:11:00 everyday bike use. Activities would intensify around World Car Free Day to boost awareness and participation. The third project recommended for grant funding is by Urban Wildlife Gardens, which is a program by Noosa Integrated Catchment Association, and the project is titled Get Climate Ready with Noosa Native Plants. This project would update the Noosa Native Plants website to include climate resilience information, helping residents choose native species suited to future conditions and support urban greening. Working with Council and NRM partners, the project would assess around 350 priority species using established climate adaptation tools, updated taxonomy and cultivation information, develop ecosystem-specific garden templates, and deliver workshops and outreach to encourage uptake. The result will give the community clear, accessible guidance to create biodiverse, water-efficient, climate-resilient gardens that support local wildlife and neighborhood cooling.
02:12:00 The final project recommended by Noosa Integrated Catchment Association, by Noosa Integrated Catchment Association, is Solar on Low-Income Homes by Zero Emissions Noosa, Inc. This project proposes to install solar on ten low-income Noosa homes, building on Council's 24-25 pilot that delivers systems to 10 households. ZEN-INC will replicate a proven crowdfunding model to raise $25,000 from the community, with the grant contribution the remaining $10,000 of a $35,000 total project cost. Donations would be sought from support groups, and the project would be funded through the These are all supporters in the wider community and promoted with permission through media to boost participation, supported by Zero Emissions News' DGR status. The project provides an affordable community-backed pathway to expand solar access for vulnerable households. So as you can see, a diverse range across transport, renewable energy, lowering the cost of electricity for some of the most vulnerable in the community, as well as climate adaptation with regard to building resilient community gardens and residences with resilient biodiversity gardens.
02:13:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Shire. Any further questions? Someone care to move the recommendation? Councillor Wegener, do you have a seconder? I'll second it. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: I would just say I'm just so proud of these projects. I'm so happy that Noosa Council amplifies the incredibly good work of these community groups that are full of volunteers, volunteering their time to help us all through enhancement of Noosa Shire. I'm especially looking forward to the Zen Expo this weekend where I could be learning about house batteries because I'm supposed to get my electricity bill going up and up and up. And I know that electricity is very cheap during the day and more expensive at night. So, thank you. Thank you for supporting these wonderful community groups.
02:14:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Any other councillors wish to speak? Councillor Wilson? Councillor Wilson: I'm a bit concerned with some of these recommendations and have asked that we revisit the assessment criteria for future rounds. My intent, of course, is always to act in the public interest. And I'm not sure that Raidpay is paying for it. A dollar for 10 property owners is in the broader public interest, regardless of income. I do support the work Zen does and know how hard the volunteers work. And I do think the e-bike library is a good idea. However, I'm not sure it should draw on council grants to fund its ongoing operations. This is a long-term project and was set up with state government funding to acquire the bikes and other equipment. At that time, Zen should have had a plan to fund its ongoing operational expenses. And I don't think that should be done by entering a competitive grant process each year. Council already funds Zen's operating budget.
02:15:00 And I believe this should be covered as an ongoing BAU expense. If we fund this this year, does that mean that we're now expected to fund it every year across the life of the project? If this is the expectation, it should have been agreed with council as part of the project plan. It seems a poor process to start a capital project and not have an ongoing plan to fund its operations. Well, I like the idea of the bike library a lot. There is no evidence that the bike loans have reduced or replaced car usage, that they have led to significant purchases of e-bikes. Based on participant feedback, it's less than 30% went on to actually buy an e-bike. And a two-week loan has minimal impact on emissions. If the loans had a servicing charge of $50 per week or $100 per fortnight loan, this project could be self-funded.
02:16:00 If people are really in the market to spend thousands of dollars on an e-bike, I think they would welcome the chance to try before you buy at a cost of $100. It does not need to be free. If they can't spend that $100, then they're really not in the market to buy an e-bike. If they can afford an e-bike, I don't see why ratepayers should pay for life. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wilson. Any councillors wish to speak to the motion? Oh, sure. Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Lorentson. Can I move an amendment? Of course. Thank you. I'd just like to move an amendment that the motion be amended to exclude SEMA from the list of approved recipients under the Climate Change Response Grant. Sorry, remove? Zero Emissions, Noosa. Okay. So you... From the list of approved recipients under the Climate Change Response Grant. Councillor Wilson: Happy to second. It's a C, is it?
02:17:00 Councillor Lorentson: Remove? No. Zero Emissions, Noosa. Noosa. From the list of approved recipients? Noosa. Councillor Wilson: Under the Climate Change Response Grants from the list of approvals, recipients under the Climate Change Response Grants. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy with that. Thank you. Thank you.
02:18:00 Mayor Wilkie: Right. Councillor Morrison. Councillor Lorentson: I think we raised some of our concerns during a recent workshop and I think Councillor Wilson has articulated the concerns really well. So I'm not going to go over that. Probably all I want to sort of raise is that the importance that any money spent is... And that in terms of projects, I always look at it and I think we have a really great panel that assesses all the criteria. But I think a couple of the projects, in my opinion, to me, I look at biggest impact and are we delivering value for great paid money. So we had, like I said, raised some concerns rather than... Repeating what's already been said, my issue is simply the projects needs to represent best value for money when compared to other projects that have requested funding.
02:19:00 Mayor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? I will. The amendment. Councillors, these applicants have applied in good faith under a policy process. That has been widely advertised and clearly understood. They have been recommended for approval by an expert panel because they do meet the objectives of the policies of which they're applied under. Concerns about value for money are valid. But if, as you can see in the attachment, the zero emissions NUSA projects administered by volunteers... One of them returned is a $12,000 recommendation, returning $37,000 worth of value.
02:20:00 So a leverage of three times the investment. That's the swap the drive, the modal shift. And the solar and low income homes, which provides electricity bill relief. To our most vulnerable in our community, an opportunity that would never happen under any other circumstance. That is an investment of $10,000 to ease the burden of 10 low income households in our community for a total project value of $45,000. So I'm saying, councillors, if you have objections to that on value for money, we need to see that reflected in the leave. That's the leverage that has been reported to us.
02:21:00 But also, change the policy. Don't do it at this point of the process. It's okay to not agree with how ratepayers' funds are being spent. In this case, less than $50,000, which is a relatively small amount. I think it's 0.03% of the total council budget. Very small amount for such an investment. It's a very important subject. So, councils, let's respect the process. These applicants have entered to it in good faith, and I think it's unfair to cruel their chances at this late part of the process. And if you have differences with the practice, as Councillor Wilson said, let's review the criteria. But this is not the place to do that. I take the point about the criteria.
02:22:00 We need to review how the money is spent. It's a very good point. But I think this is not the point for it. Thank you. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Can I ask a question, please, for the Chair? Just on a statement that Mayor Wilkie has just made about the... Mayor Wilkie: Senator Wilson. Sorry. Councillor Wilson: Councillor Wilson. I just want to clarify some figures, because I've been looking at this one for some time and asking lots of clarification questions, which have been circulated to all councils. So, the value of $37,000 isn't actually the value generated by the project, it's the cost of the project. So, it's about $11,000 that has been spent already with the state funding to purchase the bikes and equipment. Then it's $12,000 or maybe $13,000 from council, potentially, under this grant, and $13,000 in volunteer time. Could you please confirm that? Speaker 1: Yeah. Thanks for the question, Councillor.
