Ordinary Meeting - 20 August 2026 Transcript

2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF COUNTRY ¶

▶ 00:00:20

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

3 ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES ¶

▶ 00:00:23

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

4 CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES ¶

▶ 00:00:42

00:01:00 Councillor Phillips: Up to you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I thank the The Notician himself expository and we've had further engagement on that topic, so I'll move that motion be before receiving. For those in favour? Speaker 2: Aye. Pat Spicer: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's unanimous. Okay, there are no presentations. We do have two Deputations. The first deputation is the same as the lead petitioner, Cecilia Cecile, and on behalf of local residents of Black Mountain who signed the support of the community petition, the topic is the request for speed reduction in Black Mountain Range Road and Black Mountain Road, and you are supported by David Jones and Anthony Sudbury.

5.1 PETITION - BLACK MOUNTAIN SPEED LIMIT REDUCTION REQUEST ¶

▶ 00:01:17· Carried 7-0 from council's minutes

00:02:00 Welcome to the lectern. Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you for having us today, Devin and myself. We just wanted to say a few words about the petition that we have submitted, just to explain where it comes from. So we're both residents, and we've been through many of the residents in the estate, the country estate around Black Mountain Range Road and Black Mountain Road, so those two main roads serving that big area, and we have found that many residents do support the speed limit being reduced, and there are a few reasons for that, but obviously, the population has increased a lot about those past 20 years, and we believe that there is a risk for children's safety when it comes to school bus drops off and pickups.

6 PRESENTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:02:08

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

7 DEPUTATIONS ¶

▶ 00:02:10

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

7.1 DEPUTATION Applicant: Cecile Saraiva (on behalf of local residents of Black Mountain who signed and supported a community petition) Topic: Request for Speed Reduction on Black Mountain Range Road and Black Mountain Road Speakers: Cecile Saraiva & David Jones and Anthony Slattery ¶

▶ 00:02:13

00:03:00 We do have a statement just after that will explain a bit further. We do have many residents mentioning tailgating, and they do not feel safe about driving, especially at night around those roads. We do also think that there is a risk for children's safety when it comes to school bus drops off and pickups. Big lots, more people coming in, more residents coming in, more subdivisions, so that will mean more driving, more cars, more children, and we just want the community to feel safe around those roads. And just as a past insight, I guess, unfortunately we've had two deaths over the past 20 years and many car accidents, and not even mentioning the wildlife that has been killed over the years. So we think that it would be really great if the speed limit could be recessed, and we thank you for your support. Thank you.

00:04:00 Speaker 1: Whilst Cecilia and I were walking around, we met Tony Slattery, an underage judge, and Tony has lived in the area for quite some time and wrote a statement that he wanted us to present this morning. So I'll just read that out for you and leave a copy. So a statement by Anthony Leslie Slattery. I'm a resident of 67 Country Drive, Black Mountain. I've resided at this address since 2014, and owned the property since 2012, and observed an increase in traffic in the suburb in the last five years. I'm a retired road designer, planner, estimator with more than 30 years' experience in this profession, with CMR Queensland and engineering consultants. I support the petitioners to reduce the posted speed limit on Black Mountain Range Road and Black Mountain Road from just south of the Breeze Highway overpass near Oman. I support the petitioners to reduce the posted speed limit on Black Mountain Range Road to the Breeze Highway overpass near the Council Waste Transport Station. In my professional experience, very few sections of this road meet the current standards for horizontal and vertical site distance through a posted speed limit of 80 kilometers an hour.

00:05:00 In my professional experience, very few sections of this road meet the current standards for horizontal and vertical site distance through a posted speed limit of 80 kilometers an hour. I also drive a 50-seater school bus on this route. As there are no shoulders or bus stops along this road, it is necessary to stop the bus on the road to pick up and drop off children. As a rural bus route, we are obliged to pick up students at students' driveways, and this is often a dangerous location for sight distance. Whilst warning lights do flash up here, it is only a matter of time before it actually occurs, involving one of the many school buses from many school childrens that travel on this road. As a minimum, I support the reduction of the posted speed limit to 60km an hour. Travel time lost is 107 seconds, less than 2 minutes, well worthwhile to make this road safer for all.

00:06:00 You can google maps to calculate the speed on this road at 60km an hour, not the posted 8km an hour. You can use the left-hand diagram and a copy of everything. We walked around, but we did. Speaker 2: Thank you very much. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: And we'll catch up with the councillors after the invitation period and the public question time. There is a break, so you can talk to each of those people who may have had some form of engagement today. So the next deputation is from Adrian Reid, representing the Noosa Waters Residents Association. And the topic that Adrian wants to talk to us about is the Noosa Waters Advisory Group. Welcome. Thank you. Adrian Reid: Good morning, Mayor, where you are, and councillors. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

7.2 DEPUTATION Applicant: ADRIAN REED, NOOSA WATERS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Topic: nOOSA wATERS aDVISORY GROUP Speakers: ADRIAN REED ¶

▶ 00:06:42

00:07:00 I'm Adrian Reid. I'm the president of the Noosa Waters Residents Association. Just before I get too far into... After the Terms of Reference process that we've been going down, I just thought I'd touch on who we represent. Noosa Waters is home to more than 1,100 households. And whilst we're thought of often as a waterfront estate, over half of those, of 550 households, are not on the waterfront at all. We have 25 public parks, 17 of them on the waterway. We're open to everybody. We're open to the Noosa community with playgrounds and off-leash dog parks amongst the other, I guess, facilities that we provide within this area. The waterway itself covers 42 hectares and more than 11 kilometres of reventment walls. Over the past year, our association and council have been working constructively to replace a 25-year-old partnership arrangement with the proper Terms of Reference process.

00:08:00 For the standing Noosa Waters Advisory Group. It sets up regular meetings, transparent information, sharing, and a commitment from council to table its maintenance plans and financials. And we support it. We're very grateful for the work that's been done behind it by councils and equally our association. I'd like to cover off quickly what our waterway actually is. It's not simply a private canal for waterfalls. It's not just for waterfront owners. It's a reserve for local government. It's a common lake area. We council as trustee. It's a stormwater drainage system for 240, sorry, 284 hectares of catchment. Roughly 44% of that lies outside of our state. It serves the wider community.

00:09:00 Council's responsibility for it flows from the original agreement, original approvals from 1983. It's not just for the waterfront owners. And from the land at trustee duty confirmed by the minister to this council, not merely from the levies that are raised from waterfront residents. Leads me to my second point, which is the financial accountability and transparency. It's the reason for the reporting provisions in the new Terms of Reference. And that's why they matter so much. Throughout this year, the review that we've done, we look very closely at the levies. And that's why they matter so much. We've identified a number of costs charged to residents through those levies that are in fact council responsibilities as asset owner and trustee of the lake area. Things like salinity pumps, replacement of those pumps, pipe work, relevant examples.

00:10:00 The original approval in 1983 itself allocated the pumping and maintenance. And maintenance of the water quality to council to be met by general rates. And yet over the past two decades, waterfront owners have effectively paid twice, full in general rates. And then obviously with the levy on top of that. That's exactly the kind of clarity that we're looking for. And as we look ahead, we welcome a clear shared understanding of what the levies fund and what council carries. As a responsibility as owner and trustee and the advisory group. And council applaud the constructive process that has been embraced under the TOR. The third is water quality. We're pleased to hear some of the discussion in the previous meeting. But the reassurance offered in that general meeting that council's meeting guidelines does not fully tell the story.

00:11:00 And in our view, doesn't show the council meeting its obligations as trustee to maintain the lake area. The current or currently the lake area has been held to a more relaxed, moderately disturbed standard. Well below the ecological value that the Noosa River demands that it drains into. And below the high standards that the lake was originally approved. And council is obligated to maintain as trustee for this lake. On the view on a few things that are measured. The inflow test position adjacent to this to see now key meets only that relaxed bar 65% of the time. And it's declining. According to the 2025 NICA annual water quality monitoring report. I don't think that's something that that clearly articulates that we're meeting an appropriate standard.

00:12:00 The measure that actually tracks algae, nutrients and chlorophyll is not tested at all in our canal. The original 1983 approval required a far broader monitoring program and active management of the catchment. And we've drifted a long way away from that. The catchment also has changed enormously since those approvals. With far greater stormwater volume, pollutant loads than the original design ever assumed. Those 1983 assumptions still underpin how the water quality framework is set and managed. But inevitably they're out of date. So beyond restoring the proper monitoring process and addressing the upstream sources. We ask that the underlying assumptions themselves be reassessed. So the framework reflects the catchment as it is today. Not what it was 40 years ago.

00:13:00 We'll be working with Council through the terms of reference where water quality is now a standing item. And to see that these obligations as trustee for Lake Erie are met. Simple low cost improvements to water quality close the gap should be fast tracked like pumping on hardtide. That's exactly what the lake was designed to do. We welcome support to get things like that done. Finally because the waterway serves as a wider public role. As a stormwater attenuation basin. Sharing the bare costs. Which is a framework called the Community Service Obligation or CSO referred to in the financials. Based on the catchment performance is a matter that we consider still as unresolved as part of the TOR. We ask that that be progressed openly through this TOR process. We actively want to work with Council through this advisory group and under the TOR framework.

00:14:00 And we look forward to collectively managing the asset that belongs to Noosa as a whole. And we are thankful for the collaborative approach that Council and its staff have taken to work with our committee. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. So next we have three submissions for public question time. There have been two questions submitted by Mr Edward and he's asked that Council Lorenton read them out on his behalf. Councillor Lorentson: Question one. Unspent grant funding and Sunrise Beach Community Hub upgrades. Following my correspondence with Mayor Wilkie June July 2026 about the unspent liveability and state grant funding from the Peregian Beach Street Active Project RM202614358.

8 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ¶

▶ 00:14:34

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

8.1 EDUOARD RIOTTOT ¶

▶ 00:14:39

00:15:00 Would Council consider reallocating funds towards a Sunrise Beach Community Hub upgrade? Tingira Boardwalk or Shopping Centre to match neighbouring precincts? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Director Walsh would you like to respond? Thank you for the question. Director Walsh: At its ordinary meeting on 18th of June 2026, Council resolved not to proceed with the Active Street Project in its current form and to explore whether grant funding could be redirected to practical infrastructure improvements in Prydian Road, County Beach South or other eligible alternatives. Council's immediate priority is to retain the existing funding and has submitted scope variation requests to the Active Transport Fund and South East Queensland Liveability Fund to deliver practical infrastructure such as pedestrian footpath connections that reflect community feedback.

00:16:00 Initial discussions with grant providers has been encouraging and Council considers the current scope variation request to be the most practical and achievable pathway for retaining available funding. Achievement of funding for Sunrise Beach Community Hub upgrade and Tingira Boardwalk would require separate future Council budget allocation and or grant funding submissions. Second question please, Council Walsh. Councillor Lorentson: Question two. In Sunrise Beach, speeding and increased traffic on Orealla Drive, Orient Drive, Southern Cross Drive, Dane Paddy Drive and then Lexham Drive present a genuine safety concern. Given the volume of school children and old residents, it will no longer, it will not be long before a serious accident occurs. Question. Can Council provide the next steps for a safety audit of these roads?

00:17:00 Director Walsh: Thank you for the question. Speed limits are determined in accordance with Queensland Transport's Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices , Speed Controls, which considers factors such as road function, vehicle speeds, roadside activity and road safety. To ensure consistent and appropriate speed limits across Queensland. Council acknowledges concerns regarding vehicle speeds and has recorded the nominated locations for future investigation. An initial review of available Compass LOT speed data indicates that speeding may be an issue on Ben Lexham Drive, Southern Cross Parade and Dane Paddy Drive. And these roads have been added to Council's proposed schedule for speed limit reviews. As part of the assessment process, Council may undertake traffic counts and speed surveys. To determine whether the current speed environment is appropriate. Any proposed speed limit change must satisfy technical assessment criteria and be considered by the Speed Management Committee, comprising representatives from Council, Queensland Police Service and Department of Transport and Main Roads.

00:18:00 As requests are prioritised across the Shire and resources are limited, assessments may take several months to complete. Council will advise you of the outcome should the review process further or result in a proposed change. Alternative measures such as additional speed signings, advisory signage or subject to funding and community consultation, traffic calming treatments may also be considered. Thank you, Director White. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We now have a question that was submitted by Matthew Hoffman. Mr Hoffman advised that he couldn't be here today and it is also up to Council to answer this question. Councillor Lorentson: As part of the strategic dog exercise area review, we request community consultation regarding dog access at Beach Access 37, a primary local hub. Could Council please confirm the timing and process for community consultation on this proposal? Speaker 2: This question will be asked by the Director, Richard MacGillivray.

8.2 MATHEW HOFFMAN ¶

▶ 00:18:32

00:19:00 Speaker 7: Thanks for the question, Mr Hoffman. Council appreciates you raising this information regarding dog exercise arrangements at Beach Access 37 and recognises that there are likely to be a range of community views on this matter. These views include support for maintaining existing arrangements as well as proposals to expand or modify our official arrangements. Any changes to designated dog exercise areas would require careful consideration of community feedback, environmental impacts, public safety, accessibility and legislative requirements. Council intends to consider community feedback on dog exercise areas as part of a future review of its local laws. The local law review process is proposed to be considered through future budget deliberations, with the next opportunity likely to be through the 27-28 budget process. Should Council resolve to proceed with the review, it would be undertaken in accordance with the State Government's prescribed framework and will include all more community consultation before any changes are determined.

00:20:00 Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: We come to our last member's question. That was submitted by Ms Pat Spicer. Ms Pat Spicer is with us and she is currently approaching the election. Welcome back. Pat Spicer: Thank you. Through the Chair. My name is Pat Spicer. I associate in background material. A public question in response to my public question on the 16th of April, 2026. Question requested, total cost of all investigations at the 62 Lake Macdonald Drive prior to the remediation and civil works commencing on the 4th of September, 2025. Investigation started at an early stage in the early stages of the investigation. The answer is 2019. Answers address the 2023-24 budget allowance of $500,000, in which $375 was used and a federal grant of $178,000 was received.

8.3 PAT SPICER ¶

▶ 00:20:07

00:21:00 The answer noted the project is still live and yet to be completed. My understanding is the current works are funded by the contract with Palm Grove Holdings, trading as Caruthers. Resolution 17th of July, 2025. 17, sorry. Remediation of major earthworks were $3,091,491,486.08, excluding GST. And the subdivision works in that contract were $2,684,542.27, excluding GST. And the subdivision works in that contract were $2,684,542.27, excluding GST. There was an allocation of $3.3 million in the Noosa Council 25 budget and $1.9 million in the 2526 Noosa Council budget. As the 24-25 financial year is now history, for what was the $3.3 million allocated in

00:22:00 the 24-25 Noosa Council budget for the 62-64 Lakewoods Old Drive project? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you, Ann. The GST was $3.3 million. The executive office was going to respond to the referral. Speaker 4: Okay. Sorry. Kim's not in the meeting this morning. She's online. She's online, but she's asking to read the quick response for you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Speaker 4: The allocated $3.3 million was a high level initial construction cost estimate to allow the project to proceed to the next stages. The project was delayed to enable further community consultation, resulting in design changes which deferred construction until the 25-26 financial year. Pat Spicer: Question 2. How much of that $3.3 million in the 24-25 financial year budget, which is rolling out, was for the 62 Lake MacDonald Drive project was used?

00:23:00 Speaker 4: Question 3. Of the total $3.3 million project budget, approximately $49,000 was expended in the 24-25 financial year, comprising staff time, consultation and design costs. No remediation or civil work costs were incurred during this period, as construction did not commence until the 25-26 financial year. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. So we will now have a 15 minute break until our public participation will be answered by staff and counsellors. So we will return at, oh, let's make it 10.40, sorry.

9 MAYORAL MINUTES ¶

▶ 00:24:28

00:38:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, welcome back. We're now on to item nine, which is mayoral minutes, and we do not have any of those. So we move on to section 10, and we have two notified motions. The first is by Councillor Lorentson, and that is the second, and it's dealing with strengthening small business consultations on major council works. Councillor Lorentson, please.

00:39:00 Councillor Lorentson: And strengthening small business consultation on major council works that Council A, note that the recent Doonella Bridge upgrade highlighted an opportunity for Council to consult more effectively with small businesses when planning and delivering major works. B, request that the Chief Executive Officer use the business roundtable to explore what improved consultation with small businesses should look like for major council works and how it should be delivered. And C, request that the Chief Executive Officer report back to Council on the outcome of that engagement, including a recommended approach. Speaker 2: Do we have a seconder? Councillor Phillips: I think a second. Speaker 2: And Phillips is seconded. Councillor Lorentson, do you have the floor? Councillor Lorentson: I'll take the report as read, so I'll just speak to the motion.

10 NOTIFIED MOTIONS ¶

▶ 00:39:05

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

10.1 STRENGTHENING SMALL BUSINESS CONSULTATION ON MAJOR COUNCIL WORKS ¶

▶ 00:39:09· Carried 6-1 · 1 division from council's minutes

00:40:00 I put the motion forward because I just think that we have a real opportunity to strengthen how Council engages with small business consultations on major council works. And I think that we have a real opportunity to strengthen how Council engages with small businesses when delivering major works. The motion in front of us seeks to improve communication, identify the impacts earlier and ensure that our small businesses are genuine partners in the impact planning process. The proposal has been discussed at the business roundtable and has received support from both the CEO, the business chambers and associations and also our EC development team. The proposal has been discussed at the business roundtable and has received support from both the CEO, the business chambers and associations and also our EC development team. Thank you very much.

00:41:00 The Doonella Street project provided valuable lessons. It highlighted the importance of early engagement, clear communication and understanding the impacts that construction works can have on local businesses. Rather than seeing this as a problem, we should see it as an opportunity to learn and improve. This motion is not about creating more red tape. It's about formalising those learnings so they're not lost and can be applied consistently to future projects across the Shire. Importantly, the approach aligns with recognised industry best practice. AusRoad's Guide to Temporary Traffic Management Part A checklist identifies stakeholder engagement, communication and traffic management as critical components of successful project delivery.

00:42:00 Traffic management plans tell us how. Vehicles and pedestrians will move around a work site, but they do not always identify the broader impacts on nearby businesses. This motion seeks to bridge that gap. It's also important to acknowledge the good work that Council has already undertaken with the Tewantin traders and other business groups in the past month. Strong relationships are being built, and this motion provides an opportunity to build on that foundation and strengthen those partnerships. Ultimately, this is about continuous improvement. Rather than allowing the experiences and lessons from Doonella Street to disappear once the project is complete, we have an opportunity to capture those learnings, incorporate them into a practical framework and work collaboratively with our business community to achieve better outcomes in the future. I believe this is a positive step forward for Council and for our businesses and for our community, and I hope that the Council will continue to work collaboratively with our business community to achieve better outcomes in the future.