02:23:00 So, the way that we run these grants through the guideline that we provide community is that we ask them to outline a budget, and in that budget, put how much your funding requests you're putting towards council. And then, also put how much funding you're putting towards council. And then, also put in your co-contribution. And co-contribution can come from both cash contributions, as well as in-kind, which is common practice with many grants. And so, for this particular grant swap, the drive from Zero Emissions Incorporated, they requested $12,899. And then, the remainder of that $37,000 total project value was from co-contribution, which one was the value of the bikes that they have existing, and the other one was the value of the bike, and they were provided previously from a previous grant in 2025, I think it was. And then, the remainder is volunteer time. So, that is reflected as income, and as a co-contribution cash income.
02:24:00 Councillor Phillips: Councillor Phillips. Can I ask a question to Councillor Lorentson, just around this one? Are you recommending just for this round, or for, like, if there was a policy review, would you recommend just for this round, or for, like, if there was a policy review, would you recommend just for this round, or for non-progressive? I just need to clarify, potentially, if you're looking at it just for this round, and then if we review the policy, then the criteria change, and then they potentially are included again. Councillor Wilson: Does that make sense? Councillor Lorentson: We workshopped and raised all these issues during the workshop, and my issues at the time … And that's also part of the reason, I would say, that the audience is not in the room You know, around the table there were quite a few issues raised. So the intent of that is that rather than refuse the whole, all the applications, just the two that I had concern, and it's nothing to do with zero emissions, so it's just the projects that were put forward, that those ones be removed and not approved.
02:25:00 And in terms of criteria and assessment, that gets done as well. Councillor Phillips: A follow-up question, because I'd like to support this. I just wondered if we do go for a policy, would you be willing to look at just for this one that's in front of us to look at it for today, and then that way I feel more comfortable if there's a review of the policy or the criteria that we can have that discussion in a workshop? Councillor Lorentson: Yes. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Thank you. Councillor Wilson: Councillor Wilson. Would an alternate method be to split the original motion and vote on A, B, C, D in seniors? Oh, that's a great idea. Yeah. Because I feel like this wording just is maybe not... Mayor Wilkie: Well, this... Yeah.
02:26:00 Councillor Wilson: I agree. Yeah. It just might be misinterpreted of what the issues are. Yeah. Councillor Lorentson: I absolutely agree with that because, as I said, zero emissions would be an excellent work and contribute. Yeah. And I don't want this misread as we're not backing the organisation, for example, in the Expo. We've got a team of excellent people, volunteers, who do good work. My issue again is just... So what's the course of action you propose in Council? I would like to let this amendment fail, and if we can reconsider, as Councillor Wilson said, just splitting the motion into four pieces so we can vote on each project rather than using credibility that's not correct. So I'm happy for this to fail. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Well, okay. So unless anyone else wants to speak to the motion, we'll put it to the vote.
02:27:00 Councillor Lorentson: Or can I just withdraw the motion? Mayor Wilkie: You can withdraw the motion with the consent of the meeting. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. I'm happy. Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Yeah. Okay. Motion... Yes. The amendment is withdrawn. Speaker 6: So then do I need to move... Yes. Yes. Just an amendment so we can get the wording right and bring it back and we can... Councillor Lorentson: I think it'd be a return motion if it's always... Is this for that? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Bring up the original motion. Councillor Lorentson: So this is where it stands. Mayor Wilkie: We'll have to go to the motion. Yes. So bring up the original motion. Councillor Wilson: This is the original motion. Yep. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: So you'd move an amendment which would strike out the ones you don't like. Councillor Wilson: No. Mayor Wilkie: No? Councillor Wilson: If you split the motion, we can vote on each. Of course. Separately. This has been first and seconded. Mayor Wilkie: This has been first and seconded. Does it have to fall?
02:28:00 Councillor Wilson: I don't know. Councillor Finzel: It wouldn't be a motion. Councillor Phillips: Oh, I see. Because it's been seconded. Yes. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: And... We can amend this one. We can amend this motion. Yep. Each time striking out one at a time if you want. Councillor Wilson: No. No. Because... Mayor Wilkie: We can still... You can still vote on whether each project stays in or not if you highlight each as a lane. Or you highlight the ones you don't want. Councillor Finzel: I just... I just have... Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yeah. Yeah. I just have a question through the Chair. I'm... You know, I've sat on committees with robust panels around the process to arrive at, you know, how funding is allocated and it's adjudicated as a process. My concerns are... Ooh.
02:29:00 Around governance. If we're... It feels a bit to me like this is a bit like policy on the hot when we've got a process that has been undertaken in good faith and then... Hmm. Yeah. I'm just not sure. I think... Do we need to raise an amendment where if we want to have those or an additional where first off we look at policy on the hot when we've got a process that has been undertaken in good faith and then obviously change further down the track. But... Yeah. I've got concerns around a process that's already been rigorously undertaken. Hmm. I understand the concerns around, you know, expenditure and making sure that we have good eyes over ratepayers' money. And I'm sure we're in agreement with that. I just have... I don't know. There's a question around the governance around... Given it's already gone through a process that is an indoors process. It's followed the, you know, the process from what I've read. It feels like it's followed that. What we're questioning is, I guess, maybe the amount of money.
02:30:00 Can I just please have some feedback through the CEO around those governance issues that, you know, and policies around how we... Yeah. ...do this process? Because I feel like that's a... Mayor Wilkie: Correct. A direct... A concern. Strategy and environment. A concern. Director Rawlings: Thank you, Councillor Finzel, for acknowledging that because the report outlines the process that the grants go through and there's numerous steps in assessing those against guidelines and evaluation criteria and the panel and then moderation. So thank you for acknowledging that. That is correct and that is what brings us to the point of recommendation to you. But ultimately, you are the decision maker. So this is a legitimate part of the process.
02:31:00 Councillor Phillips: Can I please test an amendment? Speaker 2: Yes. Councillor Phillips: I haven't sent it to you, sorry. That Council undertake a review of the climate change response grants policy and conduct public consultation on any proposed changes. I'll send it to you, Vicki. Mayor Wilkie: Will this be part five? Councillor Phillips: Yes. Councillor Wilson: So that's part five or C? Councillor Phillips: Probably C, I think. Councillor Wilson: Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Phillips: It should have just come through e-mail, I can't hear it.
02:32:00 Sorry, I've just added some extra words, Vicki, just to make it a little bit stronger and clearer. Coming through now. Councillor Wilson: I just sent another one. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Yes, it's just got more wording in it. Councillor Finzel: Keep in mind that the original motion has that Council at the top. Councillor Phillips: Yeah, okay, so just take that bit out then.
02:33:00 So add on C, so complete a review of the climate change response grant policy and undertake public consultation on proposed amendments with the outcomes of this process to inform the criteria and guidelines for the next round of funding. Before the next, for the next round of funding. Before the next round of funding. Speaker 1: Yeah, through the Chair. Yes. Just a point of clarification, it probably should say climate change response grants guideline, not policy. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Yeah, sorry. Thank you. No, that's great. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Sorry, through the Chair, Councillor Wilson. The wording as agreed, so complete a review of the climate change response grant guidelines. And I, sorry, through the Chair, Councillor Wilson. So that doesn't, so sometimes the wording I think needs just to be just a little bit tweaked.
02:34:00 Maybe complete a review of the climate change response grants guidelines and any recommendations on changes. Councillor Phillips: I think it should go back to my original one then and I shouldn't have added the wording because I think I had that. Yes. That's right. Councillor Lorentson: I liked your original. Yeah. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Okay. So it'll be that Council undertakes a review of the climate change response guidelines and conduct public consultation on any proposed changes prior to the next round of grant funding being opened because that means the consultation happens and supports the amendments or consultation happens to help the amendments. Not the other way around. Councillor Lorentson: Do you need to add proposed changes and conduct public consultation as part of the review?
02:35:00 Or on any proposed? Mm-hmm. I think. Councillor Lorentson: Or take that part out. Does that mean to take a review? On the proposed changes? Mayor Wilkie: Is this, would it be helpful if it said undertake a review of the private chance change response grant guidelines involving public consultation on any proposed changes prior to the next round of grant funding? I was trying to make it shorter, but then. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to second. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Phillips, you have the floor. Councillor Phillips: Okay, I'm just trying to listen to everyone around the table. And then I think which I agree with you Councillor Finzel about the process.
02:36:00 Yep. So I think we can probably agree that the guidelines and going through a process to review the guidelines is probably where we're at. Okay. Okay. By undertaking the review of the policy or the guidelines before the next round of funding would give us opportunity to assess what's working well and where improvements can be made. Whether the eligibility assessment criteria and how those, how the outcomes are measured. But equally important, I've wanted to include the public consultation. These grants are funded for the benefit of our community. And it's an entire, it's entirely appropriate that the community has a say in how they are structured and delivered. So consultation will help build trust, ensure fairness and bring forward ideas that we may not have otherwise considered.
02:37:00 But the amendment won't delay today's progress. It will just strengthen for next round. So we're not having sort of policy decisions on at the meeting. Yeah. Councillor Wilson: Councillor Wilson. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Councillor Wilson: Would this adequately address the assessment criteria? Is the assessment criteria part of the guidelines or is that a separate process? Is that a separate document that we would need to add in here? Speaker 1: This would adequately address the assessment of the evaluation group. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: I'm going to support Councillor Phillips' proposed approval. This is the approach to this. This is the way to build trust in Council's processes. This signals that we're going to undertake a review of the guidelines. That's the way to do it.
02:38:00 So that when it comes to opening the next round of grant funding. Again, the community can have clear expectations when they go to spend their valuable time and energy in applying. That it will be very clear and assessed fairly under the guidelines. Whatever they will be. Where we were heading, I think, would not build trust because where we were heading, if I've understood correctly, it would have been cutting groups off at the knees who entered into the process in good faith, trusting Council would follow through and assess the projects on the guidelines and criteria as widely publicly advertised. If we want to change it, this is exactly the way to go. So well done, Councillor Phillips. I will be supporting the amendment. Councillor Finzel, you had your hand up. Councillor Finzel: Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr Chair. I have a couple of questions through the Chair to the CEO and the staff. I see the intent of this and where we're going.
02:39:00 I do have some questions because in the past, we have had to go out repeatedly for community engagement. I understand that meaningful community engagement takes time and money. So my question around this is firstly for good governance and to reach the objectives of meaningful community engagement. How will that affect our current calendar, which does cause disruption, as we've seen in the past, when we have to like leave a project and go back out? So that's my question. I would like to look at the timeframe, the current calendar and how that will be affected and can it reach the objectives within the project? Mayor Wilkie: Yes, absolutely. Director Rawlings: So we would need to assess the implications of this on the calendar. It's currently not planned.
02:40:00 But what we will say is that we had already agreed to review the guidelines operationally and we provided that to councillors. So that was already agreed operationally that we will be reviewing the guidelines. That's working out. And that was done in accordance with the council on the guidelines, in accordance with the corporate plan and the climate change response plan. That review didn't anticipate public consultation. But as I said, we had operationally already agreed to review and think it's timely. So now the inclusion of public consultation, that would need to be assessed in terms of the engagement calendar and when that could be done. On the fly, I would think the engagement calendar is pretty... He's not here. I know that we're pretty... I think it's probably going to be pulled for the rest of the year. So this would probably lead into next year. And yeah, we haven't thought about cost of this yet. So there's still some unknowns in it. But operationally, we were already committed to continuous review of these and that will
02:41:00 be happening. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel, would you like to hand it over? Councillor Finzel: Yeah, just following on. Sorry, Councillor Wilson. Maybe a question to Councillor Phillips. Would you consider like raising this perhaps through another channel where we can have those matters like the costing and the impact on the calendar, given that may cause disruption and not meet the 12-month timeframe? Are you prepared to like, yeah, move this forward so we could get that information to inform our decision? So we've got some data to support that. Councillor Phillips: Unfortunately, no, I won't. Because we're sending public funds. We're sending public funds each year and I don't believe that I'm willing to support continuation of public funds spent without public consultation, because I can't in good faith without public consultation on this, then I don't believe it would be, give me
02:42:00 trust in the process without engagement first. So... Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Just to clarify. I'm not against the public consultation. I'm around the program. I'm not against the process to make sure that we've got the best process with the understanding to... Mayor Wilkie: Question, Councillor. Yeah. You have the right to talk to the amendment or not. You have a... Okay. Councillor Finzel: So... Mayor Wilkie: If it's a question, ask the question. Okay. If you'd like to debate the amendment, please do. Councillor Finzel: I don't want to debate it. Just asking a question to... I ran the public consultation process. Are you prepared to raise that through another channel to support this data? Councillor Phillips: Yes, except what would be... To the CEO, what would be the other process that I would be able to raise, including public consultation in it. So that's why I brought it through this amendment, because I wouldn't know what other process we can bring up when it's on the floor.
02:43:00 I don't think it's law for debate to have that included. But... So, question to the CEO. How would I bring public consultation into this if it goes through today without it? Speaker 6: Again, my reading of this is this. There's two parts to this. One, we do have a very full public consultation schedule. So, it would mean if this got up, it would mean reprioritising. So, it would mean if this got up, it would mean reprioritising. Or finding its position in that schedule of events. And that then may delay this. We can't... That'll be your decision, because something has to give. We've got it very full. The second question I have is, when we say public consultation, that's a very broad term. Now, what does that mean? Is that full public consultation? Is it more to stakeholder consultation that are more involved in this? Because that then governs how much work and how much time we've got.