00:43:00 Thank you. Speaker 2: Anything else Mr Phillips as the motion? Councillor Phillips: Just to support the motion. Any time, anywhere, any opportunity that we can create stronger relationships with our local businesses, then it's not really I think that we can create a stronger relationship Connections and Doonella Bridge was an example of things and lessons learnt, so for continuous improvement, I am happy to support the motion. Thanks. Thank you. Speaker 2: Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Yep. Councillor Wegener. Councillor Wegener: I'm a little bit, you know, up in the air on this because, one, Councillor Lorentson and councillors are doing their job right now,

00:44:00 and what you've done is what a councillor does, like that's actually what it does. You consult the strategies, we have our engagement strategy, we have our internal community engagement framework, we have our council discussion forums with the councillors, we have the monthly executive team meetings, we have the monthly CEO briefings and the agenda briefings. So we spend a lot of time together. And we have actually, you know, gone through this and done our job. But I think that what I'm trying to say is that the notified motion is sort of a last resort situation, where I don't know if I want to bring the precedence of always bringing a notice of motion. The notice of motion is please just do our job and, you know, help the CEO and ask the CEO questions in our regular forums and do what we actually think.

00:45:00 And that's how we've paid the bill, which is managed council. So I don't know. So thank you. I'm just, I would love to hear a little bit more. Councillor Phillips: Can I ask a question then to the CEO? Sure. Just wondering when is opportunities for us then, as Tom raised, for reviews of, I just haven't been able to have opportunity to sort of review. We've got a lot of work ahead of us. So we, I feel, I haven't got to pause and look and review on things that have been done in the past. So how would we, if it wasn't for the notified motion, what's another process? Speaker 4: Tough question, Councillor. And I'll try to, I guess you could probably ask Councillor his intent of his statement as well. But for mine, I think what we're talking about here is that we have lots of opportunities when we bring these projects through and everybody's aware of those projects.

00:46:00 I think it's incumbent on all of us to be cognisant of the fact that these projects are coming and to ask the questions at that point as well. Have we done the right conversation? Where are we at with this? Where are we at with that? I think that's part of the process as well. So we're doing it in the other rooms where we do those updates and workshops. So when we know about the bridge, for example, months ago, the questions could have been asked then. I guess when we did ask, we did. And it's not that we haven't done anything either. This is a learning exercise. So we did a lot of work. We did talk to a lot of businesses. But, you know, still there's more to be done and it's a learning time. So I think putting words in your mouth, Councillor, is more about saying, well, as these projects, as we become aware of them, we can ask those questions along the way as well as where are we up to? Where are we up with our consultation? Where are we up with our engagement?

00:47:00 Where are we at? Are we comfortable that we've done enough? Or we've thought about this or we've thought about that? I think that's probably where we're at. So, you know, we do, we do that, but maybe just be more, more cognizant of it. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Thank you. Just one more question then and it'll be to Councillor Wegener. Thanks. When have we got opportunity to learn, to review what has been done? Because I agree with what you and the CEO has said. But if we're looking forwards at projects, which sometimes you don't get the full view of, when in your extra time that I've had, that you've had in your term, beyond mine, when have you had an opportunity to review things that, and look backwards? Councillor Wegener: That's a very good question. And I will, I think I'll just simply say not enough, we have not. And I think that we do need to reflect, spend more time reflecting amongst ourselves on things. For example. The whole COVID situation.

00:48:00 We didn't really, in my opinion, didn't really actually say what happened? What did we do? You know, pros and cons. I think that is something that our professional development has suggested we do. And we probably haven't followed through with it. Councillor Lorentson: A question to the CEO and I thank Councillor Wegener for raising the concerns. My question is that we have, a lot of the stuff that you're requesting is sometimes operational. And the general plan actually doesn't come to us. So, there's my understanding and I'll ask for clarity to the CEO. We've got things like a construction management plan, which gets the resident feedback. And that's the plan that says, you know, you don't operate on weekends, don't operate before 7 o'clock, et cetera. Then you have a traffic management plan. And I think under the Boss Roads Guide to Traffic Management 2025, there's a checklist And the obligations that we're discussing are all stated there.

00:49:00 So the question is, there is a gap in those guidelines, the broader impact in terms of what it means for businesses, you know, when are the peak trading hours, where the drivers access to give us consideration of whether when we go out to tender, whether we should be asking for not necessarily the cheapest option, but maybe sometimes the most expensive option, understanding what the impacts are going to be on small businesses. Maybe it's better for us to work. Okay, so my question is, under a traffic management plan, a question to CEO in terms of compliance, et cetera, is that done operationally or does that come back to councillors? Speaker 4: No, it's done operationally. From a traffic management plan point of view, the traffic management plan is looking at the least impact for the traffic and how do we do that.

00:50:00 And that in turn then has an effect on businesses and surrounding residents and that sort of stuff. So it's all considered. It's a matter of how much it's considered. And some of the things you say, well, they're short term projects, so therefore it's in and out, do it as quick as you can, least impact, and the traffic management plan covers that. For a longer term project, and I think that's the learning from this, this is a six month project. So therefore, you know, we did consider. Businesses and we did talk to businesses, but maybe not to the right level. So that's the learning you say, well, let's, let's bring that back to the table and say next time, the next project, we make sure that we do consider those. Again, it's how broad you go to, you know, like this, we're talking Tewantin, we're talking the marina and those that are really impacted and, and businesses on Fulton Terrace. But, you know, how much broader, as we know, that first few days, it impacted a whole range of businesses because, you know, people were now adjusting to it. It created impacts in the Mundy Road and all sorts of things.

00:51:00 So there's, you know, it's how broad you do it, how big we can go. But that's, I think that's a learning for us to say this project's coming and for all of us to be more cognizant again, more aware and saying, have we considered it? Why should we go? What's the impact on the, on the broader community? Thank you. Councillor Wilson: I will support this. I think it's a real opportunity to be very proactive. It's one thing to take a project to the local business community when it's about to happen and then everyone kind of goes straight into crisis mode. So it's, it's a really good opportunity when everything's calm and there's no projects happening to get everyone's views on if we were to have a major project, how would you like us to approach it? So I think it's a really good opportunity to have that, those conversations with businesses when there isn't actually something major happening and then have that in mind when, when it does come to having a major project.

00:52:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Finzel or Councillor Wilkie, did you wish? Councillor Wilkie, you've got your hand up. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, thank you. Look, I don't see anything here that isn't already underway in terms of approaches to managing major projects and the way they're communicated with business groups. In April, we started a conversation and maybe even before that with the Hastings Street Association and other groups about the impact of the seawall, which is going to have major, cause major disruption down in Hastings Street. So the question to the CEO, how would this motion change what is already underway with the Hastings Street Association in regards to the seawall project? You have a working group already formulating on this, I understand. Speaker 4: Through the Chair, yes. Mr Mayor, we do, we have working groups and that's, that's the intent of those.

00:53:00 I think what the motion from Councillor Lorentson is really saying, can we use the business round table or as another method for informing and that gets the broader community as well. I think that's, there's merit in that because otherwise we're... We are focused on the Hastings Street Association, but again, that, that work down there is going to have much broader impacts across the whole of the community. So that's just, it's just another way of making sure that people are aware. And as we know, and that's what Councillor Wilson was saying, often, you know, people are aware of it, but they don't, they don't take notice until it hits them in the face, if you like, or it's right on the doorstep. And that's what we've got to get better at, just making sure that we do get that communication and make them aware and get some feedback and make sure that we've done as much as we can. We're never going to satisfy everybody. These projects have an impact. They have on all sorts of businesses and people's daily lives.

00:54:00 And that's what the management plan and the construction management plan is all about, is trying to minimise that, get it done as quick as we can, get it done for the money that we've got, and then look at it. But I'm comfortable that we can use the business roundtable as a, as a broader method just to, just to inform and get feedback. Follow-up question. Mayor Wilkie: Mr. CEO, hasn't the roundtable already been used as a way of broaching the topic of the seawall and that was on the agenda for the April roundtable meeting? Hasn't it already, have we already used the roundtable for issues such as this? Speaker 4: Yes. The answer to that is yes, we do. I think it's just bringing it more to our attention. But yeah, you're right. We do, we do use that as a method already. But I think this is just bringing it to the front of mind more so I think is what Council Lyons is trying to achieve with this. Speaker 2: Council Finzel, you've got your hands up. Councillor Finzel: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

00:55:00 I'll only be brief. I think this is a great opportunity for collaborative leadership for us to pause and review. And of course, always ask the question, how can we do better? Conflict resolution when done efficiently and handled with appropriateness will always provide a solution. I think our, our role is to listen to our community. That includes whole or shire. I think this motion brings before us the opportunity to have this discussion about how we can do better. How we can strengthen and improve those conversations around our community. Our role is to constantly identify risks and gaps and how we can serve our community better. I support this. I think it provides a greater focus on how we can bring more people around the table.

00:56:00 And at the same time, I thank Councillor Tom for raising the opportunities already in place to engage with our community. I think this provides a greater focus to go ahead and strengthen those partnerships. It's really great that we can pause, review, pivot and adjust and bring the whole of Shire up along with us, including our CEO and our staff. It's always good, in my opinion, to pause and just see how can we do better. We're all here because of our community and they look to us and this is an opportunity to engender trust and show that we will do whatever it takes to try our best to give voice to our business people and our broader community.

00:57:00 So thank you for this item before us. And I think it's a great opportunity. I have the privilege to go to the Tewantin Traders event at which the CEO spoke. The council staff is working in a collaborative nature with the business traders. And that was a great opportunity to see how relationships between the business community can be strengthened and come together and how people can be supported beyond what was the issue before us. So I think, if anything, that gives us a good indicator of how well we can come together and find solutions for our broader community. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. I'll talk to the motion. I've probably had the same thoughts that Councillor Wegener expressed. I went last night and looked at it. I looked at the community engagement policy. Then I looked at the community engagement framework. And I said, does this motion change anything?

00:58:00 The answer was no. Do they outline the role of councillors? And I said, yes. And is there a better way of handling it? And I thought, very much so. And to Councillor Phillips' point, what's in this motion could be dealt with in five minutes via email rather than the lengthy and cumbersome process to announce the motion. It probably costs the ratepayers $1,000, $2,000, $3,000 just for all that goes into this and all that passes. Every one of those thousands of dollars could be spent on fixing potholes, fixing a roof that's on a pathway, providing money to a sporting club. Every time we use an inefficient process to achieve an operational outcome, we are costing the ratepayers money. And to me, that's one thing we can improve on. So there's nothing that has been said that anyone disagrees that there's opportunities to always look at continuous improvement and innovation in terms of the way we engage. But as we've heard from Councillor, the Mayor, and also the CEO, everything that's put into

00:59:00 this motion already occurs. The fact that one of the options that was chosen based on modelling had an impact on a certain group of businesses. It's not necessarily going to have been effective in the Hilton Territories because it wasn't until we saw the results on the ground that it was recognised that there was disproportionate impacts on one group of traders. It's not necessarily going to be the case that we will be always able to come up with win-win solutions. And the framework acknowledges that there's going to be times when you consult when stakeholders are impacted. Having said that, I acknowledge that we should learn when things, you know, obviously there's a bit of angst caused by the option we chose the first few days by staff.

01:00:00 It wasn't just by businesses. There's a lot of impacts on the community more broadly too. That's another aspect of this motion that is missing. Why is the impact like that? Are we just focusing on that? So I can't support it. Because I believe the notice of motion is inefficient and also redundant. Councillor Lorentson: Question to the CEO. Councillor Stockwell referenced a cost of up to $5,000 in terms of bringing a notice of motion to ordinary meeting. Can I ask what is the cost? Speaker 4: No, I'm sorry. I can't figure out what to put to that. But, you know, I think the point he's making is that it doesn't have to be $5,000. It does require resource time, people's time. So that's for you to decide. You bring those. It's your, as councillors, all councillors, it's your right to bring notice of motion. Generally they come through me first and then we work that through.

01:01:00 So, you know, that's a process that we have. Allow that to us. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilkie, you're the only one I believe who hasn't spoken. Did you wish to speak to the motion? No. Speaker 6: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Oh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Look, I see no harm in supporting this motion. It reflects processes and a commitment to continuous improvement that we already have in place. The roundtable is the forum for raising impactful capital works with the community and with the business groups. That's what we're doing. There is also a great opportunity through the way that the capital works team has worked with affected business groups when a project is pending. I also note that councillors have great opportunity through their networks on social media and

01:02:00 community groups to inform the community and explain to the community when projects are pending. And not all councillors did this in terms of informing the community about the impending Doonella Street bridge works. But I thank those. So it's, although it's largely redundant, I'm happy to support this motion because it, through a notice of motion, you do signal to the community, it highlights, raises an issue, gives it a public profile that it might not otherwise have had. But I see no harm in supporting it. Speaker 2: Thank you. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Lorentson, would you like to go first? Councillor Lorentson: I'll start just with just a response to a couple of questions. I'll start with the things that was raised by Councillor Stockwell. Firstly, in terms of inefficient cost of resourcing up to $5,000. I'd just like to put on the table that I engaged with, I think, every business association.

01:03:00 I met with businesses around the community. I wrote the report. I spent some time looking at AusRoad Traffic Management Guidelines 2026, understanding that, talking to traffic engineers. And I think it's really important that we do that. It's consultants in town, business owners in town. And then after I put my notice of motion, I spent maybe 20, 30 minutes with the CEO. He shared that information with Economic Development. He came back and said supportive, but requested some changes to my notice of motion. I then went and changed the notice of motion. So in terms of cost, I spent a lot of time. That's my job. Understanding our community. And the resourcing and time was on me, not on this council. So I wanted to put that on the table. Secondly, in terms of Council, Stockwell mentioned the community engagement. All these processes exist.

01:04:00 My question to Councillor Stockwell is if these, and Mayor Wilkie mentioned the same, that we're already doing this. If that's the case, my question that I would like to ask you is, what are you going to do? Why do we have 60 business owners coming to Council at five, six o'clock at night, attending a community meeting, demanding questions as to why they were not consulted? Not once, not twice. Not all the councillors were here, and maybe that's why they don't understand the importance of having this notice of motion. Council. Mayor Wilkie mentioned that the importance of a notice of motion. The importance of a notice of motion is that the commitment that we make to our business community is formally documented, rather than left as an informal conversation. A council motion carries weight that good intentions do not.

01:05:00 It commits council and staff to genuinely exploring what improved consultation should look like. Rather than allowing the idea to quietly drop off once the moment has passed. I'm going to talk a little bit about our small businesses and what I've learnt in my six years. They are the ones that are most exposed to disruption arising from council works. They're the ones operating on tight margins that leave little capacity to absorb an extended period of reduced trade. The motion in front of us is simply saying that we need to do more. By providing consultation as best as we can, from the outset, proactively, as council Wilson mentioned. To me that's one of the clearest way that we can tell our business community and our community that we support them, we listen to them and what they do matter, which is

01:06:00 support our kids. These are the small businesses. There's 3,000 of them. They're the pulse that keeps this community going. We're going to reshape the community and that community was built on our hospitality trade, our small businesses, our retailers. So councillors, this is an opportunity to proactively do better and I respect, I really respect the conversation and we need the diversity and we need to be challenged with the way we are thinking. But I do believe that if you attended any of the community forums with the small businesses, you would understand how important it is that we formalise our commitment through a notice of motion. Again, I'm just going to leave everyone with the thought that trust is built through working together and this

01:07:00 collaborative opportunity to co-develop a proper consultation impact plan with our small businesses. is to me an opportunity that we need to rise to. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I put to the vote those in favour is Councillor Wilson, Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips. I'm lying. Yes. Councillor Wilkie. Yes. And Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wegener and those against is Councillor Stockwell. Okay. The motion is carried. We then move on to the second motion which is once again from Councillor Lorentson and then it's regarding the main beach reserve car park and your main beach reserve car park. The second motion is under Resolution 60 Drop-off Zone Resolution. You can go to the floor. Councillor Lorentson: I'll take it as Fred. I don't think this is controversial. I think this is really just a common sense notice of motion. When we made our decision in July with the Govan new zone.

10.2 MAIN BEACH RESERVE CAR PARK – REVIEW OF MAIN BEACH DROP-OFF ZONE RESOLUTION ¶

▶ 01:07:47· Lost 2-4 · 1 division from council's minutes

01:08:00 Oh, excuse me. I'll move that Council A review its July 2026 resolution regarding the operation In light of the operation of the main beach drop-off zone during the peak Christmas and New Year period, in light of the information contained in the Property Advisors Report to the General Committee of 11 August 2026 relating to Lyons Park overflow parking, B, consult with key stakeholders, including the Hastings Street Association, and C, request the CEO report back to Council in the next round of meetings with recommendations. Speaker 2: Do we have a seconder? I'll second. Councillor Lorentson: So when Council made its decision in July, in terms of a Go Noosa program, it did so with the expectation or the potential that overflow car parking would be available at Lyons Park. We know now that there's still uncertainty around that arrangement.

01:09:00 If those overflow parking spaces at Lyons Park are not available, then the circumstances that imply... If those overflow parking spaces at Lyons Park are not available, then the circumstances that imply... ...reformed the original decision have changed. Parking is vital during the Christmas and New Year period. It supports local businesses, employees, residents and visitors. At the busiest time of year, every parking space counts. The motion in front of us is not asking Council to abandon the drop-off zone. The motion is just asking to review the decision in light of the new information and consider whether adjustments, such as a mixed-use or hybrid approach, will be needed. And I think just given the uncertainty before us, and given that the original decision was made based on different information, I believe we have a responsibility to review it. And that's all this motion's seeking to do, and I respectfully ask that we support it.

01:10:00 Speaker 2: Okay, I'd now like to talk to the motion. Councillor Wilson: I will support this because I'm going to argue with the Lions Park that we shouldn't be singling out one car park at a time. In the absence of a parking management plan, we should be looking at the whole of Shire approach, and then that should inform what we do with each of the individual car parks. So as not to contradict myself when I speak about Lions Park, I will apply the same logic here, that we shouldn't just be singling out and making decisions on one. Until we've got our whole strategy for parking. Speaker 2: Thank you. Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Mr. Wigner. Thank you, Mr. CEO. Councillor Wegener: Would we do this as part of what we're doing anyway? Is this business as usual? Does it require another motion to make a change to what you're going to do anyway?