02:44:00 I mean, if it... And cost goes into that. So, I'd ask that question back, in terms of what's the expectation of public consultation for something like this? Councillor Wilson: Okay. Councillor Phillips: Am I allowed to speak to that then? If it would help to clarify then. Previously, I've put a notified motion around surveys being used. Could it be as simple as a survey during... For public consultation, given that my notified motion asked for... For public consultation, given that my notified motion asked for... ...unbiased surveys? And could that be included if I was to amend it to have public consultation as per a survey? Would that satisfy Councillor Finzel? Councillor Finzel: Is that a question to me? I feel, in terms of... Part thereof, but in terms of meaningful public consultation, when we want to, like, really... If we're spending time...
02:45:00 If we're spending time and money to engage with the public, then, in my opinion, it does need to be meaningful. And will what your suggestion actually go to the depth of the broadness of where you want to go? So, I guess it is about, like the CEO said, what would you like to achieve, and which type of public consultation do you intend to use? Mayor Wilkie: Can I ask a question that may help to clarify? Yes. In undertaking a review of the climate change response grants guidelines, in turn, we would have an internal discussion first. Could that then involve a discussion about an appropriate form of consultation? What it would take? What form it could take? Could it be surveys? Just something on the your side, given we're talking about guidelines only, and a small budget of $50,000? Is that...? Director Rawlings: Yeah, that absolutely could happen. The operational review, that's what would happen. So, we would do an internal operational review, that would then be workshopped with Council
02:46:00 about what's the evaluation criteria look like? What are the parameters that want to be considered? And then, what's the process that you would like to take these forward? So, that could happen. Councillor Phillips: Question? Yeah, it does, but just in relation to the, it's only $50,000. Could I have clarity on how long these grant rounds have been? And if it's $50,000 every year, I'd love to know a total of how much we've spent on these grants. So, we're not just saying one year. You go. Speaker 1: This is, I believe, the sixth round of the climate change community grants, and it is $50,000 every year. Yeah. So, . Great. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Morrison. I would like to raise maybe a suggestion to Councillor Phillips. Councillor Lorentson: So, these climate change response grants, they're decided annually. Yeah. So, are you speaking to the amendment, or? Yeah. Just wanted to throw an idea at Councillor to speak.
02:47:00 Question. We have a question to Councillor Phillips. Given that the response grants are annual, and also that we have a budget review, too, later in the year, would you be able to maybe, because I don't know if you've heard this, but we have a budget review. Could you support your intent, which? Mayor Wilkie: Question, please. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Could you support maybe an additional wording? So, undertake a review of the climate change response grant guidelines involving public consultation and any proposed changes subject to funding, and if someone can help me. So, the intent is that it's subject to funding, and if someone can help me. And if we can't, then we'll have to make a whole section through the budget review number too. Right. So, it gives it some certainty because I accept the consultation that we're going
02:48:00 to do consultation instead of adjournment. Councillor Phillips: Yeah, I agree. Mayor Wilkie: Well, Councillors, we're getting to the realm of policy on the run. Yes. Can I suggest we vote on this amendment? It gets up or stays. If you want to fine tune it, if it gets up, it becomes part of the motion, you can fine tune it further, wordsmith it further if that's what you want to do. Speaker 7: Yeah, that's fine. Mayor Wilkie: And so far only Councillor Phillips and myself have spoken to the amendment. Anyone else wish to speak or against the amendment? Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: I think that we can speak else and else with smithing the amendment. I think we understand the intent and I'm happy with the wording as it stands, Councillor Phillips. I probably want to sort of backtrack a little bit with my wording and I really do want to make this formally on the table, my issues with, not my issue, but some of the concerns that I raised during the workshop prior to this were involving the projects, not with the community groups.
02:49:00 So I do want to place that on the table. Secondly, in reference to what Councillor Wilson said, take this support that if... If the projects are what are in question, then the correct way to do this is through a review of the current guidelines and in particular the criteria. And in support of what Councillor Wilkie said, it is the correct process and to do otherwise will erode public trust and also undermine the processes. And I really want to also note... In terms of climate and environmental grants, possibly one of the most detailed processes in terms of assessment and I commend you. So the issue is not with the process. I agree and I really respect the conversation around the table.
02:50:00 It's in terms of the criteria and policy. So this is definitely, I think, the way forward and we understand that this will be done sooner, not later. I think that intent is there. I think it's really important to really capture this discussion, should I? Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Mayor Wilkie: Can the Councillor speak to the amendment? Councillor Wegener? Councillor Wegener: I don't like this process of just doing stuff on the fly. This public consultation thing before the next grant funding being opened easily could end up stopping the next grant funding being opened for next year or the year after that if we don't get around to the public consultation. Because our staff is busy and it costs a lot of money to do this stuff and it takes them away from other really important stuff that we're throwing this upon them on the fly. And maybe really stuffing up our grant funding and the trust of our many, many, many fantastic organizations that depend on this grant funding that it might not come around because we couldn't get around to public consultation before that being opened.
02:51:00 So I just... I don't support this at all. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Councillor Wozniak? Councillor Wozniak? Councillor Wilson: Yes. I think this wording is broad enough. Public consultation can mean anything from just having a pop-up session or a councillor coffee chat or Facebook survey or just inviting email submissions to councillors. I don't think we need to necessarily say it's going to be an expensive, huge process. And I think we're just inviting public feedback. Thank you. Councillor Phillips, you wish to close? Mayor Wilkie: Oh, sorry, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, this is a challenging one. I don't like doing things like this on the hop. I think public consultation, those words to me mean going out really with a meaningful objective.
02:52:00 Councillor Wilson just talked about feedback and the coffee chat or the... I think for me it's about clarification about what the city overall intent, that how do we break that down. I do believe there's other processes that we could arrive to that place. In terms of governance, I have real concerns around the process to arrive at what's before us today in terms of that expenditure and how that process was undertaken in good faith and through the policies and the guidelines that are pre-existing. I am, of course, a member of the City Council. I am always for, like, rigorous reviews, robust, you know, turning things upside down. I do not support status quo. I'm just not comfortable with bringing this in this way to the table. I think, for me, it doesn't sit well in terms of governance, in good governance.
02:53:00 I understand the intent around engaging the public. That's... I stand on that point. I understand that all the time. I'm just not comfortable with how this is worded. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Phillips, you wish to close. Councillor Phillips: I respect Councillor Wegener and Councillor Finzel's points. I... Six rounds at $50,000. So we've spent $300,000 of public funds just through this process. That's just through grant funds. So every year it might seem like $50,000. But we sat at this table and disagreed that we would give councillors $50,000 to assist in councillor initiatives. And we didn't even... We've knocked that straight off without even this sort of robust conversation. So that is interesting to me.
02:54:00 Um... I would think that... I think that sometimes with amendments, the intent is that we can take it away during the guidelines review and the operational side of it in workshops. We can properly talk about where we land comfortably with public consultation and what that means. Um... I agree with you, Councillor Finzel, making it on the fly is not my intent. Um... However, sometimes we're at a crossroads where this is the only opportunity to bring it to debate and to actually have an outcome that... Um... Says we're doing this. Um... So that's probably why it wasn't... Um... Whilst the words were written quickly, it's not something that I haven't thought is something that we should consider anyway. So... But I will leave it to everyone to decide. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Phillips. Put the amendment. Those in favour?