01:11:00 Speaker 4: Yeah, this is interesting. Because this one came forward before the discussion of the last general meeting as well, in terms of whether we go with it or don't go with it, at that point in time, the challenge was not to go with parking at Lions Park. So if we don't have Lions Park, then what about this? Yes, the easy answer to that is yes, we do review and we will review, and we do every time, because at the moment it takes us a long time to set it up, and that's something that Councillor Lorentson is talking about as well. Maybe you can just look at that and put those sandstone blocks in. It takes us time and effort to put that. Is there a better way to do it? Is it easier? The whole intention with using the, or creating the drop-off zone was to reduce the congestion of cars waiting to park in that car park and sitting on the ramp and sitting in there and just creating, and that backs up back into the roundabout. What we've seen is that actually has been effective, is our understanding.

01:12:00 Now, whether we continue with that, because of this, I think we need to, the problem with this one now is we've got another discussion coming in this meeting as to the decision on Lions Park. So, you know, yes, we will review it, and that's why I'm quite comfortable with this. We would review it anyway, so it's a matter of saying we're always going to review, we review everything. We try and learn and see how we can do it better. So, you know, I'm comfortable with that. It is a, it's a notice of motion, but in real terms, as a, as an organisation, as officers, we review everything we do on an annual basis. If you look at it, it's changed over the last two or three years anyway. Remember the first time it was a, it was a park, we set it up as a park, and the second time it was less, less infrastructure, but just really focusing on the, on the drop-off. You know, we may, may look at it a different way and say, how can we set it up easier so it's more flexible and cheaper to set up, as opposed to bringing in all the, they're, they're the things we do on a regular basis anyway.

01:13:00 Councillor Lorentson: Question to the CEO, my understanding is once a decision's been ratified by council, then we have to take that course of action. And it was for that reason that I changed it. So the course of action that we had signed off on at the time. Was for a full drop-off area in the Go Noosa. What this is requesting is a review to understand whether a hybrid mix use, do we return it all back to car parking? So, so just clarification. The, my understanding, is that correct? Speaker 4: Yeah, absolutely. We, we, we review that as well and look at whether, whether we can do it a little bit differently and whether we need more disabled car parks or more, more parks for the, for the, for the surf lifesavers or that sort of stuff has been reviewed over the time. We'll continue to do that. You know, our, my understanding is it's very difficult to, to, to, to be too hard with it.

01:14:00 If you start to change it, mix it, as we've seen, you know, for a few hours you do this and a few hours you do that, it just confuses people. So, you know, we need to be, we need to be conscious of that. So, if we are going to change it, we need to be very, very aware that it is, can cause confusion and it's not an easy car park to say we use half of this and half of that because of the, the entry and exit points. It's very difficult. So, but we, we will review that. No problem at all. We do do it on a regular basis, whether we can change it or not, whether we decide to change it, it's difficult. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you very much. Speaker 2: Okay. Speaker 4: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Others wish to talk to the motion? I think I saw Councillor Wilkie's hand go up first, then Councillor Finzel's, then Councillor Weaker. No. No. It's all around. Speaker 4: One, two. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Oh, okay. So, Councillor Finzel, Wilkie, then Weaker. Councillor Finzel: Yeah, thank you. Look, I think this, this item before us is, in some way, you know, it's, it's, you know,

01:15:00 these processes are already undertaken. I'm happy to support it in terms of, you know, it highlights, I guess, where we're heading it. It gives assurance to our community that we haven't dropped the ball, that we're going to continue along with reviews, consulting and all the other things. Noting also, item number C, B, I think that was covered in the last meeting when I put forward an amendment to widen out consultation around, you know, the, the entry points. You know, the Lyons Park and that area with key stakeholders. So, I think also that's been covered. But I think in terms of just supporting this to raise and put a spotlight onto these issues in which the community is fully, you know, focused on at the moment because it is going to be impact, you know, so many people. I will support it. I think council is already moving along these.

01:16:00 Yeah. Pathways. And I think it is about, like, yeah, strengthening that and bringing assurance to our community, trying to engender trust with them that we have our eyes on it and we will be progressing the matter through all those processes. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Council Wookiee. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My concern with this particular notice of motion is that, you know, there's a lot of confusion about our commitment to improving access through the main beach car park and reducing congestion at the Hastings Street roundabout by reviewing this, this arrangement. I see very little connection to the availability of car parking in the Lyons Park.

01:17:00 I see it as a linked but a separate issue. We are committed to improving access and reducing congestion and the arrangements at the Noosa Heads Surf Club car park allow potentially hundreds of people to be dropped off each hour and has drastically reduced it, reduced congestion at the Hastings Street roundabout by preventing cars banking up. We were previously looking for car parks at the Noosa Heads Lyons Park car park. So, because of its potential to create confusion and be cast out on our commitment to this arrangement, I won't be supporting this particular notice of motion. Thank you. Council Wiener. Councillor Wegener: It seems redundant in that if what we're already doing, and as the CEO said, we're behind the scenes, us, the councillors and staff, many, many, many meetings where we talk

01:18:00 about this. What are we going to do? And it seems to me that is the time where we hash things out. These notice of motions are troubling for me because it's an attempt to basically, in my opinion, micromanage something that we should have been. So the process perhaps needs to be questioned overall. Why? Why we have to have so many notice of motions, especially when this is. So I'll support it, but I think in the proper behind the scenes that we'll be talking about notice of motions in our discussion forums coming up. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Council Finzel, you have a question? Councillor Finzel: Yeah. I just think I'd like to just put forward that I don't consider this a confusion. So it has to be a question. Yeah. The question is, I'm seeking clarification from the Mayor as to why he's finding this

01:19:00 confusing. I consider it a complex matter. Can he please clarify as to why he thinks this motion is creating confusion? Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. Thank you, Councillor Finzel. By the notice of motion, we've just last month approved and agreed to proceed with the change parking arrangements at the Noosa Heads Surf Club car park. And next month, we're reviewing it already. So it creates confusion because at the very next opportunity, it signals that we don't endorse fully what we've committed to only a month ago. It looks like we're flip flopping. I don't like it. I think it sends the wrong message to the community. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. A question to the CEO, please.

01:20:00 Just wanting to know whether you've had any correspondence from the Hastings Street Association in terms of reviewing the surf club car parking in light of the uncertainty around the overflow car parking at Lyons Park. Speaker 4: That's a good question because I do have a lot of correspondence with the HSA, and I'm trying to think of whether we've actually specifically talked about it. I don't believe we have. Councillor Lorentson: Can I maybe direct the question to someone in infrastructure? Mr Shaun Walsh. Director Walsh: I have to take the question on notice, Councillor, to confirm whether I can do a search in the forthcoming period to determine if there's any miscarriage. Pat Spicer: Thank you very much. Director Walsh: I'm not personally aware, but I've just been to people. Councillor Phillips: Sure. Councillor Phillips. Can I please move a procedural motion to just suspend standing orders, because I have a question. About the agenda item. If I can do it, then I'll explain it.

01:21:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: You'll need to explain why we need to suspend standing orders for a question. Councillor Phillips: There's a word from the training we did that says I need to ask if this can be put to the end of the agenda, and I cannot think of the word. Councillor Finzel: Put on the table. Councillor Phillips: Put on the table. Thank you. Put on the table. And if this is put on the table and we bring the, and potentially there's, we move through the agenda items and the other item comes up for discussion, and it's decided on, then this may give. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, I understand. So, yes, you can move the matter away on the table. Councillor Phillips: Can we just. Cancel it. Can I still touch the board? Okay. I think because this was done before a decision on the Lions Park, I agree with the notice of motion. I just think it would be great to have a decision. Okay. I think it would be great to have a council on the other before, because it may change the weight of what Councillor Lorentson is asking for.

01:22:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes, so, Councillor Phillips has moved it. That is one I think that needs a seconder. I'll second. Councillor Wilson: I'll second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Can I be second? I'll probably allow you to talk to the procedural motion, but you can if you like. If you need to explain any further. Councillor Phillips: I don't think I need to explain it any further. Unless anyone's got questions, that would make more sense. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Does anyone have questions or anything else? Councillor Lorentson: Just a question to Councillor Phillips. The wording actually requests a review. A review doesn't necessarily imply that there will be any changes. It's just a fallback in case there's no certainty. The question has to relate to another day. Just consideration to Councillor Phillips. Okay. Okay. Okay. Question to the CEO in terms of process.

01:23:00 Actually, that's separate to this. Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Anyone else? I'll therefore put the procedural motion that they've had on the table. All those in favour? I'm happy. Yes. Yes. Okay. That's unanimous. Okay. We then move on to the agenda item. Speaker 2: Good. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's a good one. And that is a consideration of recommendations from the General Committee on the 11th Globalist. Question if I'm not used to having to do all this. You've got to do this. Councillor Wilson: He's on camera, I was thinking. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: 11.1.1 is the Capital Programme 2025-26 Delivery Status Report. 11.1.2 is the Housing Monitoring Report. 11.1.3 is Moosa Heads Alliance Park. Yes, Mr. Mayor. Yes, Mr. Chair. Yes, Councillor Wilkie. Mayor Wilkie: I'd like to move a motion on this one.

11 CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ¶

▶ 01:23:25

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

11.1 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS DATED 11 AUGUST 2026 ¶

▶ 01:23:29

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

11.1.1 CAPITAL PROGRAM 2025-2026 DELIVERY STATUS REPORT ¶

▶ 01:23:33

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

11.1.2 HOUSING MONITORING REPORT ¶

▶ 01:23:49

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

11.1.3 NOOSA HEADS LIONS PARK LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN ¶

▶ 01:23:53· Carried 5-2 · 5 divisions from council's minutes

01:24:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Certainly. You have the floor. Is that the motion you'd like to read out, Councillor Wilkie? I'm just trying to get my screen back up. Yes, that's the one. I'll read it out. Because I've... The report by the property advisor to the General Committee dating 11th August 2026 regarding the Moosa Head Alliance Park Planning Plan and a discontinued temporary car parking Moosa Head Alliance Park. Do we have a seconder? Councillor Wegener has seconded. Councillor, you've had the floor. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Councillors. I bring this before you today to give you a choice. We've got a choice between doing what I believe is the right path, and for you to take it So it's a choice between protecting the integrity of one of the Shire's most iconic public spaces, loved by many, or the disruption of spending unbudgeted ratepayer funds to conduct an unscheduled consultation process in the hope that it may entrench paid parking in Lyons Park, which is something the data has shown only increases traffic congestion.

01:25:00 And given the complexity of a land management plan process and the contentious nature of this issue, it may not in the end deliver what some had hoped for anyway. I see it as a choice between looking backwards and looking forwards to a better future. And this has always been at its best when we protect what makes it different. And Lyons Park, to many of us, is more than just a car park. It's one of the community's most important public green spaces. It's been held in trust, entrusted to us for recreation and enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

01:26:00 And the evidence provides a clear direction. In my view, continued future use of the Lyons Park for overflow parking will only worsen traffic congestion and pressures within an already constrained road network, reduce valuable and rare urban open space during peak periods. And times have changed since the temporary parking on the park was introduced 25 years ago. We have to move to the times, Councillors. Free holiday bus services continue to attract record numbers. There were 75 passengers during Christmas on one bus route alone. This is the viable mass transit alternative. Park and ride facilities offer opportunities for expansion. And more people than ever are accessing Main Beach by means other than the car. These are the solutions that align with NUSA's long-term vision of reduced congestion, improved accessibility and a more sustainable transport network. Commencing a land management plan process will require significant time, resources and cost, estimated at between $30,000 and $75,000, taking up to 12 months, with no guarantee that the required legislative tests can be satisfied.

01:27:00 We will still need to demonstrate that overflow parking does not diminish the park's recreational purpose and does not adversely affect the public interest. So rather than investing scarce resources in trying to justify an inconsistent use, we have the opportunity today to focus Council's ratepayer-funded resources on forward-thinking initiatives that deliver lasting benefits for the whole community. We can protect the green space, strengthen public transport, expand parking and ride options, invest in smarter solutions that reduce congestion instead of attracting and creating more. And as we've discussed recently, the key challenges with an LNP include no guarantee the process will ultimately support continued overflow parking.

01:28:00 There is native title compliance requirements. The process will trigger and further drag out significant community controversy on this issue. We could end it today by doing the right thing in my view. It will involve unscheduled consultation and legal review. And there's also the six-to-three rule. There's the unbudgeted drain on ratepayers of $30,000 to $75,000 plus substantial staff resourcing. And we must remember last month when we agreed to discontinue car parking at the General Committee meeting. On that assumption, we committed scarce transport staff resources to investigating expanding park and ride sites and engaging stakeholders in alternatives to Ryan's Park car parking. An LNP process would involve a greater investment in ratepayer funds and funded resources. And again, all this for no guarantee the process will support overflow car parking.

01:29:00 So the choice is not between parking and progress. The choice is between looking backwards or choosing evidence-based planning for the future and using a park for its intended purpose. So let's make a decision today. Settle this controversial legacy issue once and for all. Without burdening ratepayers, without extra costs, community division for no guaranteed outcomes. So for the benefits of residents, visitors and future generations, let's avoid a costly, chaotic and uncertain land management plan process. So we can choose today to keep Ryan's Park for the people. And that's why I respectfully urge you to support this motion. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: A question through the sea. To our director of infrastructure. Mayor Wilkie referenced section 52 AB as the only pathway and made a lot of reference in terms of the land management plan, the process costs.

01:30:00 Can I ask, is there another pathway under section 52 AA that does not require land management plan and requires simply that we write to the minister and put together a proposal that the two legal tests are satisfied? Is that option available to us? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. Director MacGillivray. Thank you, councillor, for the question. Speaker 7: Through the chair. So since the last discussion we had at general committee, we've sought some further advice from the department regarding the provisions under section 52 AB. Both 52 AA and 52 AB. The advice is, as outlined at the general committee, there is the ability to write to the minister under 52 AA. There are requirements that must be met under that test as well.

01:31:00 But there is the ability to write to the minister for them to consider a request for temporary use of car parking. And that will be at the discretion of the minister. Thank you. Notwithstanding the previous department advice around their preference for a land management plan to be undertaken. So hopefully that answers the question. Councillor Lorentson: And in terms of cost, my understanding is no land management plan is required. It simply requires an email to be sent to the minister with an explanation of how it doesn't diminish the purpose of the reserve. And two, these... Public benefit. Speaker 7: Through the chair. So a letter to write to the minister wouldn't obviously involve significant cost or time. It would be the preparation of the letter. And then it would be awaiting the minister's decision on that letter and whether they're satisfied it meets those statutory tests.

01:32:00 Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. And a question to the mayor. In terms of data. He referenced that the data has shown. Can I ask specifically which data he's referencing? Mayor Wilkie: The data collected during council's trial during the Easter period would show that there was... When lines parking was in place, there was a 40% increase in congestion at the roundabouts on Noosa Parade. Councillor Lorentson: A question... Oh, excuse me. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah. I have a question to the director, Richard MacGillivray. Speaker 7: I'm back, Mr. Mayor.

01:33:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you for the updated advice on section 52 AA. For how... What was the feedback about how many times council can continue to write to the minister to allow an inconsistent use on this recreation reserve? Speaker 7: Through the chair. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You're right. Council has been writing to the minister over an extended period of time in relation to this, particularly before the changes to the Land Act in 2024. Where there has been now changes where the Land Act has made provision for council to be able to be the decision maker regarding inconsistent uses. The department has been pretty clear in recent advice around their preference for council, which now has the tools to undertake that process through a land management plan exercise. However, obviously, further recent discussions around the provisions under 5200.

01:34:00 The department is aware that that provision still is available and ultimately is a decision for whether the minister wants to consider a request or not will be ultimately with them. And whether they're satisfied those tests around the diminishment of the reserve purpose and the public interest have been satisfied. Mayor Wilkie: So, is this represent a change? Council will be... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Council Lorenton had stood up before you had supplementary questions. I'll allow her question first. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy for the mayor to continue with his line of questioning. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Does this represent a change to the advice given to this council last week about 5200? Speaker 7: Through the chair. Not necessarily. As you'd probably be aware under the... After the adjournment, short adjournment,

01:35:00 we had, I did clarify the advice from our legal council on that, that that provision is available. The advice from the department at that time was that, and councils would have a copy of that from the department, that council should use the provision under 5200 is their preference because council has the authority to undertake that work. But further discussion since the general committee meeting, specifically in relation to 5200, is that they understand that that is an avenue under the act as such. The question really was, I guess, posed on me around the requirements. Is a land management plan required to satisfy the requirements of 5200? And the answer, it isn't. However, there's still similar statutory tests that must be satisfied. Mayor Wilkie: So, is it the case that the council is free to write to this minister as it is today?

01:36:00 Is it the case that the council is free to write to any minister, but it's at the minister's discretion whether they regard, give regard to the letter or not? Speaker 7: Through the chair. Yes. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Dr. Lawrence. Councillor Lorentson: Again, just referencing a statement made by the mayor in terms of the data proved that there was 40% increase in congestion when the lines parked, car parking was in operation during the Easter period. Okay. My recollection of the report was that it contributed. Question. My question is, am I correct in remembering that the report actually stated it was one of the factors that contributed to the congestion and that the congestion wasn't solely because of the overflow car parking? I just, a statement was made, which I don't believe was correct. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Probably best answered by Director Walsh. There you go. Pretty well on that question. Was it, was the, did the report suggest it was 40% because the car parking was involved?

01:37:00 Director Walsh: It was a contributing factor, but the council's answer is correct. It's not the only factor. You know, the 14,000 vehicles a day driving in the precinct is a significant contributing factor, but the ability to ingress and egress is impacted by the congestion of this particular entry location, the car parking. Thank you. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Just a quick question on that line of, just to Director Walsh. Sorry. Just a question. Speaker 2: Director Walsh, you may wish to come to the table as well. Councillor Phillips: For that Easter trial, I'm interested to know what the actual process that we used to collect that data and how many years we've done that exact process over years. Just to satisfy my curiosity about the data. Speaker 2: You can say that as well if that is more specific. There's a number of facts. Director Walsh: Over the Easter period, it was taken over only the five days I think that the car park was operating. So it wasn't an extensive trial. We need to be clearer about that to actually examine the impacts.

01:38:00 So, and that was for the use of, through a traffic control company that assist us in the gathering of that data, basically manually. So the most important data in terms of traffic movement that we base our modelling is actually from the car park. There's a car park tech trial that was carried out in the summer of 23-24. And there's a report in the August 2024 GoNUSA report that compiles all of that data. And that's how we know that there's 14,000 movements in that report. So the assessment is a comparison against that longer term data of the whole of the summer season and then qualified opinion made over that Easter period from specific site data. So it's a mixture between the two. Unfortunately, our sustainable transport coordinator has resigned from council and she's the only qualified person that can make further technical observations in regard to that. Councillor Phillips: Okay. So then I appreciate that. So maybe I'll just summarise it so I understand. We've used... Speaker 2: That has to be a quick summary.

01:39:00 Councillor Phillips: Yes. Good point. The data we used, so to clarify, the data we used at Easter, the process we used at Easter. That's the only year we've used that data. So we've used that data for a number of reasons to give us the data that we have seen recently. Perfect. Director Walsh: To the data or the request responded from the previous council resolution in March of that year to do analysis of car parking and traffic movements over that Easter period. And the staff made the best available use of data that was available at that period. It was a very short period. Councillor Dawson. Yes. Councillor Wilson: On the same topic, that comparable data when the lands part was not used for parking, that was collected in March. Is that correct? I can't answer. The last weekend in March. I think the report does say that. Pat Spicer: Yeah. Councillor Wilson: Which is preschool holidays, which started on the 3rd of April.

01:40:00 So I'll be really comparing like we'd like if it's not holiday period for both weekends. Director Walsh: I can't technically answer that question, Councillor. So we had a short period of time between the council resolution in March and the Easter school holidays. We did what we could with what we had. Councillor Wilson: Have we ever done a study on the Lions Park to see how many people use it for recreational use? Director Walsh: No, we have never undertaken a study. But we do note that that park is already identified as a Shire wide recreation park under our LGIP. And it says that it's not a recreational park. It's set aside for purposes of local government infrastructure planning and development contributions to further developments used for recreational parks. So that is an indication of its value, though it would benefit from further parks planning and assessment. Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: Just to the CEO. I had a media release that we did in relation to the Easter trial, and we quoted that it

11.1.4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS DECIDED BY DELEGATED AUTHORITY – JUNE 2026 ¶

▶ 01:40:47

01:41:00 didn't give us. Enough. Data to support decision making. I'm just going to pull up the media release. But just wondering how that process happened that we released that. But now to sort of support the mayor saying that that data was indicative of decision today. But we have released to the media that it hasn't supported our decision making or it wasn't enough to support our decision making. Speaker 4: I'd have to take that one. That's fine. I'll find. What it says. And I think that just to the director's point, it was a short period. I believe it was over the school holidays. I think it was over that period because that's when we were looking to have the lines do the whole thing anyway.

01:42:00 So that's the busiest period, I think, from memory. I couldn't think it out. I have the report in front of me. Councillor Lorentson: That's fine. Speaker 4: But that was the intent, is to try to get a comparative in that period of time. And that's the only one that we really utilized because of the discussion that had gone on before that. We said, well, let's at least trial this and see what we get, what information we get. And that's the information we've got. So I think we've just got to take it as it is. That's the information we've got. Use it for your discussions. And I don't think we can really do anything more. Otherwise, it's speculation from our point of view as officers. Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Mr. Chair. Speaker 2: Yes. Mayor Wilkie: Councillor Wilkie. A question to Director Walsh. Director Walsh, prior to the Easter trial, I seem to recall reading a report maybe the year before about traffic congestion at the roundabout on Noosa Parade due to Noosa Heads Lions Park. Could you expand on that for us?

01:43:00 Director Walsh: Unfortunately, Mayor, I can't answer that without taking it on notice. I'm not intimately across those previous reports. So I need to actually take that on notice. But traffic congestion is featured in all our reports on the Go Noosa program. Mayor Wilkie: I seem to recall. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor, when you talk, you can make that point. The director's already indicated he hasn't got recollection. So no need for that. Yes, please. Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to just go straight ahead and speak to the alternate motion in front of us brought forward by Mayor Wilkie. I will not support the motion. And I'm going to just speak very briefly about the land management plan and the data that the Mayor referenced. Firstly, I think we've had enough discussion in terms of section. 52 AA, which I will be raising, raising very soon.

01:44:00 And I'll have a better discussion about that later. But the land management plan process is not the only available option available to Council. So I think the argument that the Mayor's relied upon is not complete. And I think in terms of good governance, a decision to discontinue temporary car parking should may be made. After all information is gathered and understood in terms of data, I'm doing the right thing. And there's been a lot of discussion on this and you know, there's a claim that the community no longer supports it. And I'm going to just reference data. We've got different readings of community sentiment and I respect both and I want that on the table. And I also want on the table. There is a shared understanding around this table that we do not, this is temporary car

11.1.5 OPERATIONAL PLAN 2025-2026 Q4 QUARTERLY REPORTING ¶

▶ 01:44:40

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

11.1.6 TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR) - NOOSA WATERS RESIDENT ADVISORY GROUP ¶

▶ 01:44:48

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

11.1.7 UPDATE TO INFRASTRUCTURE CHARGES RESOLUTION ¶

▶ 01:44:56

01:45:00 parking. That is not the intention of any Council around this table to see this as a permanent use. In terms of the consultation on 30th of July, Noosa Today ran a poll asking a direct specific question. Should paid parking continue during the Christmas holidays at Noosa Headlines Park? The result was 83% in favour, 17% against. That's about as clear an answer as a community survey can give. By contrast, that figure has been used to suggest the opposite during our discussions. And I'm referencing here the Council's destination management plan survey. I want to talk about, you know, the importance of the question asked. The question that was asked at the time came from a bundled statement about maintaining

11.1.8 REVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY PURPOSE LAND AND INFRASTRUCTURE TENURE POLICY ¶

▶ 01:45:01

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

11.1.9 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1576 OF 2026 - SHORT STAY LETTING LOCAL LAW REVIEW DECISION - 8 WITTA CIRCUIT, NOOSA HEADS ¶

▶ 01:45:05

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

11.1.10 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1763 OF 2026 - SHORT STAY LETTING LOCAL LAW REVIEW DECISION - 5/7 PEZA COURT, NOOSA HEADS ¶

▶ 01:45:15

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

11.1.11 MCU17/0559.05 - PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 1842 OF 2026 - FOR MINOR CHANGE TO A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A MATERIAL CHANGE OF USE FOR A DUPLEX DWELLING AT 2/16 GRANT STREET, NOOSA HEADS ¶

▶ 01:45:20

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

11.1.12 DELEGATIONS ANNUAL REVIEW - COUNCIL TO CEO ¶

▶ 01:45:34

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

11.1.13 GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS ENBLOC ¶

▶ 01:45:46· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

01:46:00 and prioritising open space generally, with Lyne Park mentioned only as an example, sitting under a values heading separate from the survey's actual transport and parking questions. Again, this 20-year seasonal activity to me was a reasonable exception. Yet it was not. Despite and I've actually found all my emails where I made the request to Council circulated to all the councillors where I knew this was going to be an issue at the time. And I specifically requested specific questions about a 20-year seasonal overflow car parking arrangement. Unfortunately, that wasn't accepted. And the understanding at the time was that we were going to do further consultation. So again, compare apples to apples, the Noosa Today one asked a specific question, the DMP one was not.

01:47:00 So I don't think we should be looking at that as reliable data. Beyond that, I do want to add that if we approve this amendment, what we're going to do is end an activity. That's operated for 20 over 20 years without a diminishing the park standing as one of the Shire's premier recreational assets that returns roughly about 85 grand a year to our local community causes, and that funds its own upkeep with, I think up to half of the council's profit shares since 2020, that's been quarantined for improvements to the park itself. It's run by volunteers at no cost. It's run by volunteers at no cost. It's run by volunteers at no cost to council in the exact week this precinct is under the greatest pressure. If we are going to end a long standing community supported self funding activity, we should

01:48:00 be doing it on the strength of clear evidence that the community wants that outcome. On the evidence actually before us, I don't believe that case has been made by Mayor Wilkie. For those reasons, I don't support the amendment. And I do want to reiterate there is a need for it. Councillor Wilson: I can't believe that we're doing this again. We're spending so much time on something that should be quite simple. I don't know why we're singling out one car up in the absence of a parking management plan for the whole Shire. Times may have changed in 20 years, but they haven't changed much since 2020, when the Go Noosa initiatives began. In 2021-22, we had the free buses. We were paying payments to TransLink of $248,000 for those buses,

01:49:00 and the total Go Noosa program cost us $588,000, so a net without the free buses of $340,000. In recent years, because we've got 50 cent spares, we're no longer funding the local buses, only the loop bus service. Yet costs to operate the Go Noosa program have increased to over $940,000 for this financial year, with peak period management, free bus and drop off zone costing $477,000 in 2025-26 and rising to $567,000 in this financial year. Yet we're complaining about $30,000 for a land management plan. Is the Go Noosa initiatives working? We still have congestion. We still have demand for parking. We still have under-utilisation of park and ride facilities, but only 2% of survey respondents saying they used it. We don't have much data on cars coming in or who's using the buses. We can only really monitor the loop bus, which has increased 25% since 2021. We can measure that there

01:50:00 are more people coming in, but we don't know if they would ordinarily have come by car, another bus route, or whether there's just an overall increase in people. It could just be attracting young people who don't have a car. There have been issues with using the AFL grounds for the park and ride since it started in 2020. That hasn't changed. The occupancy of the 400 spaces under 10% utilised on 3 January, and feedback has been that it's impractical for those carrying bulky beach equipment, and it still takes a long time to get to the beach. We don't have a parking management plan, although this has been reported under the operational plan for a number of years, with varying results of being on track, disrupted, on track, disrupted, and now it's in this year's operational plan to finalise the Noosa parking management plan to guide our approach to parking throughout the Shire. So why don't we wait for that? But why are we still waiting for it? And I know there's been staffing shortages that have

01:51:00 contributed to that. In May 2023, Council made a commitment to community consultation on Lyons Park. A motion was amended to keep this separate from the DMP, but this consultation never happened. The DMP was then also supposed to be used to determine whether parking would occur at Lyons Park for Easter 2026, but that specific question was never asked. The one question mentioning Lyons Park was asked obliquely in the long-form DMP survey, but only the 900 people who were interested in the DMP and had the time and inclination to respond to a long survey got a voice. There would be many people interested in the future of Lyons Park who didn't get to participate in that one of many questions. The local paper did a more specific poll, potentially reaching a different audience and got a different result. We have an obligation to act in the public interest and give everyone a voice. The survey results tell us nothing except that there are mixed opinions in the community. The business community has said losing this parking over Christmas will impact their income at

01:52:00 this peak period. In the absence of any economic analysis by Council, to the contrary, I'm happy to say that we can't keep using the comms team as busy as an excuse not to engage with the community or proceed with basic tasks. I note also that councillors have not seen or approved a forward engagement calendar for comms for over two years. There's no clear data on the number of cars visiting Noosa main beach area. We can and should install counters at intersections and in car parks. We don't know if we're getting more or fewer cars in as a result of the Go Noosa initiatives. We don't regularly measure congestion. The Easter period was presented as an opportunity to compare traffic and congestion with and without lines parked being used for parking. We did that but the two periods were not comparable, one being the end of March whilst school holidays started 3rd April. We can't compare congestion in peak and off-peak periods when making decisions around parking. We have a saying here that we need to finish

01:53:00 what we've started. So please, let's stop making this political. And ask the CEO to finish the completion of the outstanding operational tasks that have been in previous council resolutions. The parking management plan, traffic modelling, impact studies, community consultation, measuring congestion and preparing a land management plan that should have been in place two years ago. This will give us the information to make strategic decisions that are based on fact and not on personal experience. Speaker 2: Thank you, opposition to talk. Thank you very much. Councillor Wegener: This has been a wonderful discussion and thank you for Councillor Lorentson and Nicola for that good speeches. I'm going to come at it from a slightly different place. We have strategies and plans like the transport strategy, the destination management plan, walking and cycling strategy, climate change response plan, Go Noosa. And these come through a long process

01:54:00 of planning, drafting, councillor feedback and planning. And I think it's really important that we take this into consideration in public consultation. And I'm of the belief that if we do not follow these plans, we erode them. And I believe that we are eroding the plans. The overflow parking at the Lions Park is inconsistent with the transport strategy and the DMP. But we've discussed that. However, we looked at the Noosa Today information poll and that carries the same weight amongst around the table here, I feel, as the transport strategy. The Destination Management Plan and other consultations, which they don't have the public, the consultation. When New York City Council does something to create a plan, there's so much to it, there's so much planning, there is consultation, and there's a certain enormity to that. And I feel that when we erode the value of these plans, we erode actually the consultation process, because these plans were put into place with lots of consultation over a lot of years.

01:55:00 And when we go against these plans, we erode the planning, we erode the vision for a long-term new set, and we erode trust in the residents. So, I will support this because it is consistent with the overall plan from what I've seen in the last six years as a councillor. It's very clear that we want to maintain our green spaces. End of story. Speaker 2: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: And Phillip, you want to say something more? Yes. Lawson said for enough evidence to give me a really good determination of, and what I'm asking for, is that body of work to be done, so then I can clearly vote on the evidence before us. But unfortunately, today we're still not in a position where we can use the word evidence as our decision-making framework.

01:56:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I don't think we have to add to a debate that we've had 16 times this month. I think there's... perhaps a synthesis that can be made into the arguments for and against. And to me, the first one is, how you vote on this is going to relate to what sort of time frame you're adopting your thinking. The second one is, how your vote's going to relate to what your assumptions are in terms of local economic impact. And the third one is about how you view what the community has told us. So let's start. For me, it's clear, our strategic direction, as set in policies and plans, says that the best way forward, as supported through numerous strategies and quite significant support from the community, is that we make Hastings Street a more people-centred place.

01:57:00 If you look at the long term, there is no question that the benefit to Noosa and its brand is in phasing out, supplying extra car parks. If you look at the short term, you might say, well, we're in a particular economic cycle, and there is a risk to the next six months for those businesses. So that relates to the assumptions that we've made. It's about the economy. As I just mentioned, short term, you might think that adding extra car parks increases the profits of the businesses. But we have to make an assessment, how much does that add? This is how much is lost to the Noosa brand by the national media coverage of the congestion.

01:58:00 And if we keep on putting back, taking the necessary steps, we're going to lose a lot of the traffic. And if we keep on putting back, taking the necessary steps, as outlined in our policies and plans, to reduce congestion by reducing our focus on the private motor vehicle and trying to get people there by other means. So for me, the basic economic assumption is really clear. If you push your timeframe for your decision out, this motion makes eminent sense. There is no doubt that if we continue on the current trajectory, that what will happen to the main beach, Hastings Precinct, is what happens in every other congested coastal town. The last one's about community consultation, whether a poll by a local media company recently versus the, you know, the suggestion is you have to balance out the TMP. And I think Councillor Wegener' point is quite clear, is that we've had over a decade of community consultation now since this council was reformed.

01:59:00 And on most of the key principles, we've had a decade of community consultation now since this council was reformed. All the things that are leading to support of this. There is very large support. Our community isn't divided. On this particular issue, if you break it down into the individual thing, yes, the community is divided. So will more community consultation tell us anything different? Highly unlikely. We know the community is divided. So then we, as individuals, make our decisions based on those other criteria. Finally, we look at, you know, this concept we need more evidence. Now, in the Airfield Ecological Sustainable Development framework that was put in by the President many years ago, the concept of intergenerational equity, and so don't put off making a really important decision just because you haven't got all the evidence. What we have is, over many years, staff saying congestion is a problem, and over recent years, and I can also recall what Councillor Wilkie mentioned,

12.1 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT JULY 2026 ¶

▶ 01:59:13· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

02:00:00 that the expert advice is that parking in Lion's Park contributes to congestion. Yes, we could get more evidence to be more quantified, but the question is, do we want to take that step to start moving away from five feet from one place to access during the peak periods, to one where it becomes an event space, where people feel free, where there's activities. And to me, that's going to be an incremental process, and to me, this makes sense. And the final one is, whether it's $30,000, $60,000, is, I wasn't here for the general discussion, but last month I remember clearly most people agreed that it was a phasing out process. So we have to look at the cost and benefits of going down an alternative path to this, if the costs of doing the head management plan versus the benefits

02:01:00 that might come from short-term continuation of the historic park parking. So for me, this is the strategic step that is in accordance with policy and follows the overall strategic direction that has been quite substantially supported by the community over many years. Oh, oh, Councillor Finzel, you haven't talked yet. Would you like to speak? I would say anything on the matter. Councillor Finzel: I think a lot has been said. I would just like to make the point that the matter before us in the general committee meeting was around the Noosa Heads Lion Park LNP. The author of that was the property advisor.

02:02:00 From the property development and regulation department. I think we need to come back to actually what we are looking at. We are looking at the higher order planning around land use. And to me, the debate has been reduced to conversations around, well, you know, they've all been around. . In terms of meeting the land management plan determination, once and for all, for me, would support a framework that can address all the matters being raised now and into the future. And the key mechanisms of a land management plan are about zoning and density shifts. Parking requirement adjustments.

02:03:00 Local road and active travel design. Traffic impact assessments. By making this really, bringing it down to what the mayor's brought before us, discontinued temporary car parking and Noosa Heads Lion's Park, to me, diminishes the higher order of strategic thinking that I would like to have. When we're talking about future sustainability through a land management plan that will, in my opinion, inform these strategies into the future, instead of consistently coming back and talking about, do we write to the minister? Is there legislative change? Is there enough data? All these things are relevant. But in my opinion, I think putting to the test around the land management plan and engaging our community about the higher use of that land through that process that we need to do to propose that.

02:04:00 . . . . . . . . . So I cannot support this today in its current form with how it's been worded to discontinue the temporary car parking because in my opinion it is not addressing the higher order of that land use and to meet the requirements set forward by the legislation for the land management plan. Thank you. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Wilkie, would you like to pose? Mayor Wilkie: Thank you Mr Chair. Look councillors, you can save yourself further divisive decisions.