02:55:00 Councillor Wilson, Lorentson and Phillips and Wilkie. Those against? That's Wegener and Finzel. The amendment is carried and becomes part of the motion to which only Councillor... Sorry? Councillor Wilson: Only Councillor Wegener has spoken. Oh, sorry. Mayor Wilkie: And Councillor Wilson. Yes. I found myself. I found my part on my page. Yeah. Councillor Wegener and Councillor Wilson have spoken. This is... So can we... Is it possible to have... Yes. Yes. Are you speaking? Yeah. Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: With the C, so this is... Speaker 6: Yes. Including C. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Good. Good C, yeah. Good C. Mayor Wilkie: We can't see A and B. Yeah. Speaker 8: Yeah. I'll bring it up. I've got my view. For some reason, the A and the...
02:56:00 And the C is... Yeah. The HTML is over there at the end. Councillor Wilson: Yeah. I have to fix it up. Here we go. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Councillor... Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Absolutely. We'll deal with this. You want that now? Or we'll... Can we deal with this motion? Councillor Phillips: I think we're meant to. Yeah. Mayor Wilkie: You're welcome to. Yeah. We'll hold the vote for you. It has been a long morning. Speaker 2: Yeah, A, B, and then there's the, it was the same with the other one in there. Councillor Wilson: Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, it's because I've added C in there. So you've got A.
02:57:00 Mayor Wilkie: A is not written on there though. Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. Okay. Councillor Wilson: Yeah, I'm going to actually, since I've got the time, I'm just going to type it in. Can you? I. Take it back. Is it like in there? Well there. Councillor Phillips: Yeah. Councillor Wilson: And that's got double, that's all it is. Actually double. Councillor Lorentson: That's it. So. Okay.
02:59:00 Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Zisler, full motion for you, to which Councillor Wegener and Wilson have spoken. Anybody else? Councillor Phillips: I will thank you. Firstly, I appreciate the diversity at this table. I think that it shows democracy at its best and I also think that it's important so we land in the middle somewhere every time. The dial is too far either way. I don't think we get great outcomes so I appreciate the conversation firstly. I think it was perfect timing although we didn't plan it. Hayley's question time at the commencement of this. I firstly want to acknowledge that as a long-term resident I never came and did a question time and I probably sat back and had issues but never spoke up so coming and spending the time today to actually sit in chamber, I think it's really commendable.
03:00:00 It's easy to probably... You've come out and put it on notice so thank you for that. I also want to make a point of why I was grateful that we were able to separate the two grants from Monday because it gave us the opportunity to look at this one with a little bit of a different lens and I firstly want to be really clear from the offset that supporting and protecting Noosa's unique environment is one of our greatest assets. I will always support council in investing in projects that genuinely improve environmental outcomes, build resilience and leave lasting legacy for our future generations. Interestingly I had a company come around to look at solar panels and battery on my house. I have a four-bedroom house, two children, a mortgage and you know my income because you all have the same income.
03:01:00 And you don't need to know my husband's but let me tell you where we represent. Many many people in the Shire that are feeling the cost of living hurting. So the quote for my solar and battery on my home was onwards of $30,000 and I don't have the financial, I don't have that money sitting in the bank to invest in that. So over the past two years I am probably becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the way that I've been living in the shire. I think that the way the climate change response grants are being funded from general rates without meaningful consultation. We are spending our ratepayers money and I think that every time we should be questioning is this project, probably not so much about is this project worthwhile because I think you could probably argue through the criteria that it is. But is it the best way to invest limited public money?
03:02:00 It's time that we start thinking about the way we're spending. As councillors we have a responsibility to every rate payer. To ensure every dollar collected delivers the greatest possible benefit to our community. That responsibility is even greater following the significant rate increases in mortgages and cost of living. I'm increasingly concerned that we've probably reached a point now that we need to ask ourselves whether each investment delivers measurable outcomes. Does it represent value for money? And does it provide the greatest benefit for our environment and our community? I'd also like to see councillors be provided with more meaningful information during the assessment process. Greater transparency about how projects are prioritised. A comparison of value for money and long term measures.
03:03:00 Just then we worked out that whilst we sit and look at $50,000 on paper. In six rounds it's $300,000. So that adds up really quickly. And I don't want the future councillors who are warming the chair for four years to look at it at $2 million. Especially since we had a fair bit of robust conversation around spending $2 million on tourism in Noosa. So how quickly will that escalate to future councils sitting here going why did we spend $2 million without questioning public funds? So it's not about reducing our commitment to the environment today. For me it's about ensuring that every environmental dollar we collect from our community is invested wisely, transparently. And that the projects are going to deliver the greatest possible benefit for Noosa both today and into the future. And if we talk about good governance that requires us to continually review our policies and our guidelines and our funding frameworks.
03:04:00 So I'm going to believe today that these grants have now reached a point where it is warranted that there is a review. Mayor Wilkie: Councilor Phillips? Councillor Finzel: I just have a question. Mayor Wilkie: Question Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: I know we make the decision today. But in terms of that expenditure that has gone through the process to arrive at this figure today. For example then if I choose to vote against all of those allocations given what's been debated around the table. And that ends up none of them get over the line. What are the legal and governance benefits? Are we open to grants ramifications, given we've filed a pre-existing process? Are we open to, what's my risk? Director Rawlings: Council, it's within your right. You're the decision maker. So, if the funds aren't allocated through the grant process, they get back into operational. And this is the right process for you to decide
03:05:00 whether or not you support these or not. So, I don't believe there is any recourse or risk for you. Mayor Wilkie: Could I ask, where does reputational risk come into this for the nursing council and the community's trust in the council, if these grants, at this point in time, are going to be overruled? Director Rawlings: Thank you for picking me up on that, because you are right. I was responding to a liability or legal risk, and my response was there. Yes, as you know, our strategic risk register identifies reputational risk as a core risk. So, yes, potentially there could be impact on our reputation from a risk perspective, but my response to Councillor Finzel was really, if I heard your question correctly, about if there was any kind of legal recourse or liability, and I don't believe there is.
03:06:00 Mayor Wilkie: Any other councillors wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Lorentson? Councillor Lorentson: Just briefly, I think we need to always remember that, and I sit around this table as a director, essentially, and the Eastern Shire Council, it's an accountable body. So, I think the review of climate change response grants guideline, I'd like that addition, because I'd like to get it done. It's exactly what an organisation of this size demands, that we regularly review our guidelines and make sure they're fit for purpose. I hear consistently around the community that they want confidence in how their money is spent. And I'm not just talking about grants. Every decision that we make in terms of plans and strategies and consultancies and contracts that we give to,
03:07:00 when we outsource contracts. So, to me, this is the correct way forward. And again, it's about continuous improvements and also just honouring the voices of those in community that want transparency and also want to be involved in the decision-making process. Not challenging the organisations or the community organisations. They do tireless work for nothing. For our community, and they fill a gap that council often can't fill. And our grants, and I need to speak about this, our grants back people, not only just the projects. And that's exactly how you build strong communities. By empowering our community, we're funding, and in these instances, a lot of these are funded, I think one of the grants four times the amount that we're actually funding. So, I don't want to diminish the importance of funding.