02:05:00 A land management plan is only going to take you to the same spot we are today. We're dealing with a divided community on this. So you're just kicking the can down the road by either just writing to the minister to allow us to keep doing the same thing over and over again or doing a land management plan in the hope that it will have a decisive end at it. We know that a land management plan is likely to put you in the same position because the community is divided about this. This is a difficult, it typifies one of the difficult decisions councillors have to make. We have the evidence before us. When I talked about evidence and data, I was referring to traffic congestion data. When the trial was done the first week of Easter holidays as compared to the second week of the Easter holidays and they found that there was an increase in traffic congestion

02:06:00 at the roundabout. When the Lions parking was in place and there was a report last year that also stipulated 40% increase in congestion at the roundabout on Noosa Parade because of Lions car parking. When it comes to data raised by other councillors relating to public opinion, there is the DMP, statistically valid survey responses that said the community does not support, 70% of respondents did not support use of our green spaces for car parking. And then there is the Facebook click bait survey open to everyone that had a different result. So you can make a decision today to discontinue car parking at the Lions park which has data, traffic data on its side, a statistically valid community survey on its side and avoids, there is no cost involved.

02:07:00 It respects what has already been determined to be the highest order, the highest and best use of this recreational reserve and that is parkland for the people as recreational reserve. Councillors, I put this here today, this motion, because it is a clear choice between doing the right thing, making a bold decision, which I am more than happy to defend. I heard the term leadership spelled out in various forms around this table. This decision requires leadership and that is knowing when the community is split but going with the evidence and the data and the highest and best use of the recreational reserve

02:08:00 to make a decision today to discontinue car parking in Lions Park and end this controversial legacy issue that we have inherited once and for all. So the community can move on. That is what we are here for. Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I will put the motion. Those in favour? Aye. That is Councillor Wilkie, Wegener and Stockwell. Those against? It is Councillor Wilson, Lorentson and Phillips. And? Councillor Finzel: Against. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Finzel, the motion is lost. Just a question. Can we keep going? Pat Spicer: Can we keep going? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Are you happy to proceed? I think we normally break at 12. Councillor Wegener: Do you want to put it on the table? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. No one seems to be keen on break so I shall proceed with the meeting.

02:09:00 Councillor Lorentson: No, this was you moving a motion. Oh, sorry, no, you're right, yes. Councillor Phillips: Regarding a Noosa Headlines Park land management plan, LNP, and a request to further report to a future council meeting detailing scope, costs, funding implications, consultation requirements and the proposed timeline for the preparation of an LNP for Noosa Headlines Park, including consideration of a temporary overflow car park in accordance with the requirements of the Land Act 1994 and the Queensland Government's guideline for managing actions

02:10:00 consistent and inconsistent with the purpose of trust land and B, follow consideration of the further report determined whether to proceed. With the preparation of the land management plan and allocation of appropriate budget. Speaker 2: Do we have a seconder for that? Councillor Finzel: We have a second for debate. Speaker 2: Councillor Finzel, Councillor Phil, do you have a call? Councillor Phillips: It's quite interesting listening to everyone's different opinions. There's been really good points raised by Councillor Finzel just previously on the higher use. So thank you for that, Councillor. Great. And to Councillor Nicola's point was their data about the people using the park. So that was good. Thank you. So with my motion before us, I'm actually not going to ask council today when to approve the land management plan.

02:11:00 I'm not asking us to allocate the $30,000, $50,000 or $75,000. And I'm certainly not asking council to decide today Lines Park should permanently remain available. But I am going to ask for the information that council needs before we make that decision. The report this month told us that seasonal overflow parking is an inconsistent use of that reserve. And that following changes to the Land Act, there is now a lawful pathway under section 52 AB for a land management plan. That pathway requires council to be satisfied that the inconsistent action would not diminish the reserve purpose. And would not adversely affect the public interest. I accept that, but there's an important sentence in the report. And it was that council should first consider whether overflow parking is reasonably capable of satisfying those tests before embarking on a full LMP process.

02:12:00 The problem is that I have not been able to be provided with enough information or evidence based to make that decision. And the state guideline tells us what we should consider. If we're in this position, it actually asks, an LMP is going to ask about the scale and nature of the use, whether impacts can be mitigated, whether the land remains recognisable and usable for its reserve purpose, whether its future use is compromised, community views and values and environmental, economic, recreational, social and strategic public interest. We haven't been given that assessment. I also might go over time, so I might just tell you that. I'm going to try and stay under. We don't know from the report what percentage of the usable reserve would actually be occupied. And we haven't been given an assessment of what physical impacts more than 20 years of historical seasonal parking has actually caused. We haven't been given rehabilitation data, cumulative impact data, or a detailed assessment on weather, social, seasonal controls, wet weather closures, vegetation protection and rehabilitation.

02:13:00 Rehabilitation could actually mitigate those impacts. The community was told in multiple media releases that we need results. We need data to form a long-term position. So that history is before us. The consultation was actually promised. I spent a couple of hours watching the March 24 meeting where we had a conversation with the DMP. We had an amendment that took out the DMP from the consultation. And we still haven't done that. If the legal framework has changed, then Council should understand what complying with the framework is actually going to require. Compliance is not by itself a policy answer.

02:14:00 The fact that the land management plan may now be required does not tell us whether preparing one is worthwhile. The history of this car park used for car parking matters. Because the logical sequence will be consult, gather the evidence, and then make the long-term decision. And I don't think we've completed that sequence today. There's also been a significant change in the legal framework since Council first started discussing this issue. The 2024 amendments to the Land Act created this management plan pathway for statutory body trustees. The state guideline made clear that inconsistent use does not automatically fail simply because it is inconsistent. It specifically recognises that with adequate management and inconsistent action may be capable of occurring without diminishing underlying purpose. And that doesn't mean Wines Park passes that test. Nor does it mean it doesn't. It means we need to test it before we decide we can't.

02:15:00 And importantly, the report also said no external community or stakeholder consultation has been done. And yet community views are one of the matters that the State Government should consider if the State guideline expresses, identifies, as relevant to the public interest assessment. There is another reason I think we need to be cautious about choosing, not proceeding with this, is Council's own history has shown that we have consistently treated the future of Wines Park as an issue requiring further evidence and community input. In that March meeting that I watched from 2023, we also had staff commenting on the Wines Park project during questioning that Wines Park provides a significant community benefit. The original wording to the motion removed the destination management plan as part of consultation. The final resolution became seek community feedback on the use of the Noosa Head to Wines Park for parking. That matters to me because Council has publicly acknowledged that the specific consultation

02:16:00 has not yet occurred. In 2024, we told the community we have an obligation to honour Wines Park as part of the Wines Park project as part of the Council resolution. And Council further acknowledged that it wanted to specifically ask the community about public open space for parking, particularly the Wines Park. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor, your motion has nothing to do with consultation. You're going off topic. Councillor Phillips: Yes. Okay, good point. Speaker 2: You've got a long speech. Yeah, that's fine. Councillor Phillips: I accept that. So my motion is going to ask or is asking for the scope, the works, the actual cost, what's required, what consultation is required, what technical work is required. Tell us more about the native title implications. It's going to tell us about the timeframe and the funding implications because it's going to tell us what is required for an LNP. So I'll keep it really simple then to finalise. At the point when Council can decide whether preparing an LNP presents good land management

02:17:00 and good value for the community, that's when I can make a really good decision. Compliance is important, but compliance itself is not the policy answer. The fact is the LNP may be required, doesn't tell us preparing one is worthwhile or not. That decision is for us today and that's why I have the motion in front of us. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I would like to move an amendment, please. I might separate the amendments. I have two amendments relating to the same subject matter, but I'll separate.

02:18:00 I see. How do you want to separate them? Just see. And then D. Thank you. First amendment is C, that Council write to the Minister under section 52 AA of the Land Act 1994, advising that Council is considering the preparation of a land management plan for the reserve and requesting interim approval for the use of part of the reserve of temporary overflow car parking during the 2026 Christmas holiday period. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's been moved. Do we have a seconder? I'll second. Councillor Wilson is seconded. Councillor Lorentson is seconded. Councillor Lorentson: Moving this amendment, and I first want to state that it does not replace or undermine the land management plan pathway, which I think is a really important process that we need to undertake or make at least the decision to undertake when we receive further information.

02:19:00 The amendment basically ensures that Council also explores the alternative lawful pathway available under the Land Act 1994 before it commits significant time, cost and staff resources to a land management plan process. At the general meeting, Councillors were presented with a report that focused almost exclusively on the preparation of a land management plan under section 52 AB. The report concluded that a land management plan was the appropriate process available to Council and outlined a process estimated to take between six and 12 months and cost between $30,000 and $75,000. In my view, the report was not balanced because it did not provide Councillors with a meaningful assessment of the alternative pathway available under section 52 AA.

02:20:00 As a result, Councils were presented with one option in detail rather than a comparison of the available statutory pathways and their respective costs, timeframes and implications. During the general committee debate, I raised concerns regarding section 52 AA and I sought greater clarity about whether that provision remained available to Council. I also sought legal clarification and proposed that Council write directly to the Minister regarding the availability of that pathway. Unfortunately, those requests were not supported. Following the meeting, I pursued the matter further through governance because I remained very concerned that Councils had not been provided with all the information necessary to make an informed decision. Specifically, I sought clarification as to whether section 52 AA was available to Council and whether a land management plan was required for the Minister to consider the matter. I was subsequently advised, as we all were today, that section 52 AA was available to

02:21:00 Council and that a land management plan is not required for the Minister to consider an application. Instead, Council may write directly to the Minister and address the statutory tests of whether the proposed use would a diminish the purpose of the reserve and b whether it would adversely affect the public interest. That advice is significant. If section 52 AA is available, then we have an opportunity to open the over time flow car parking for this Christmas. Importantly, and I do want to say this, and I do also want to reference Council Finzel's comments in terms of the importance of the land management plan process. The amendment doesn't prevent Council from preparing a land management plan should that ultimately be required. Importantly also, the amendment doesn't commit Council to overflow parking.

02:22:00 It's temporary. It's only for this Christmas. And it doesn't determine the future use of Lyons Park. What the amendment does is that it keeps all lawful options open. If the Minister advises that a section 52 AA approval is not available or not appropriate, then Council can proceed with the land management plan pathway fully informed and with no loss of opportunity. Or, if section 52 AA approval is not available or not appropriate, then Council can proceed with the land management plan. We can open Lyons Park this Christmas for the overflow parking and we can still proceed with the land management plan. For that reason, I believe that this amendment is a sensible, low-cost and practical step that improves our information base and preserves our options and ensures that when we do decide

02:23:00 But all available pathways are considered before committing to a significant planning exercise. Ultimately, you know, when I look at the discussion we're having, it's to me, it centres around good governance, informed decision making and ensuring that council explores every lawful option before deciding which path to pursue or again, whether both paths are what we need to do. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Councillor Phillips: I was 21 years old when I joined the police and I had to try and learn how to interpret legislation and it was very confusing at the time. And luckily, 16 years later, I know what the little A and the big A and but it is very difficult. Luckily, I'm surrounded by a group of people that really understand how it works. So I feel grateful for the knowledge at the table for me. Now, I've interpreted legislation for 16 years.

12.2 BUDGET REVIEW 1 FOR THE 2026/27 FINANCIAL YEAR ¶

▶ 02:23:27· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

02:24:00 It was very good that Councillor Lorentson and bought 52 AA of the Land Act to me and I am going to support this process as a pathway. It allows the minister to approve an action that is inconsistent with the purpose of trust land. If the minister is satisfied that the action will not diminish the purpose of the reserve or adversely affects the public interest, the minister can also impose conditions. So this motion. Is an asking council to ignore the Land Act is asking to use a pathway that the land that was. And if we want to keep if we need to keep the scale of what the proposed is in perspective, we're also talking about 21 days of the Christmas period. We're not talking about 365 days and we're not talking about paving lines park or converting it into a car park. So we're talking about limited portion of the reserve being temporarily used during an extraordinary. Extraordinarily peak period with wet weather closures, vegetation, protection, management patrols and rehabilitation afterwards, after 25 years, I don't believe that we are actually using this car park for this intention.

02:25:00 We can use section 52 AA that it isn't a determination we need to make on behalf of the minister. We can actually ask the minister to do that for us and provided the history, we can also explain. The limited duration and we can identify the community and public interest considerations. We can potentially even detail the environmental safeguards. And then the minister can determine whether the statutory test is satisfied. And that is very important to me. Um, castles relied on the light lines park for many, many years. And if the minister considers the temporary parking diminishes the reserve purpose or adversely affects the public interest, then the approval is not going to be given. But I don't believe the council needs to close a structure, true pathway without even putting the question to the person in parliament that has been empowered to decide it for approximately 21 days of temporary use while we determine the long term management of this land.

02:26:00 I think asking the minister is entirely reasonable. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Others wish to talk to the amendment. No. Council members. No. I'll put the amendment. Those in favour. Council Wilson, Lawrence and Phillips. Wagner. Yes. Yes. Wilkie and Finzel. Those against. Council Solvewell. The amendment is carried and becomes part of the motion. Councillor Lorentson: I have another amendment that I'd like to test. D. That council's letter to the minister, that council's letter to the minister addressed the statutory requirements of section 52 AA and demonstrate that the proposed temporary overflow car parking would not diminish the purpose of the reserve and would not adversely affect the public interest, having regard to one, the temporary and limited nature of the use, being approximately 20% of the use of the car parking.

02:27:00 to one days per annum and affecting only the portion of the reserve required for seasonal overflow parking to the site's historical use for seasonal overflow parking over over more than 20 years. Three community demand for additional parking during peak holiday periods for the community, economic and charitable benefits associated with facilitating access to the locality during the Christmas period. And five proposed. Sorry, existing. Can we change that word to existing? Having regard to existing mitigation measures, including seasonal operating limits, wet weather closures, vegetation protection measures, site management controls and post season rehabilitation works.

02:28:00 Speaker 2: Second amendment. Councillor Finzel: Can I? Oh, should I? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, she can't. Councillor Finzel: Karen's second. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Second to the main. Ah, okay. Sorry, can't do it. You can? Councillor Wilson: Can I? Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a standard. Yeah, it's fine. Second. Okay, Councillor Walsh. Councillor Lorentson: This amendment is intended to ensure that if council proceeds with a section 52 AA application, the minister receives a complete and balanced submission addressing the two statutory tests. The minister can only make an informed decision if all relevant considerations are presented, including both the potential impacts on the reserve and the broader public interest outcomes associated with the proposal in relation to the first test, namely whether the proposal would diminish the purpose of the reserve, it's important that the minister is informed that the proposed use is temporary, seasonal and limited in duration.

02:29:00 The overflow parking operation is intended to ensure that the proposed use is temporary, seasonal and limited in duration. Compensate was treated for more than two decades alongside the reserve continuing to function as a highly valued recreational space. It's also relevant and impacts have been mitigated through conditions such as seasonal operating limits, wet weather closures, vegetation protection measures, and rehabilitation works. These are precisely the types of measures contemplated in the section 52 AA suspect access policy. In relation to the public interest test, I believe Council has an obligation to present evidence of the demonstrated community demand for the service, the charitable and community benefits that arise from it, and the contribution that Tewantin Noosa Lions Club make to our community.

02:30:00 Council records show longstanding community use of the facility and significant funds being generated and returned to local charitable and community purposes. The operation has also historically provided a source of funding to Council for park rehabilitation and improvements. I also believe it's important that a minister is informed of community sentiment. While there are differing views within the community, there is evidence of significant support for retaining seasonal overflowing parking. And I do reference the Noosa Today poll that asked a direct question about whether paid parking, shifting, parking and parking will continue at Lyons Park during the Christmas holiday, which recorded support of 83% and opposition of 17%.

02:31:00 By contrast, survey results frequently cited in Council reports were derived from the broader Destination Management Plan consultation questions that addressed broader policy principles, rather than directly asking... Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm calling you up for the same reason. There's nothing in your amendment relating to the consultation results thereof. Councillor Lorentson: It does. Section 52AA. It does. Section 52AA. It does. Section 52AA. And I reference community sentiment, community demand for additional parking. It's captured under the public interest. Speaker 2: Okay, you demand. Okay, you made a plea. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So given the significance of the issue, I believe a minister should be provided with a full understanding of the available evidence, including the DNP, Noosa Today, the petition, which I think there was over 2,000 people in support, 40 that opposed. All that evidence needs to be provided. Importantly, this amendment's not about arguing that overflow parking should become the permanent purpose of Lions Club.

02:32:00 I do not believe that's not what anyone around this table is proposing or wanting. The long-term objective remains protecting Lions Park as recreational open space. However, we do not currently, in my opinion, have alternative transport solutions in place. We do not have one-way traffic, dedicated bus priority measures or other infrastructure that may ultimately remove the need for temporary overflow parking. Until those alternatives exist, I believe it's appropriate that the Minister considers the proposal in its proper context. A modest seasonal and temporary use, 21 days or 5% of our calendar year, affecting only a portion, it doesn't affect the entire reserve, it only affects a portion of the reserve required for the seasonal overflow. And we have already existing mitigation measures, strong community support, demonstrated public benefit and significant charitable outcomes.

02:33:00 The amendment simply ensures that those matters are placed before the Minister, so that any decision is made on the basis of a complete and balanced report. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Anyone wish to talk to the amendment? No? Yes. Oh, Councillor Dead, sorry. Councillor Wilkie. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, look, I can't support this amendment. It's deeply flawed because you can't require a letter to demonstrate the proposed temporary overflow car parking would not diminish the purpose of the reserve and would not adversely affect the public interest, because that's the purpose of the LNP. If we can just demonstrate all those things in a letter, why would we need an LNP? It's jumping to a conclusion that hasn't been decided yet. I think it's improper and I can't support it.

02:34:00 Councillor Lorentson: Through the Chair, can I provide a little bit of clarity to the Mayor? I think he may have misunderstood. Mayor Wilkie: I don't want to debate it. I've just put it. I've not understood it. Councillor Lorentson: I will. Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Ask a question. Use the debate. Sure. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Anyone else? Okay. No. Councillor Robinson. Councillor Lorentson: I wasn't going to, but I will just respond to what the Mayor said. I just think he might be a little bit confused. The D actually doesn't predetermine. Point of order. Mayor Wilkie: I'm not confused. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. So, just so I can provide your- Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No point of order, Councillor Wilkie. Councillor Lorentson: No point of order. Thank you, Chair. That the amendment doesn't predetermine any outcome. It simply states that the letter to the Minister, which the statutory requirements of section 52AA states that we need to determine two statutory tests.

02:35:00 So, what I'm asking is, is there a need to determine two statutory tests? If a complete information is forwarded to the Minister so he can make an assessment whether it's a support or not your support. The conclusion may be that it doesn't satisfy the test. I don't want to predetermine that. The amendment simply asks that we provide all information, all available information to the Minister. So, again, a balanced and complete assessment. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, I'll put the amendment. Those in favour? That's Councillor Wilson, Lorentson and Phillips. Online? No? I don't support it. Okay, so Councillor Wegener. And those against would be Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Stockwell.