03:08:00 I don't want to diminish the importance of community work. But this is a governance issue. And it's governance oversight. And again, just a requirement that as an accountable body, Noosa Shire Council, as a matter of transparency, we should, you know, continually review all our guidelines, all our policies to ensure they meet our community expectations. And I think that's what we need to do. In terms of value for money. And in terms of that, we're spending their money on matters that are important to them. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Any other members wish to speak? Councillor Wegener, you wish to close? Yeah. Councillor Wegener: The climate change response plan, and these grants, are to help Noosa's vision to a better future.
03:09:00 To address climate change into the future. And years ago, under the Tony Wellington Council, they recognized the climate emergency. And this was a long sweep going in that direction. Perhaps that era is over. I'm so happy that these grants will be approved today. This is wonderful support for these communities, as Councillor Lorentson says. That is our community doing the thing. That is our residents working hard. For a positive future. But I'm a little bit pessimistic. Especially with the, you know, having the next round of grants, preconditioned on some sort of consultation, and guidelines being revisited. So I think I'll just enjoy the celebration today, because these are wonderful grants going to wonderful groups. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Wegener.
03:10:00 Thank you. To the vote. Those in favour? Councillor Wegener. Laurison. Wilkie. Those against? And the grants are approved on my casting vote. Okay. We come now to item 12.3. Thank you, Cheyenne. Thank you, Director Rawlings. I think it's time we had a break. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. So we'll come back in half an hour. Thank you. Thank you. That'll be 1.41. Thank you.
12.3 FURTHER REPORT - 2026-2027 FEES AND CHARGES (referred from General Committee dated 9 June 2026 Item 7.10) ¶
03:45:00 Thank you. Thank you so much. Press back if you want. Oh, yeah. Welcome back everybody. We resume at 1.46. We're up to item 12.3, which is a further report on the fees and charges, which was referred from the General Committee date on the 9th of June. And we have the Financial Services Manager, Zach Morton-Ayer, and Acting Corporate Services Director, Margaret Gatt, here for this report. Zach, or Margaret, please give us a summary of the report, please. Speaker 8: Good afternoon, Councillors. Again, apologies that this wasn't being able to be considered fully at the General Committee meeting, due to some lightning and administrative errors, and also some changes around the Pricey Act that were last minute that we needed to include in the fees and charges. I'll hand it over to Zach now to take us through the report. Speaker 7: Thank you, through the Chair. So the report in front of you today outlines our 26-27 cost recovery fees and commercial charges.
03:46:00 And the fees and charges for the latest attachment one. This version, as Margaret has referred to, incorporates a number of changes, relating to the declaration of new state government right for information charges, cosmetic charge changes to the layout and function, including descriptors relating to environmental health descriptors, and also the creation and update of the fees and charges related to the waste and symmetry areas. Fees and charges contribute approximately $9.7 million. This is the total cost of the Council's overall revenue budget. Most of the fees and charges in the 26-27 attachment increase by less than 10%. This is aligned with the CCI, CPI, Council Cost Index, CPI Consumer Price Index, or cost recovery measures. A number of random changes due to legislative or market constraints will target an increase in the required cost recovery gaps. Higher increases are generally limited to regulatory and compliance services.
03:47:00 Commercial use of public assets and user pay services. Fees align with underlying legislative requirements and where determined to support user pays models. The review of fees and services ensures that they are cost-reflective, with major changes workshopped through budget processes and commercial activities fully costed. Early adoption of the fees and charges schedule improves transparency and gives a balanced notice to the community. I would like to draw particular attention to two fees and charges. The first fee is noted in the schedule. On page 3 of the schedule refers to the stock transport fee. And on page 4 refers to the D6 dog excluding dog up to 6 months old paid after due date. I just wanted to note a typographical error with a legislative reference. It currently references Local Government Act 2009, section 972. That is correct. The subsection D is a typographical error and should make reference.
03:48:00 To subsection A instead of the same section. This will be corrected as part of the final report that is published post formal adoption of Council. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Any questions councillors? Councillor Phillips: I do have some questions please. Councillor SchILLER. Thank you. Just in relation to the cost recovery fee structure. I'm just interested to know when was the last time an organisational review of how that works. As far as cost recovery. Does each department do it? Is it, both of you bring experience from external. Is it common to see a review that's maybe more regular? Hopefully that answers my question. Speaker 8: Through the Chair, I'm happy to take that question councillor Phillips. It is part of a more yearly process. Each area that administers, there are those fees and charges.
03:49:00 So, for example, in New South Wales, there are no fees and charges. In terms of then a comprehensive detailed cost recovery exercise, it can happen maybe once a term or at a time that seemed appropriate, but it is normal practice for each of those departments to administer those things to conduct. So we have to review those things and then advice finance whether the increases, decreases or status quo. Councillor Phillips: Are you able to tell me when the last time the organisation did a full review? Speaker 8: I'll have to take that on. Councillor Phillips: That's okay. Sorry, I thought so. Yep. Councillor Finzel: Kessel, what was that? Councillor Lorentson: I have a couple. In terms of, and I've got page four in front of me, variances.
03:50:00 So these reports show symptoms. Materials and services are running $1.044 million over budget at the beginning of the date. Is that correct? And can you just explain what's driving some of the key variances? Speaker 8: Councillor Morrison, we're in the fees and charges report, not in the monthly finance report. I think your question relates to the fees and charges. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell? Yeah. I'm going to move the recommendation, but I think after what the manager has told us, we need to see. And have you got a C? There it is. Yes. That's what I was going to move. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Well, move Councillor Stockwell. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Finzel: I'll give a second. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Stockwell. Councillor Finzel. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Stockwell. No, this is just standard practice in terms of adopting these as early as possible. So those people who are reliant on setting their own fees and charges, have it before the actual results come in, as far as the budget.
03:51:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillor Stockwell. Other questions or comments? Councillor Quirk. Councillor Phillips: Just a question, and it's probably another one on notice, but what I'd love to see is, it might be hard, but if I was a small business wanting to start up in the Noose Shire, Councillor Quirk. There's pages, how would I quickly work out what costs Council would be, like through these fees and charges, what sort of, what I'd be looking at? I don't know, it's just something that I'm interested in finding out if there's a way to do that. Speaker 8: Through the Chair, Councillor Phillips, I can take that question on notice and have a discussion with my colleagues on the NT to consider how I can do that. Potentially, we could assist members of the community who are looking to commence a business, and how they could access that information, thank you.
03:52:00 Mayor Wilkie: Okay, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Okay, sorry, back to fees and charges. In terms of an analysis, I'm just sort of interested, when I run through the fees and charges report, I sort of pull out just a certain ones, and the question I'm asking is, which proposed fee increases will have the greatest impact on low residents, pensioners, and those on the fixed income, so understanding that there is a cost of living crisis, and have we ever been able to do that? Have we ever done an analysis in terms of impact on those most vulnerable? Speaker 8: Through the Chair, Councillor Lorentson, if I could ask for a little bit more of a clarification on that question. So, that question is quite broad across all the fees and charges. If we could focus on potentially, say, some fees in regulatory services, or fees in the community services, the relevant director might be able to, you know,
03:53:00 answer that question to a certain point, but no, as of today, we haven't done an analysis with that specific lens. Councillor Lorentson: So, I will be specific in that case. In terms of volume cap registration fees, these are fees paid by ordinary residents, and many are actually older. So, my question is, what's the proposed increase? And has any consideration been given to holding registration fees steady this year, given the broader cost of living context? Speaker 8: Through the Chair, can I ask my colleague, Richard, to come to the table and answer that question? Is that okay? Mayor Wilkie: Certainly, Director Black. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Speaker 3: Through the Chair, the changes to the fees and charges,
03:54:00 this year, for particularly for animal registration, have been minimal. So, we will continue our no-fee requirement for pensioners for microchipped dogs. So, there's no fee at all for pensioners, and we'll maintain that for this year's fees and charges. For other animal owners, there is a $4.50 increase for registration this year, which is in line with, essentially, CPI. So, other than that, we've maintained those fees sort of in line with CPI across the board, particularly for animal registration. Mayor Wilkie: Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councillor Stockwell, do you wish to close? No, thank you. I'll put it to the vote. All those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you, Acting Director Gatt and Zach. The next item is the Financial Performance Report.
03:55:00 Again, we have Financial Services Manager, Zach, and Acting Corporate Services Director, Margaret Gatt. Would you like to give us an overview, please? Happy to. Speaker 7: Thank you, Mr Chair. I'll take the report as written. The May report provides 11 amounts representing 92% of the financial year's actual data. Consistent with previous monetary provider and financial reports, there are no identified financial risks expected to negatively impact Council's financial position. As of 30 June 2026. The May 2026 report provides a favourable net result variance to the Budget of 13.5 million. This comprises of 4.4 million operating variance and 9.1 million from capital funding sources. The favourable position reflects timing of capital works and grants receipts, rather than underlying performance changes. Operating revenue is tracking at 152.2 million or 99.2 million.
12.4 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT MAY 2026 ¶
03:56:00 With operating expenditure at 157 million or 89 cent of the Budget. Performance remains stable and aligned with budget expectations. The May report sees a continuation and consistency of the performance trends in the monthly report. In doing so, we would like to draw specific attention to the elements of the report. So on the top of the page, in the table at the top of page 2, there's analysis conducted of variances to both our revenue and our expenditure. The 4.4 million low operating variance in the Budget. 3.2 million relates to the general operating surplus with 1.2 million dollars relating to our business activities. From waste, the positive variance in expenses primarily relates to lower interest charges related to the loans associated with the landfill. Lower waste livery charges due to a lower tonnage volume. And a lower profit share associated with the landfill. And higher revenue expenditure related to the sale of recyclable renews.
03:57:00 Holiday parks exhibits both increases to the revenue and expenditure. This is as a result of higher occupancy rates across all three of the holiday parks. And consequently, the impact of commissions related to higher revenue. To provide detailed commentary as to the materials and services variance. In our April 2026 report, materials and services were tracking at a $1.5 million variance over budget. The May 2026 report sees a return of that only $1 million variance budget compared to its base. Tables are provided in the report as to capital, revenue and expenditure. There's no changes based on historic trends to the numbers reported in the report. Cash management and investment performance. Council's total cash holdings as of May 2026 were $142.5 million with $7 million held in trust.
03:58:00 The high cash balances can be explained primarily driven by the reprofiling of Council's capital works programme. Council's investments continue to perform well against industry benchmarks. To reduce rate arrears, rate arrears are $8.5 million as of May 2026, or represents 7.2% of revenue. This is improved from 7.8% in April, with a reduction in rates of $731,000 paid relating to arrears. These amounts are consistent with historic trends and the established semi-annual pattern following July and January rates periods. In the previous financial report, we have had sections as questions taken on this, so we'll provide a verbal update to the one that was taken as part of the May general. Again, questions may not be verbatim, but hopefully you catch the intent of the question. Council Lorentson raised the question in regards to what was driving the reliance on current consultants and what areas do they support.
03:59:00 In the May 2026 report, there's a variance to the budget of $420,000 related to consultancy expenditure. This is primarily driven by $193,000 relating to an ICT maturity assessment and a step-by-step assessment. In the May 2026 report, there's a variance to the budget of $420,000 related to the development of a project management office, and $97,000 related to a health check of Council's payroll and time sheet systems. $81,000 relates to waste management support and consultancy services, and $32,000 related to industrial relations support carried out throughout the year. In closing, Council remains in a strong and stable financial position as we reach the end of the financial year. The favorable results are a reflection of timing and basal performance, and they're not structural in nature. As noted, there are no material risks that currently present, which will impact our overall financial position at the end of the year.
04:00:00 Thank you, and we'd be happy to take questions. Thank you, sir. Questions? Council Lawrence. Councillor Lorentson: I think you answered my question in referencing a similar question I just asked in the last month's report. I have got a couple other questions. So I'm going to start with in terms of emerging issues and risk. I just note that the report, and we have discussed this in workshops, that the report doesn't actually identify what I call an emerging but significant risk. The Commonwealth Government's announced its intention to move potentially to a 50-50 cost sharing for disaster recovery, and it's a substantial change. At the moment, my understanding is that the Commonwealth contributes 65% and Queensland contributes 35%. And when I looked at the numbers on the report and put it into our Noosaville context,
04:01:00 we have received nearly $18.8 million in disaster recovery grants this year alone, against a recovery program budget of $29.3 million. A shift to 50-50 would be significant. And the difference is going to have to be absorbed by something where it's stated by local governments. So can we quantify or do some scenario setting to actually identify what that potentially may mean to a council our size? Again, in my opinion, it's a significant emerging risk that I think we probably need to unpack and understand in a bit of detail. All being walked through the audit and risking it. Speaker 8: Thank you, Councillor. Thank you, Councillor Alston, for the question, through the Chair. As this is a recent announcement and change,
04:02:00 we haven't had yet the capacity to understand the full implications, immediate, short-term and long-term. It is a piece of work I need to do with SAC and our colleagues on ET to bring that back to you, either through a council briefing or a workshop. In addition to that, we are still working on a long-term financial plan strategy, which will identify a lot of, not a lot, it will have scenario analysis, it will have emerging threats and risks around our financial sustainability. So that particular strategy document is about 60% complete. Yes. But it's yet to be targeted with the executive leadership team and with the council. Councillor Forrest. Councillor Phillips: Question, thank you. Just in relation to operating, operational budget. What impact does accelerating lower priority projects place on operational budget
04:03:00 and how is this proactively managed? And a follow-up question to that is how is this taken into account in whole-of-life costings? Yes. Speaker 8: Through the Chair. Councillor Phillips. So as you would be aware, we have a couple of works project control group. We also have a couple of works executive. And we have a project, I'm going to get to answer your question. I'm just providing context. Through the PID process and the evaluation through the relevant teams before it comes to a couple of works executive is consideration of the impact on the performance of the project. So we have a couple of works program, available cash and using grant funding as a way to fund a particular emergent couple of works initiative project need necessary. When you're speaking about whole-of-life costing, it is considered at a, probably what I would say a high level.