02:36:00 The amendment is carried. That becomes part of the substantive motion and only Councillor Phillips has talked to that substantive motion. Anyone else wish to talk to the substantive motion? Speaker 6: Yes. Councillor Wilson: If we embark on the land management plan exercise, we need to pass the public interest test. If we start community consultation early on, we will find out if there is public support for using the space as temporary overflow parking in peak periods and whether that brings community benefit. If there's no public support, then we don't need to complete the Land Management Plan. If there is public support and parking continues at peak periods, the LNP is required for compliance with the Land Act. This worn plan gives us an option to use the park for other uses in the future. It does not lock us in to any particular use for any period.

02:37:00 The park is still completely a park for the rest of the year, so there's no diminishment. No new infrastructure is being planned. The park is not used for parking in wet weather, so as to protect the park from damage. There is an established precedent for temporary holiday period parking at Lyons Park, and the temporary use does not result in any permanent alteration to the reserve. The cost of the plan is largely consultants, so it's not actually taking a step away from other projects, although I'm noting in this actual motion we're not progressing to the LNP just yet, much as I would like to. Council should have had a land management plan in place since 2024 to manage the inconsistent use that Council has continued to approve in 2024, 2025 and Easter 2026. It should have been an operational compliance exercise, and the cost of £30,000 or so would already by now have been recouped from paid parking

02:38:00 income at Lyons Park. It's our only paid parking we've got, and certainly councillors want to push us towards paid parking. We do have paid parking at the beach, and we do have a way that we can continue this parking. I don't particularly have an opinion on the long-term future of the park. I think we can only do that with community benefit, so I don't have a personal opinion. I just don't want to make any decisions on parking before we have. And in the meantime, we should continue to investigate what we need to do with the land management plan. Councillor Lorentson: I'll speak, and I just want to acknowledge and respect the chair in allowing some leniency in terms of going over the five minutes. So mine will go over just slightly. Councillors, I support the motion and I support the amendments.

02:39:00 To me, at the heart of this debate, it's not actually about car parking, to me it's a debate about governance. It's a debate about whether councillors were given all the information available before committing public funds, staff resources and community effort to a potentially lengthy planning process. I don't believe we did. The report before us outlines one pathway under the Land Act, a land management plan. It estimates a process that could have taken between six and 12 months and cost between $30,000 and $75,000. What concerns me is that councillors weren't provided with a balanced assessment of alternative pathways available under section 52 AA. In my view, councillors should have been presented with both pathways. We should have been able to compare the cost, implication, risk and opportunities of each before deciding which avenue should be pursued or whether, as we've got in front of us, whether both avenues should be pursued.

02:40:00 Instead, one pathway was explored in detail and the other was largely absent. I am very disappointed by that and I'm very concerned by that. The general meeting, I raised concerns, I sought clarifications and I moved amendments. Seeking further information and proposing that council write directly to the minister regarding section 52 AA. Those amendments were not supported. Importantly, I don't believe that was because the councillors disagreed with their intent. In my opinion, councillors were simply relying on the information and advice given to them at the time. I remained unconvinced. So after the general meeting, I pursued the matter further. And I asked two simple questions to governance that I needed a response. Is section 52 AA available to council and does section 52 AA require land management plan? The answer came back that section 52 AA is available and a land management plan is not required.

02:41:00 Council can write directly to the minister and seek consideration of an interim approval by addressing the statutory tests. Councils, that information is significant. Because had I not pursued this matter further, today we would be sitting here and considering a potentially expensive and resource intensive land management plan process without first exploring a lawful alternative pathway. That should concern all of us. Good governance requires that all available options are identified and considered before decisions are made, not afterwards. And that's exactly what I think this is about. The motion in front of us seeks to address. They don't seek permanent approval. They don't seek to change the purpose of Lyons Park. They don't seek to stop a land management plan. They simply ask council to get all the information.

02:42:00 Write to the minister seeking interim approval for the 2026 Christmas holiday period while council continues to investigate a land management plan process and longer term transport solutions. And that's it. 21 days, councillors. Approximately 5% of the calendar year. On only a portion of the reserve. A temporary seasonal activity that has operated for over 20 years. The minister says no. Council loses nothing. We proceed with the land management plan pathway. If the minister says yes, council may avoid unnecessary expenditure of rate paced funds and significant staff resources. Or we may choose to still continue with the land management plan. Surely that question is worth asking before committing substantial public resources to a process that could take up to a year. What I struggle with most is how this issue has become one of the defining political debates of this council term.

02:43:00 For six years, I have watched this particular issue divide our community. And I keep coming back in my head to the same question. Have we lost perspective? Why are we spending so much time, effort, emotion and resources on 21 days of seasonal overflow car parking? Council deals with temporary uses of public land operationally all the time. The Noosa Triathlon uses Lyons Park for 10 days for event operations, including bicycle storage. The Peregian Christmas Carols utilise the park. The Noosa Triathlon utilises overflowing parking arrangements. The Farmers Markets operates from sporting grounds. Noosa Council's own park and ride uses AFL grounds for overflow car parking. These matters, councillors, are managed operationally, pragmatically, sensibly. So how did this become political? Meanwhile, we've got workers in town that can't afford to live here.

02:44:00 The people who helped build this community are leaving. Families are being priced out. Roads are required. Pipeline are upgrading. Stormwater infrastructure is ageing. These are the issues our community expects us to focus on. These are our core responsibilities. Yet an extraordinary amount of council's time, staff, effort and community goodwill has been consumed debating 21 days of seasonal car parking. I genuinely believe we have lost perspective, councillors. The role of council is to unite our community, not divide it. To solve problems and not create political battle lines. To bring people together, not force them in opposing camps. And then, and I can't finish without talking about the Noosa Tewantin Lions Club. I think somewhere along the line, we also have forgotten who we are actually talking about. This is not a commercial operator. This is a volunteer organisation with 44 members, many of whom are in their 70s and 80s.

02:45:00 These volunteers spend a long day, often upwards of 10 hours at a time, standing in the summer sun over the Christmas holidays, but no pay. Not because they enjoy parking cars. The joy is not in parking cars. The joy is in helping people. The joy is in supporting local charities. The joy is in giving back to the community. In many ways, they are the first ambassadors. Visitors meet when they arrive in Noosa during our busiest holiday people. They represent the community spirit that Noosa prides itself on. For more than two, I've got two more minutes. For more, please. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor, you're currently nearly two minutes over. And you spent a lot of the beginning of your talk repeating the statement you've already made. I'll ask you to close. Councillor Lorentson: I will close. I'll ask you to close. I have one paragraph left, if that's okay.

02:46:00 Thank you. Thank you. It's the closing paragraph. For more than 20 years, this activity has generated significant community benefit and Council has historically received a share of the proceeds. The relationship between the Lions Club and Lions Park stretches more than 50 years. It's a partnership older than every report before us tonight. And I will close by saying that deserves respect. So, I am supporting the amendment motion in front of us. And I'm just going to close by saying, councillors, let's get back to what the people of Noosa elected us to do. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, anyone else wish to talk to? Speaker 2: That was the closing part. Councillor Lorentson: No. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No. Sorry. Pat Spicer: Sorry. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Councillor Hooker, you're hand's up.

02:47:00 Mayor Wilkie: Yes councillors. You can't have a bet both ways. You can't say it this is for temporary uses only. And then talk in a way that talks about the history, and talks about continuing on into the future. Today's the day when we could have made the decision to end the temporary car parking, but not, and I accept the majority vote on this. It's incorrect to say it only affects 21 days a year, that is totally incorrect. There's also the 10 days at Easter, and it wasn't so long ago when it was all school holidays, and every long weekend during COVID. And it could have been more, but we made the decision, and it was a battle to claw back that public recreation reserve for the public use during school holidays and long weekends.

13.1 confidential - Waste Supply Agreement ¶

▶ 02:47:49· Carried 6-0 from council's minutes

02:48:00 Because once you lose this public open space to something other than recreation, to cash generating car parking, it's very hard to break that addition. Now. I think we're moving in the right direction with the land management plan, that is the correct process. There's been some statements made that staff gave us incorrect advice. There was nothing incorrect about the advice that staff gave us. It is the correct statutory path under the Land Management Act, the Land Act, under 52AB, that if a statutory body is involved, that is a council, that a land management plan is the correct process, 52AA refers to trustees, but of course, there's nothing to stop us writing to the minister, or any minister, on any issue, it's up to the minister, whether they allow temporary use of the park or not.

02:49:00 I do have a problem with this motion as it stands, because we've made a mistake with Section D, the council's letter to the minister addresses the statutory requirements, and demonstrate that it meets these public interest tests, or doesn't diminish the purpose of the reserve. We cannot demonstrate that. That would be to pre-empt the land management plan process. Why commit to a land management plan process if we're going to be able to demonstrate that? We cannot demonstrate that it meets these tests already. I think we've made an error there, councillors. Good debate. It's always going to be a contentious issue. The call for uniting the community around this and not creating division is one that's very easy to say. But the community is deeply divided on this, because there's a fundamental flaw in its uses of this recreational reserve.

02:50:00 The highest and best use of this park, as defined under our role as trustees, is that of a recreational reserve. And the fact that it has been misused for such a long time has created the division. It's a controversial issue that we have inherited and have an opportunity to end today. We are committed with this motion to go down an expense, perhaps, no, I'll have to rephrase that. We're getting information on a potentially costly process. And I think Councillor Phillips has done well to come up with the motion that she put forward. I do have problems with it because of the amendment about our letter demonstrating that we've met the tests of 52AA, what the land management plan is setting out to prove.

02:51:00 So for that reason, I won't be supporting the motion. In its current form. But I do think if you're going down a land management plan process, that is the correct way. But I do accept also that, as Councillor Phillips said, once we've got this information, we can determine whether or not to adopt a land management plan process for future uses of this reserve or not. Thank you. Speaker 2: Thank you. Wilson. Sure. Councillor Wilson: Through the Chair, probably to Director MacGillivray. Speaker 2: MacGillivray. I'm sorry to disclose. Councillor Wilson: That's right. Speaker 2: Thank you. Councillor Wilson: Just on that Part D, I believe you were involved in drafting, just for clarification on if that is the proper process.

02:52:00 So the Minister may approve the trustee of land, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, if satisfied, the action will be approved. The action will not diminish the purpose or adversely affect the public interest. So is the process for the Minister to determine that or to become satisfied that we demonstrate that it will not diminish the purpose or adverse. So the process is to write a letter and say, this is how we're meeting the T-Tests. Is that correct? Speaker 7: Through the Chair, Councillor, yes, the Act is quite clear and particularly that section does make reference to the Minister must be satisfied. So in order to explain or justify to the Minister why he should consider it favourably, there would need to be some attempt to justify that. Obviously, that's Council's decision around what basis it wants to utilise as part of that. Noting there's obviously lots of advice provided from officers and the Go Nursery Report and

02:53:00 other documentation. But that will potentially assist in giving information and evidence for the Minister to consider as part of that request. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Follow up. Don't go anyway. Follow up question. Okay. So I get clear on that then. But just wait. So the 52 AA is without an LNP. So asking. I do have a question. I've just got to work out how not to confuse you and myself. Demonstrate. Is there any way, Cathy, you could move the Teams chat so I can just read that one more time?

02:54:00 Can we? Okay. So when we're writing to the Minister on this, we're going to be using the information that we've used or collected over the past 25 years that kind of suggests either way, like it's not making a determination, but it's something that we've, it's not like a new purpose, even though it's in case. It's consistent. So do we actually have the evidence either way to prove the impact on the, on the land? Like to support that to D. Like, don't we have that based on the history? So we can go to the Minister with it. Yeah. Speaker 7: Through the Chair. Look, the reality is under 52 AA, it's the Minister's decision as outlined.

02:55:00 So the Minister needs to be satisfied of those two key tests. I think what has been discussed from an officer perspective in terms of the information provided to Council is that, yeah, there's, there's different information available out there through various mediums already, including surveys. And, and technical information provided that potentially will be bundled up with what Council considers are sufficient reasons for the Minister to consider. But ultimately it will be his or her decision around whether they're satisfied that it should grant temporary approval or not. So hopefully that helps. And it's not definitive, but hopefully that helps. Speaker 2: Thank you. Councillor Wegener: Counselor Lorentzen, you're right that the division is problematic, but I believe that the public division is because the overflow parking is inconsistent with Council's adopted plans and strategies.

02:56:00 It is inconsistent with the official long-term vision of Noosa residents. It takes our resources from pursuing our vision and places them in an LMP, and that's the reason for the division. Mayor Wilkie: Mr Chair, do you have a question, Counselor Wilkie? Yes, I do. I'd like to move an amendment. Part D. Sure. Part D. Part D. Change the word demonstrate to submit. Councillor Lorentson: Just a quick question. So this is, excuse me, through the Chair, this is a process question.

02:57:00 I'm just inquiring whether under our standing orders we can move an amendment once we're actually debating the full motion. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Everyone has done. But all amendments are made. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Thank you. Pat Spicer: Thank you. Speaker 2: So are you working on something what you would be? Yeah, I guess. OK. So we'll just wait for that to come? Mayor Wilkie: We have changed the word demonstrate to submit.

02:58:00 Speaker 2: Anything more? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: No, that's it. Submit that the president will be able to say a couple of words. Do we have a second? I'll second that. I think it does. Basically, it then now outlines the grounds why we think it meets that. So you now have the floor to talk to that amendment. Councillor Lorentson: Just a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Speaker 2: I take that. Sorry. Councillor Lorentson: Apologies. Apologies. Yep.

02:59:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Look, I just think it's more appropriate wording. Demonstrate means you can prove. All those things we're going to submit on the basis of this information provided that it might make these things and satisfy the test. If we could demonstrate it, we wouldn't need an LMP. I just think it's more appropriate wording and more. I'm more able to support it. Councillor Lorentson: Just my questions to the director. We've done. We've gone through this process many, many times. Can I just. Understand what was actually submitted in the past to seek temporary approval? Was it just simply a request or did we have to provide, in essence, the same sort of information to the minister in order to get approval through the chair? Speaker 7: I don't have the specifics of in terms of what the contents of those previous letters are.

03:00:00 So I would have to take that on notice and come back around what level of detail of information was provided to be able to clearly and accurately answer that question for you. Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to speak to the amendment. I'm not going to support it. I think. Where do I start? The intent of the motion to me is that. I don't know, the intent of the original amendment was that we explore a legal pathway, a lawful pathway to see whether we can demonstrate that overflow car parking would not diminish the purpose of the reserve and would not adversely affect the public interest. So. So the intent is, is there a pathway that we can demonstrate that would not diminish the purpose of the reserve and would not adversely affect the public interest?

03:01:00 We could have interim approval of car parking whilst still exploring and potentially undergoing a land management plan process. I think as the wording is at the moment, I don't know, it's sort of. And that doesn't give certainty to the Tewantin Noose Alliance Club, doesn't give certainty to the businesses in Hastings Street. I think the decision is simply, you know, are we committed to doing this? To allow the car park to remain open only for 2021 days this Christmas, while still exploring and potentially undertaking the process of a land management plan. As worded in the amendment, I'm not sitting comfortably that that's going to actually happen with that change of word. I think it's too materially different.

03:02:00 Councillor Phillips: I'm going to agree based on my experience. One of the things I struggle with here, sometimes the opening, asking the directors a direct question is because it goes against 16 years of investigative interviewing, questioning, which is around giving context to it. Otherwise, it's a yes, no answer. So it's just in my training to not know how to ask something that gets a yes or no. I know it can be tricky, but when you look at the word demonstrate, it actually says the definition is to show clearly. So it gives content, it gives context, and the word submit is it actually changes what the intention of the motion, in my opinion. I also think that it could be adding to why since 2019. We're still debating this because we're trying to change one word when I think we can understand the intention of the motion, so I won't be supporting it, and I'd like to move on.

03:03:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'll speak for you in a minute, I actually concur with what the Mayor said and so I think the advice given to us in the reports over the three terms of council clearly says that we can't demonstrate that without a land management plan. Black and white advice has been given over many years that we can't demonstrate that it doesn't adversely affect without going through a more detailed process. My time at one stage being the principal planning and policy officer in Sydney. So yes, it doesn't, and it's contrary to all those points there, but I think the wording does just say this is our position, the position of the majority of councillors, and that's what we want him to consider.

03:04:00 Anyone else wish to talk? I'll put the amendment those in favour. I will close. Oh yes, you do get the opportunity to close. Sorry. Mayor Wilkie: Yeah, thank you councillors. Look, the intention here is to work together to get a better worded complete motion, I think it's more appropriate wording, it doesn't change the intent of this motion at all, I think it strengthens it, and we look more favourably upon by the Minister, so the intention is to correct the wording, to make it better, so that collectively this whole motion is something we can all support. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. I'll put the amendment, those supporting the amendment, that's yes, Councillor Wilkie, yes, Councillor Stockwell, Councillor Finzel and Councillor Wegener, those opposed, Councillor Wilson, Lorentson and Phillips. The amendment is carried and becomes part of the substantive motion.

03:05:00 We'll go back to the substantive motion and Councillor Finzel, no, Councillor Wilson, Lorentson and Wilkie have talked to the motion. Anyone else wish to talk to the substantive motion? I could have supported the original motion, A and B, I think that is the majority position and the logical step forward, because I've sat here through three terms of council where the department has given us very specific advice that we shouldn't be doing it without a landowner to plan our part. Once again, I agree to go cap and hand to a minister saying, no, I won't support it. There being no one else, Councillor Phillips, would you like to close? Councillor Phillips: Yes.

03:06:00 I think the community is also divided because we're divided in here. So I would like to get to a point where we can agree, absolutely. Absolutely. I think that would demonstrate that around the table, we've been able to get to a position that democracy has served its purpose. We've tested it and hopefully eventually we can agree on it. But when I look at the chronological order in March, and I won't go back because we don't need to rehash it, but I'll just go to the most recent one that I could find. In March 26, we said that we needed an Easter trial to gather traffic, transport, visitor and community sentiment data to inform the future of our community. And that's only months later, and we're contemplating, if this doesn't go through, not proceeding with what the Act has provided us. And I'm going to struggle with the logic of that. If there is new evidence demonstrating that temporary parking cannot satisfy the statutory test, then I would like to see that evidence.