04:04:00 In terms of then having it documented in the kids. We do do that. We do that. Potentially not as consistently as we could. But a rule of thumb is a consideration that for every million dollars in capital, you can assume 100 to 200,000 in perpetuity for OPEX as a result. But that's theoretical in terms of maintenance for that. But again, it would depend on the type of asset that we're talking about. Okay. Councillor Phillips: Then a follow-up question, because obviously we don't all sit in capital works exec. Is it too much work to ask if it was included in the financial report each month? Is that? I'm happy for you to take it on notice, but I'm just thinking, could that be included?
04:05:00 Speaker 8: Through the chair. I'm sorry. Can you clarify what would you like included in the finance report? Councillor Phillips: Like when? Okay. So if we've got expenditure sitting there, I'd love to know how it could be more clear maybe when it comes to this report, maybe that it's included in the financial sections or like, I just feel like I don't get enough from this, but I, because I sit in capital works, I get a little bit more information from that, but that isn't for every council up. Does that make sense? Speaker 8: Yes. Thank you. So one supporter there is the company works update report that comes through from our infrastructure services area and they report on not only costs but on time frames and delivery. So that report does come to the general committee meeting and to the ordinary meeting but it's not within our finance report meeting, it comes as a separate report.
04:06:00 Are you asking for us to consider how we could incorporate some of that reporting from that report into the monthly finance report? Councillor Phillips: Yes but I think I'm asking for a lot of work so maybe I'll just take it offline and then work out exactly what part I would like to see come to the monthly meeting. Speaker 7: So the two work previous comments made by me about alignment between infrastructure and finance is the consolidation of reporting. Which the first step of that was bringing the crafts into the report. There is a second stage that we're looking into in this year post 30 June around if there can be consolidated consistency of language to the public as well. Because infrastructure and financial people use different jargon so we would like to align that for consistency for the public to understand it. And if you could provide some of the details as to what we would like to see in that, that can form part of that ongoing project that we have with infrastructure to align that.
04:07:00 That's it. So that's the plan for post 30 June adoption and there were comments made as well through the budget process of hold of assets, asset management planning, what that looks like. So there's probably a couple of problems that would very clearly lead to a crucial question. Okay. Thanks. Councillor Wilson. Councillor Wilson: Just a question on capital expenditure. So at the end of May we've got capital expenditure exploiting commitments of 33.3 million or 41.2% of the annual budget. Even at we're now halfway through June. What do we anticipate the year in position to be in terms of accrued commitments? Speaker 7: So through the Chair, I'm happy to take that. So this is probably, if I can just provide some context as to the way that finance reports this information versus the way that CW reports it in terms of the idea of actual spend, which is what is typically the financial numbers, and then actual plus commitments. So I believe in the graph, sorry, there is an insert from the Capital Works Executive presentation
04:08:00 which provides a graph in there, which is on page 7 of the report. So on the capital expenditure section, there's a screenshot of the PowerPoint slide which shows budget forecast versus actual expenditure. And under the notes, there's a section of the forecast to the end of the financial year is 40.5. That's $6 million included in that slide. It is something we are discussing with infrastructure, the idea of future forecast, with detailing where that is specifically within the report, and that's a part of the process that I've just talked about. Councillor Finzel: Councillor Finzel. Thank you. Through the Chair, on page 8 of 12, we're looking at our investment summary. It continues to form well against our benchmarks, but I'm interested in this going into the future around our investments, what we're investing in, and how that is returned. And how those returns will be protected, given the volatility and global unrest and things like that.
04:09:00 So I'm just interested in how we're protecting that, or mitigating that. Speaker 8: Through the Chair, thank you for the question, Councillor Finzel. All of our investments are with Queensland Treasury Corporation, who look after local government and public sector funds very prudently. So we make the AAA foreign cents rating. But what I can request is you would be maybe familiar that we do have an upcoming briefing with Queensland Treasury Corporation that will be briefing councillors on our credit review outcome. I can request that they put some information into that presentation to explain how they manage our funds and what risk mitigation measures that they put, and potentially how our funds have been affected by the Middle East crisis that you're speaking about. Yes, thank you.
04:10:00 Councillor Lorentson: Councillor Morrison. I'm going back a little bit. So I'm referring to the audit and risk community recommendations. That's listed in our report today. And there's, wow, a ton of them. Twenty-two reports and significant reports from internal audit reports, from QAO, from, my gosh. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Morrison, we're talking about the financial aid. Councillor Lorentson: I am, okay, so I'll make this quick. So in terms of the, the risks that have been raised recently in the audit and risk committee, can you give us a quick summary of the main risks and whether any of them could affect our finances or service delivery? Speaker 8: Through, through the Chair, Councillor Morrison, you're talking about the entire strategic risk register and how that affects our financial services. I'm referring to the audit and risk committee and the audit report.
04:11:00 Councillor Lorentson: Um, I, I started in the audit and risk committee meeting. And there were quite a few issues, issues that came out of the QAO briefing, the internal audit, the SIDA report, et cetera. So I just want to really understand whether those issues, um, are referenced in our financial report and identified. Um, and are there anything of great concern, um, that keeps you awake at night? Mayor Wilkie: Could you describe the appropriate reporting channels for each, the audit and risk, and perhaps the financial performance report? Speaker 8: Through the Chair. Through the audit and risk committee, as you were aware, Councillor Lorentson, when you attended as an observer, a review of the strategic risk register is part of the papers, and is part of what is spoken to. That strategic risk register is currently undergoing a review, and our appetite statement as well is being reviewed,
04:12:00 and that will be part of an upcoming briefing workshop with Councillors. So in terms of then how that impacts through to our financial sustainability, and our monthly finance report, we don't expressly link the strategic risk register to our monthly finance report, but considering that the first risk on our strategic risk register is financial sustainability, we closely monitor existing controls, future mitigation activities, and residual risk ratings. We do that in preparation. Or just as a customary practice in preparation for the audit and risk committee. So it's not expressly linked in through to this report, but it is addressed and monitored through that strategic risk register.
04:13:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Does someone care to move the recommendation? Councillor Lorentson: Oh, happy to move it. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Finzel? Councillor Lorentson: I'll move to second. Mayor Wilkie: Seconded by Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Finzel, do you speak? Councillor Finzel: No. Oh, I'd just like to thank the staff, and for the continuous engagement, for the continuous improvement we see in the report. Thank you very much. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? To vote? Those in favour? That's unanimous. Thank you very much for your work, Director Gatt. Thank you. Thank you, Zach. Much appreciated. Okay, there is no confidential session. The next ordinary meeting will be at Council Chambers at 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin, Thank you, CEO. Councillor Wegener: Thank you, Vicky. Thank you.
15 MEETING CLOSURE ¶
Council's recording ends before this item. Where a meeting resolved to close its doors, that is what the end of the recording means — see what council discussed in private.