03:07:00 If the environmental impacts are so unacceptable, then I'd like them to be demonstrated. If the rehabilitation doesn't work. Then I'd like to see that demonstrated. If the public interest is adversely affected, then I'd like to see that assessment. If the community doesn't support it, then we should undertake the consultation through this LNP. And if any of those findings could be provided to me legitimately in the end, then I would like to think that we haven't got to this position in the first place. But that's not where we are today. And I ultimately think about legacy as well, as Councillor Stockwell said. Legacy is also certainly not defending a position simply because. So legacy is whether the decision we leave behind can withstand scrutiny.

03:08:00 So can we say, did we complete the consultation we committed to? Can we say, did we gather the evidence that we needed to make the decision? And did we properly understand the legislation that's in front of us? I believe that the land management plan will provide all of this for us. I think that we're actually at this point. After years of listening to this around the table. I would like to think that we're at the point today that our community deserves a definite answer on where we're going with the Lions Park. Once we have an informed decision in front of us. So let's finish what we started. Get the details of the LNP so we can have it presented to Council and really see and demonstrate how we've made that decision. Today, I think we've landed up at something that is hopefully going to satisfy the next steps. Even though it's a long lengthy process.

03:09:00 I hope today that we can start moving closer to the end goal. Whatever that is. But at least we've got the information. In front of us. To make that determination. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Thanks. Put the motion. Those in favour. It's Councillor Wilson. Councillor Lorentson. And Councillor Phillips. Yes. Councillor Wilkie. Those against. Yes. And Councillor Finzel. And those against. Would be Councillor Wegener. And Councillor Stockwell. The motion is carried. And Council, I think it might be time for a half an hour break for lunch and other things.

14 NEXT MEETING ¶

▶ 03:20:00

Nothing was transcribed under this heading — a stretch of the recording with no speech the model could make out.

15 MEETING CLOSURE ¶

▶ 03:20:12

03:40:00 Okay, welcome back and we will continue with dealing with the recommendations of the General Committee and we're up to item 11.1.4 which is the planning application decided by Delegated Authority June 2026. 11.15 is the Operational Plan 2526 for Quarter 4 quarterly reporting. We move then to the 11.1.6 is the Terms of Reference to the Noosa Waters Residents Advisory Group. 11.1.7 is the Update of the Infrastructure Charges Resolution. 11.1.8 is the Review of the Community Purpose Land and Infrastructure Tenure Policy. 11.1.9 is the Planning Environment Court of Appeal 1576 of 2026 Short State Letting Local Law Review Decision 8 with the Service of Nurses and Heads.

03:41:00 11.1.10 is the Planning Environment Court of Appeal 1763 of 2026 Short State Letting Local Law Review Decision. Seven Beats of Court, Noosa Heads, 11.1.11, NCU 17 0559.05, Planning Environment Report 1842 of 2026 for minor change to the development permit for mature change and use for a duplex at 216 Grand Street, Noosa Heads. 11.1.12, Delegation of Ending Review, Council to CEO, 11.1.13, that was the last one, 11.1.12, this one is 11.1.13. 11.1.13 is the General Committee Recommendations on VOP. Do we have a mover for the resolution? Councillor Wegener moves. And the second day, that was Councillor Finzel. I presume we don't need any discussion. All those in favour? Yes.

03:42:00 Councillor Finzel: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay, that's carried unanimously. We're now going to circle back to the motion that was laying on the table, which is the notice of motion. So, if I... I check my records. Speaker 7: You need to do a resolution to take it from the table. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Well, Councillor Phillips knows how to do that. Aye. I'll move. I'll move that the item, that the matter, item 10.2 be taken from the table. Do I have a seconder? Councillor Wegener. No discussion. All those in favour? Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Okay. Unis. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yes. And that's carried unanimously. So, we then go back, and this was the item in regard to the main beach reserve car parking. Speaker 4: Okay.

03:43:00 Director Walsh: It's already been moved and seconded. Yeah. Speaker 2: Just a little more. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: So, for my records, we have had Councillor Warrington speaking to it, Councillor Finzel, Councillor Wilkie and Councillor Wegener. Speaker 2: Is that the right motion? Yeah. I think it is. Councillor Finzel: Mr Chair, I don't think I've spoken to this. Speaker 2: Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Director Walsh: Thank you. I think she asked a question. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I wanted to ask a question. Speaker 2: Yeah. Director Walsh: Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Does anyone else wish to speak to this motion? I have a question. Councillor Wilkie. Speaker 2: Just a question. Mayor Wilkie: The resolution, the motion to review the July 2026 resolution, if passed today, is that to review this in practice of the main beach drop off zone immediately or to review this

03:44:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That would be to Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: The intent is to review it immediately, again, with no predetermined outcome. Speaker 2: Thank you. Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: I'm just wondering if this would be better served through bringing it to councillors through CDF or another workshop. Would that give us the same outcomes? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Who would you like to address that question to? Councillor Finzel: Maybe to Councillor Lorentson. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Sure.

03:45:00 There's been a lot of discussions about notices of motions, about whether this should have gone through a different process, et cetera. I'm first going to say that I actually started this process by seeking advice. Mayor Wilkie: Can we have an answer? Councillor Lorentson: Point of order, Mayor Wilkie. I'm in the middle of debate and I really don't appreciate the way you just spoke to me. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I'm happy that she was providing context for her answer, Councillor. OK. I withdraw. Councillor Lorentson: So, a lot of discussion about process, about notices of motion. I really, and I wanted to stop, but we had an adjournment. I want to start by saying that I actually sought advice on this and I was advised that a notice of motion was the correct process. In July. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: I think that's the answer to the question. Councillor Lorentson: Yeah. And, OK, I'll talk to Joy later. Councillor Phillips: I just have a question, maybe to help me understand, to the CEO. What, what are we doing, or it might be to Director Walsh, how are we capturing, I'm just foreseeing 10 years from now, like, how are we foreseeing capturing this data for future decisions?

03:46:00 Is there a process that we're doing? Director Walsh: To the Chief, can I be clear on what data you're referring to? Councillor Phillips: Yeah, I think that's a good point. Um. So, um, maybe to support, like, future decisions around whether this is working, how we, like, what's the measure to suggest, um, that this operation of each year is actually serving the intended purpose? That would be a better question. Director Walsh: Uh, the best answer to that is every year we, uh, supply the Go Noosa report to Council, sometimes there's two reports, which captures all available data and feedback that we receive from community groups, stakeholders, and feedback, as well as any available training. So, the, the best mechanism to summarise that is to actually look at all the reports since 2021 on the Go Noosa program.

03:47:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else want to talk to the motion? Oh, look, um, my view is, um, suing for those reports, we have seen on the Go Noosa program that the drop-off zone over the last two years has been effective to keep the two main objectives. That was to reduce the congestion from queuing and to increase the safety of users in that location where we had previously a significant conflict between vehicles seeking parks, queuing for parks, and people wanting to go to the beach and people wanting to go to the toilet. Um, I think, uh, the, the use of it during peak times makes a lot of sense, and I, I think, as I've argued in previous motions, I think reducing congestion is a priority objective which we should be focused on to ensure that the experience of going to Main Beach or Hastings Street is one that is safe and is an experience that is not creating stress.

03:48:00 So, I support the motion of July 2026. I don't see any need to review it. Councillor Phillips: I just have one more question, please, around the seawall. Um, so, is this going to come to us every year with the Go Noosa report, and will it, will we ever get to a point where, um, based on the seawall, when the surf club redesign, that this will be on the table in a different way? I'm just trying to look ahead. Okay. Okay. Director Walsh: Uh, to the Chair. Um, um, with the forecast of the seawall, which is subject to funding both from Council and external sources, uh, even in a best-case scenario, you know, funding in 2028, it's more than likely that project alone will require access to this area to reconstruct the seawall. Yeah. Um, and I understand that in preliminary conversations with the Surf by Sail member, uh, they also have indicated that they need room for a construction compound.

03:49:00 Uh, and then we also need to figure out how we actually plan for things like public amenities and emergency service access to the beach. In terms of whether this comes back to, um, Council each time you make a decision about that space, is it the direction or discretion of the CEO? Um, you know, it's his discretion whether he calls it an operational matter or whether it's in the best interest of Council to pay for that. Speaker 6: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Councillor Lorentson: Um, I, I do. And I just want to just correct a few things that have been discussed around the table. Um, firstly, I did seek, um, ask the question, what is the correct process? In July, 7th of July, 2026, Council in its report endorsed the Go Noosa report. And C was that the temporary repurpose of the car park within the main beach reserve adjacent

03:50:00 to the Noosa Headquarters. At that time, Council first announced the plan to have the Noosa Head Serve Club as a main beach drop-off zone during the peak Christmas and New Year period to improve safety, traffic circulation and functionality within that precinct. That was actually endorsed by Council in July, 2026. My question was, um, given uncertainties about what's happening with the overflow process, can we review, um, the decision which was for, um, a full drop-off, um, area? Thank you very much. So I want to throw that on the table.

03:51:00 Secondly, there has been, and I've got notes all over the place, so excuse me. Speaker 2: Council Finzel, do you want to put yourself on mute, please? Councillor Finzel: Yes, my apologies. Councillor Lorentson: So the other thing that I really wanted to speak to was that there was mentions in terms of notices of motions, whether it was an appropriate vehicle, concerns about notices of motions. I really need to say this and set this straight and put it on record. Notices of motion is a legitimate part of the democratic process available to us as councillors. If you disagree with the motion, I accept that. Don't vote for it. But challenging my right to bring community issues and raise issues that residents, expect elected representatives to put before the council.

03:52:00 It's not only my right, but it's also my responsibility. Happy that we debate the merits of the motions, but I do want to put on record, I don't think it's appropriate to debate my rights. So again, I go back to the notice of motion. To me, it was just there was uncertainty about the overflow parking arrangement. The advice. I was given was through a notice of motion was the only way we could change. What was a ratified decision by this council in July, 2026. The notified motion does nothing. There might be an agreement to retain the status quo, but given the uncertainty and all the extra information that we've received since the July 2026 motion, I thought it was good governance to go back to the traders. And understand whether they were happy to progress with the decision that we made in July, 2026 at the time.

03:53:00 And I do want to enforce this at the time there was a majority support to allow overflow car parking as we've just discussed. And we've just gone through some extensive time debating land management plan under section 52 AB and also section 52 AA. There is still uncertainty, again, whether there is going to be overflow car parking available at Lyons Park this Christmas. Again, this is just an opportunity for the traders to revisit the decision and see if they want to move the commencement date, propose a different option. That decision remains solely between staff and the traders and stakeholders. Councillor Phillips: Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: One more question. Councillor Phillips: No.

03:54:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Now, and I noticed, Councillor Finzel, you had your hand up as well. That was the close of the debate. So, we can, so the only thing we can do now is vote on it. So, those in support of the motion is Councillor Lorentson and Councillor Phillips. On Lyons, is there anyone who supports the motion? No. Okay. Those opposed to the motion would be Councillor Finzel. Councillor Wilkie, your position? Opposed. Thank you. Councillor Wegener and Councillor Stockwell, the motion is lost. Okay. We now move to section item 13 of the agenda, which are the ordering meeting reports. We can invite the financial services manager, Zach Morton, as well as Director Gatt to discuss the financial performance report for July 2026. Thank you.

03:55:00 Speaker 3: Good afternoon, councillors. Speaker 5: Good afternoon, councillors. Apologies for my voice. And if I cough, I'm just a bit husky. Just getting my coughing when we get into it. Just don't do it. So, thank you. And through the chair, I'll take the report as read. The July report presents council's financial performance to the 31st of June 2026 against council's original budget for the corresponding year. As this report represents only one of the first month of the financial year, caution should be exercised when interpreting variances and emerging trends. Many revenue and expenditure categories are influenced by time and profiling and carry forward works from the previous financial year, and a single month does not provide sufficient basis to identify meaningful trends. As at the 31st of July 2026, council reported a favourable net variance to budget of 1.4 million. It is important to note that the July results remain preliminary as we complete the 25-26

03:56:00 financial statements and external audit process. A number of year-end accounting adjustments may be required, which could result in some movements to the current reported position. The favourable position is primarily attributed to higher than anticipated rates and utility charges from revenue, stronger investment earnings, and lower than anticipated operating and capital expenditure. It is important to note that many of the variances are based on the current position. This stage reflect carry forward balances from the 2526 program, grant timing and expenditure profiling rather than underlying changes to council's financial performance. The next item on today's agenda is Budget Review 1, which will provide greater detail on these movements. I would like to take the opportunity to draw attention to a number of the matters detailed in the report. As at the 31st of July, 2026, council had received 64.1 million or 39% of its operating revenue of 163 or 164 million.

03:57:00 The favourable operating revenue variance of 0.9 million is mainly attributed to rates and charges and higher than anticipated investment earnings. Our operating expenditure for the same period was 11.4 million or 7% of council's underlying budget. The favourable variance of approximately 0.6 million was mainly attributed to lower than anticipated employee benefits and lower than anticipated materials and services for the period. At this stage of the financial year, expenditure variances are largely driven by timing and profiling factors. Further detailed commentary and analysis will be provided in subsequent monthly finance reports. In regards to council's business activities, the overall operating variance comprises of $1.1 million from council's revenue. The overall operating variance is 0.3 million from council's core operating activities and 0.3 million from its business activities. Waste management continues to report favourably against its operating position, with holiday parks remaining generally inconsistent with the underlying budget.

03:58:00 Council's capital revenue and expenditure for the 31st of July, 2026. Its capital revenue is $5.4 million, comprised primarily of capital grants, subsidies, together with development contributions. As consistent with previous comments made in monthly finance reports, grants, receipts, and development contributions remain dependent on external factors and project delivery timelines. Capital expenditure to the 31st of July, 2026 was $1.8 million, or 2.1% of council's $84.4 million capital works program. It is important to note that July is typically not representative of the annual capital program of delivery due to the commencement of Procreum and lead times carried forward balances. Additional detail regarding the Capital Works Forward Programme, Project Profile and Budget Adjustments is included within the Budget Review 1 report following the Monthly Finance Report.

03:59:00 Council's total cash on hand is that the 31st of July was $153 million, including $67 million held in trust. 6.7 Sorry, my correction, 6.7 million held in trust. Council's investments continue to perform well against agreed benchmarks. On a relative 12-month basis, total cash holdings have increased by 9.4 million, or 6.5% to this time last year. The stronger cash position reflects the combined impact of carry forward expenditure, timing of capital delivery and investment performance. Rate arrears, as at the 31st of July, totaled $7.7 million, or 6% of Council's rate and utility charge base. This was a reduction of $354 million from June 2026. It is worth noting that the basis for the calculation of rate arrears changes in July each year, as the calculation is reset to use the adopted annual rates in the underlying budget.

04:00:00 The movement remains consistent with Council's established six-monthly arrears cycle, whereby arrears typically increase following levy periods or reduce in the following months. For completeness, the July 2026 levy was payable on the 14th of August. As a result, arrears for the July levy will be accounted for in Council's August 2026 Monthly Financial Statement. As a result, arrears for the July levy will be accounted for in Council's August 2026 Monthly Financial Statement. As the due date for the July 2026 rate levy period has passed, on the 14th of October, Council officers are currently working through the timing of reminder notices relating to rate arrears that will go out over the next few weeks. Following reminder notices, Council will begin to work through its debt and charges debt management and recovery policy for the recovery of outstanding arrears.

04:01:00 Further internal and external communications will occur prior to initiation of this process. Further internal and external communications will occur prior to initiation of this process. Thank you and happy to take questions. Speaker 2: Thank you. Do we have questions, Councils? Councillor Lorentson: Question probably to the CEO. Do we have the workforce capacity to deliver the capital program this year?

04:02:00 And what does staff turnover and vacancy data look like right now? And particularly in the teams responsible for delivering the capital works, infrastructure, planning, design, delivery? Speaker 4: I can ask the Director to come and maybe support, if needed, my question, if I can help with that answer. There's no question that this is a very large program of works. We do have additional resource allocations for this. However, we do also have some gaps in that area. But we're out in the market for those positions for project managers. And it's very difficult. We've talked about it in numerous meetings and numerous workshops that project managers are very difficult to come by. And also to keep in this current market and the competitive nature of that. But we are working on that.

04:03:00 A number of the projects on that, the big number of projects for us are underway. For example, the Doonella Bridge, the gymnastics and the changing places are underway. Thank you. And the work on those is happening and they're outsourced in terms of contractors. So it's a big program. It's a concern, but we've certainly got our eyes all over it. And we're working towards delivering it. In terms of turnover rate, I don't know if those numbers are absolutely at my fingertips as of today. But we have been trending down. But it's always a bit of a mix. But it's always a good time in terms of people moving and taking up opportunities elsewhere. Because one of the things that I say, if we get good people in our work, the risk of that is that people get targeted. In this tight environment, you get good people and they get wooed away to other businesses in other areas.

04:04:00 So that's always a risk. And we're doing everything we can to make sure we retain those people. But sometimes it's not possible. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. My other question, and I think I ask this all the time. Workforce capability plan, how is that progressing? Speaker 2: That's not related to the financial authority. Councillor Lorentson: It is. Okay, let me change the question. Let me think. Does our workforce plan match the capability of being able to deliver our capital program? Speaker 3: Well, thank you for the question. I can answer that in two parts. Part of every director and manager's accountability is that they review their workforce plan on a yearly basis and or as needs throughout a year, depending on workload and priorities.

04:05:00 So that happens just as a given that every manager and director is held accountable to actually do that. So that's separate to the workforce capability larger project, which I did. Recently, I can't remember, in the last couple of months, via a briefing, had Liz, our manager P&C there to basically give you the framework about what we were going to do in the development of that. We actually have only been able to just now secure an additional resource to help us actually roll out that framework and develop that further. We are a little bit behind. I gave you a commitment that we would have a draft. We will have a draft one done by December this year, probably more likely in March next year, but we've got those resources committed to doing that, to building it. Yes. Councillor Lorentson: Thank you. Director Walsh: If I could assist the Chair, I just want to note, working through the people and culture area, we're actually working on a dedicated piece early ahead of the Workplace Capability Plan with a specific focus on infrastructure services and the need for project managers to be able to do that.

04:06:00 And I just want to thank the Director and Manager for pulling that out, because the forces we're faced against across the region are significant, and if we need to have confidence in the delivery of our capital rights program, we need to significantly improve our thrust. Now, whilst we have had some resources challenges, we have had an increasing delivery of the program in recent years, evidenced by the increase in commitments. And we also note that some of the models that we're using, such as use of external consultants for the disaster reconstruction program, have proven to be incredibly successful. So there's some good models that we can follow on to actually increase our capacity. And this process is set up by people and culture, and I hope to sort that out. Speaker 2: Okay.

04:07:00 Thank you. Any other questions or someone wishing to move the recommendation? Go ahead. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I'm happy to move the recommendation. Speaker 2: Councillor Lorentson, do we have a seconder? Councillor Wegener, Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: Oh, okay. I firstly want to thank the financial services, your team. Again, we've got a report that's really clear, and gives us real visibility in terms of where Council's financial standing is. And I'm sure I'm going to get a point of order from the Chair, but I am going to throw this small observation, offered in the spirit rather than any type of criticism. But I just think it's really quite interesting how little time we're spending on financial performance report compared to, say, for instance, 21 days of parking.

04:08:00 And when I look at the financial report, you know, these are the things that are going to be able to show that we're going to be able to move forward. And I think that's going to shape what this Council is able to deliver for the community over the year. So maybe just a question that I'd like to just leave the councillors. Are we giving our attention in this Council to the right things? Speaker 2: Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: I just made a few notes. I think it's important to recognise that the quality of the financial services that we provide to the community is really, really important. And the quality of service we deliver to our community is intrinsically linked to the way we support our workforce internally. Local government is people business, is a people business. And while our community sees roads, parks, libraries, development assets, community programs, the customer service, behind every one of those outcomes is people that are trying to deliver on Council commitments.

04:09:00 I've always thought that if we were going to deliver on Council commitments, we were going to deliver on Council commitments. If we want to deliver excellent service, then we must create the conditions for excellence within our organisation. And that means that I'm always going to support the means of investing in staff development, provide clear leadership, supporting wellbeing, fostering a positive workplace culture, and ensuring our people have the resources, the systems, and the confidence that they need to perform at their best. An engaged and supported workforce is more innovative, more responsive, and more capable of addressing the increases in demand. And it's a way to address the increasing complexities challenge that and the challenges that are facing local government. When employees are feeling valued, connected to the organisation's purpose, they are more likely to contribute ideas, collaborate effectively and go above and beyond serving the community.

04:10:00 And I'm not suggesting that we have, but I would hope we, I would like to invest in our workforce wellbeing. I'd like to invest in our culture, the capabilities that we have. The impacts are often felt externally through political pressures. But in doing that, I think sometimes we are impacting the productivity, the staff turnover. And to close, I'd like to see, yeah, I just want to on record that I'm going to support our workforce. Of course, it shouldn't be viewed as an internal cost. It should be seen as a strategic investment in the community outcomes that we're seeking to achieve. Every dollar we invest in building organisational capability, leadership and staff engagement contributes to our ability to deliver on projects, respond to community needs and maintain the high standard of services that our residents expect.

04:11:00 Our community rightly expects a council that is efficient. Responsive and accountable. And to meet those expectations, I believe we need to ensure that the people delivering those services feel supported, respected and equipped to succeed. Strong internal culture and strong external performance are not separate objectives. They are two that sit side by side. Ultimately, if we want our organisation to thrive externally, then we must ensure that it is healthy internally. I appreciate financial reports every month. The better we support our people, the better positioned we are to support. Our community. Speaker 2: How are you doing? Anyone else wish to talk? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: There were some comments that, you know, we're not focusing on the right things. And financial reports each month are very good. And our role, as many boards, is to manage by exception.

04:12:00 And what we're very fortunate to have is that, rarely, we're able to manage by exception. But do we have any exceptions of any significance to actually discuss? Because finances are so well managed. That the budgets are being achieved. That the way in which we spend the money is in accordance with our operational plan. And we're a council, one of the few councils that work with a positive, not a deficit, budget. So, the less the time you spend discussing something should be relevant to the effect of that decision. And in this case, every month, we look at it. And there are a few careers. But generally, they're always good news. And there's generally no exceptions to manage by this. Well done. Speaker 2: I've got a question. Councillor Wegener: Yeah. So, we discussed earlier, Director Gatt, about the report that's coming up. The report that's coming up.

04:13:00 You know, the 10 range forecast. So, can you tell us what that's coming up? And when we can hope to see that report? Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Wegener. Through the Chair. Councillor, so I've given you a commitment previously that we would develop. So, sorry. I'll go back a bit. As part of every monthly finance report, and also each BR and budget, we have a very large complicated model that sits at the back of those documents. That's called the Long Term Financial Plan, based on Queensland Treasury's model. Whilst that plan, or spreadsheet really, is what it is, it's a model, has a level of robustness probably out to three to five years. My focus since commencing in the organisation is that we actually develop a strategy that sits alongside that, so that we would have sensitivity analysis. We would be doing scenario planning around what potentially the future implications

04:14:00 for our financial, the organisation's financial sustainability is. So we've got that document probably 60% to 70% complete, but that is yet to be workshopped with the broader executive team. So asking me for a drop dead date of when we'll be having a workshop with the councillors on what that Long Term Financial Plan strategy looks like, I'm hoping to have that done before the end of this calendar year. Speaker 2: Anyone else? Mayor Wilkie: Question? Yes, Councillor Wilkie. Thank you very much for the report. While it's positive in the short term, the underspend in employee benefits and material and services, can you give us some idea of why we do have those shortfalls there?

04:15:00 Those underspends. I think it's a good question. Speaker 3: Thank you, Mayor Wilkie, for the question. Through the Chair, as the Manager of Financial Services has said, this only represents one month. It's not representative of any concerning trends. We can get some more specifics for you and take that question on notice and give the councillors the details as to specifically why we are underspent in our labour budget for the future. It's not representative of the period of July. But for both Zac and myself, it doesn't represent a risk. Mayor Wilkie: Okay. Speaker 3: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Okay. Mayor Wilkie: Anyone else wish to speak to the motion? I'll just say thank you again for the report. It's always very extensive and clear and detailed. It gives us a very clear indication of how we're travelling and it helps guide councillors' questions.

04:16:00 There were some very good points made before about the Royal Counsellors' Council's role to play in terms of fostering organisational culture, and that's certainly improving budgets for professional development for our staff. But it also is about the way councillors, we talk about our staff, talk about our staff advice, and the way we talk about our council, our community's council. So very good points raised. And of course, financial reports is not a divisive issue like a very public issue like the Noosa Head Council. It's Lions Park. And we've discussed that in previous matters. But the reason is it's a park that's been misused and we're still trying to rectify. And I don't know if it will be completely resolved. Point of order. Point of order. The financial report is not a source of divisive debate because it's very focused and very detailed.

04:17:00 Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: I will and we've heard around the table no need to debate that the report is great and I don't disagree but I do want to remind councillors that asking questions and challenging assumptions part of our job. I have total great confidence in our staff and value the incredible work that in particular the financial team do but councillors that does not absolve our responsibility to exercise due care and diligence in our decision making. I've just completed just recently the Australian Institute of Company Directors course and one of the key lessons in that course was exactly what we're discussing right now that we cannot accept on face value any reports that come to our councillors.

04:18:00 And without you know referencing a previous report we need to continue. If we don't agree with what's been presented to us we don't just accept it. We have to continue to investigate and ensure that the information that we have is complete and I think from memory from the Australian Institute of Company Directors course I think it was the Centro case where the board directors were held liable for accepting on face value in fact I think the information given by their financial advisers. So again councillors just a reminder we cannot just absolve our responsibilities to exercise due care and diligence that we need to ask the questions and not just accept the report on face value. Having said that thank you again Mark, Zach and team for again a really great report. Speaker 2: I'll put them open. Those in favour? Yes.

04:19:00 Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's unanimous. We then move on to item 12.2 and item number so the item 12.2 is budget review 1 for the 2026-27 financial year and we have the same dynamic duo to give us a review. Speaker 5: Thank you and through the chair I will take the report as read. This report presents budget review 1 for the 2026-27 financial year. The review has been prepared in accordance with the underlying legislative requirements which requires council done to take regular reviews of its adopted budget to ensure it remains reflective of council's projected financial position as at the 30th of June of each year. The first budget review of each financial year is a routine budget management process. BR1 primarily reflects updated delivery schedules, grant timing and carry forward adjustments identified after the adoption of the 2026-27 budget on the 23rd of June. Importantly this review does not

04:20:00 should not be interpreted as an indication that the original budget was inaccurate or unrealistic rather that it reflects the normal progression of operating and capital projects and programs across financial years. The proposed BR1 position does not represent a material change to council's adopted adopted financial settings, strategic priorities, service levels or long-term benefits. The report is a review of the budget in its original form and financial direction. I would like to draw your attention to a number of matters detailed in the report. In regards to operating budget adjustments, budget review 1 proposes no change to council's operating result. This report identifies proposed increases to employee benefits of $81,000 and materials and services of $583,000 mainly associated with previously recognized grants. These increases are These movements are offset by additional interest revenue of $300,000, waste collection charges of $250,000 and a housing support program grant of $113,000.

04:21:00 The key point is that these movements are offsetting in nature and do not change Council's overall operating position. Full details of these operating adjustments are provided as Attachment 1 and Schedule 6. Capital Budget Adjustments and Carryovers The revised capital works program increases from $84.3 million to $99.7 million. This includes an increase of $11.9 million in other capital works and $3.4 million in waste management, while recovery works remain unchanged at $29.2 million. The increase on the revised capital budget largely reflects projects that were approved in the previous budget but remained under waste management. As such, the movements primarily relate to the timing of expenditure rather than new expenditure commitments. This is an important distinction. BR1 is not introducing a significant new capital program.

04:22:00 It is largely aligning with approved budgets with revised delivery timelines so that projects already underway can continue to their completion. The majority of capital adjustments relate to previously adopted projects carried forward from the 25-26 financial year. With only limited emergent items proposed through BR1. Funding for the revised capital program comprises of grant funding of $47.8 million, loans of $13.2 million, and internal reserves of $9.9 million, with the balance coming from cash reserves. Full details of the capital works program are provided as Schedule 7 and 8 of Attachment 1. Consequently, as part of BR1, our forecasted loan funds are increased from $10.8 million to $11.8 million. This relates to waste management loans of $11.2 million and Lake Macdonald Residential subdivision of $2 million. As a result of this, Council is required to adopt a revised debt policy which reflects the revised loan totals and the forecast across the 10-year forecast period.

04:23:00 The revised debt policy is included as attachment to the report. In regards to Council's financial sustainability, the proposed BR1 position is not included. It does not indicate any significant financial concerns arising from either the operating or capital budget adjustments. The operating amendments are offsetting and maintain Council's operating position. Similarly, the increased capital program primarily relates to the carry forward of approved projects. Because the majority of amendments relate to the timing adjustments rather than new commitments, the proposed amendments present limited additional financial risk to Council. Council's key financial sustainability indicators remain within their adopted benchmark ranges, with no main changes to Council's long-term financial position. The report notes the asset sustainability ratio falls below the target level in some forecasted years due to the current composition of the capital works program.

04:24:00 However, it should be noted that across the 10-year forecast period, the average ratio is 10.6, which is in excess of the targeted benchmark when viewed in that regard. Council's operating cash balance has also been revised to $132.6 million following the close of the 25-26 financial year. This has improved Council's liquidity ratios and net liability ratios. Council's leverage ratio has also improved in BR1 following the decision to not draw down $3.1 million as at 30 June related to capital projects in the previous financial year. Lastly, in regards to fees and charges, BR1 includes a small number of amendments to Council's adopted 26-27 fee schedule. These amendments are predominantly administrative in nature and intended to ensure the schedule remains accurate, reflects operational requirements, and addresses matters identified following the adoption of the budget.

04:25:00 The report identifies key changes including temporary revision to selected digital hub management fees, pending a broader review of charges. A revised per-kilometre charge for Noosa seniors, an introduction of a waste solar panel disposal fee, corrections to impound animal release fees, and noting the GST treatment related to certain cemetery-related fees. These amendments have no impact on Council's overall operating position or revenue base. In closing, BR1 represents a routine and prudent budget management process. There are no significant adjustments made. As a result of the amendments proposed today, the majority of the adjustments reflect timing, carry forward, and re-profiling of Council's current service delivery and capital works programme. Effective budget monitoring and periodic reviews remains an important part of Council's financial governance framework and supports continued alignment between the adopted budget, current project delivery schedules, funding availability, and approved operational commitments.

04:26:00 Thank you and we'll be happy to take questions. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you. Do we have questions, Councillor? Of course. Councillor Lorentson. Councillor Lorentson: In terms of disaster recovery funding, so I've looked at the forecast and there's recovery work spending, $29.2 million in 2027, $24 million in 2028, $10 million in 2029. Then nothing. So I'm going to look at the forecast. And I think this is what I raised, I think, at our budget as one of the biggest risks. And just recently, Councillor Phillips has also raised this issue. And I think it's a big concern of this Council. Normally, recovery funding is shared between state and federal government.

04:27:00 And at the moment, there's discussion or debate about whether or not the 50-50 is splitting. Councillor, would you like to begin? Speaker 2: Yes. Thank you. Councillor Lorentson: So my question is, what happens if our share of the costs ends up higher than assumed? Where are we going to get the extra money? And probably my other question is, do we intend to model or do some scenario stress testing around what that may actually look like in terms of, you know, if the funding isn't 50-50, if there's a disaster that hasn't been envisaged? What sort of preparation are we doing? As a Council, understanding that's a potential and real risk to this Council. Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson. Through the Chair, two parts to that question. I'll answer the last part first around, are we doing scenario modelling? That is part of that long-term financial plan strategy is where we will do sensitivity analysis and stress testing of that to factor those aspects in as well.

04:28:00 I'll just get the Director of Infrastructure Services. And have a discussion with you around the potential changes to the split of the disaster recovery. Director Walsh: Firstly, there's no indication that the funding arrangements from the 2025 disaster event will be altered, expectably. So we can confidently proceed with the repairs that we forecast from that budget under existing funding arrangements. In the event that the funding arrangements are changed, which is forecast from the Federal Government, we need to carefully scrutinise the works ourselves to ensure that there's good cost benefit analysis. And return. And whether we can actually afford the repairs. So it actually would require a pivot point about the whole approach. And as you're aware, from the last meeting, there was a notice of motion about representations undertaken to the Government Association of Queensland and further on to the Federal Government, opposing their proposed changes to the funding arrangements because they would have significant

04:29:00 financial impact upon the Minister Council. In the event we did, unfortunately, have a further natural disaster. Speaker 5: And just to expand on that in terms of the budget review and how it's, sorry, through the Chair, and how it's modelled within the reports is, if you remember back to the 2022 disaster recovery, effectively, there's a three-year submission process that has been in place. So we've reached the impending conclusion of that. So what's included in Budget Review 1 for the next three years is effectively the ongoing three-year programme. We can't model outside that, like, the balance of our capital works programme because they're definitive time-locked programmes. So that's why you'll see a three-year programme with nothing following that because it's obviously dependent on future submissions and or impending disaster. Councillor Lorentson: I saw that. I went, what happens after this period? Yeah. OK. Director Walsh: It only reflects money that we're actually seeking for repair. Councillor Lorentson: OK. Director Walsh: We're hoping we don't have a potential disaster. OK. Speaker 2: I have a question to put on the notice. Councillor Wegener: I've been banging on about insurance rates for the wider Noosick Shire and probably

04:30:00 for our Noosick Council as well. And with what I've understood when the experts came here, of the peak bodies, the insurance bodies, come to us to talk about natural disasters and about insurance rates. And there is a correlation between having a, you know, a, you know, a, you know, you know, a council that is very aware of climate change and to declare the climate change emergency and is very forward-looking towards climate change and things like that. And the insurance levels, they said, are reduced because of that, because of the Shire-wide. I would, I would like to... It's a question on notice for the next, for the next meetings coming up because I would like to, I would actually like to confirm that and share that with the community because it's very powerful knowledge. Yeah. To me about, it might be a little bit on our insurance and that insurance, but collectively through the Shire, it is a substantial amount that I think that, you know, we should be

04:31:00 aware of. Thank you. Speaker 3: I think we should take that one on notice. Yeah. Thank you, Councillor Wegener. We'll do that. Okay. Councillor Lorentson: I have another question. In terms of our budget surpluses, as I was reading the report, they seem to be quite thin, tens of thousands of dollars when we've got a budget of $200 million. Does that concern you? Have we actually got enough of a safety buffer in case something goes wrong? To me, it just doesn't seem like we do. Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Lorentson, through the chair. It's really a principle and a question back to councillors. Pat Spicer: Thank you. Speaker 3: We have a number of policies that support the development of our budget and the adoption of our budget. And within those policies, there's principles around investment debt and a whole range of

04:32:00 other things. And my understanding is that traditionally, this council likes to adopt balanced budgets, operating positions. Therefore, very minor surpluses. And there's obvious implications as a result of that. And there would be a perception by some areas of the community, in any community, that if a council adopts a surplus, then we're overrating. And that's not necessarily the situation. My personal opinion is that it's conservative and rigorous. And there are some things that are risky that through hopefully, in future years' budget, we'll be able to have more robust discussions around the benefits of adopting and I'm not

04:33:00 talking large surpluses. I'm just talking, you know, something a little bit more than what we traditionally adopt. And then that's sort of, you can squirrel that away for a rainy day. Not that we need that at the minute. But we can screw all that away. For those extraordinary circumstances where we might lose funding or whether we have another disaster or any other thing that could happen to our organisation. And then obviously that has to be balanced with the community's capacity to pay, because obviously that is funded by rates and not only grant funding and things like that. So it's a very delicate balance to get that right and to meet the community's expectation for what the rates look like. As we have spoken about in the development of the 26-27 budget, we've given you a commitment, both manager of financial services and myself, that we will develop a rating strategy in the lead up to the 27-28 budget.

04:34:00 And that will obviously be spoken about in depth with you at subsequent workshops. Speaker 2: Thank you. Does anyone like to move to motion? Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Excuse me. Councillor Finzel: I've had, Mr Chair, I've had my hand up for some time. Yep, I just saw that. Yep. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Sorry, Councillor Finzel. Councillor Finzel: Thank you. Yes. Thank you to the staff for the report. I just, in relation to the asset sustainability ratio in excess of 106.9%, which is well in excess of the target benchmark over the 10-year forecast period from 2013 to 2035. My question is, where best should councillors direct their focus to remain informed and up-to-date in relation to that projection? Will that come through monthly reports or what about the paper check and more? Speaker 3: Thank you, Councillor Finzel, through the Chair. There are a number of ways that we monitor that sustainability ratio.

04:35:00 It's through the monthly, excuse me, monthly finance report. It's also through our asset management steering committee and through our capital works program. Where the financial delivery of the capital works program gets presented to that executive group. In terms of then, often you can have sustainability ratios that are lumpy or up and down over a 10-year period. And that is largely driven by the creation of new assets, the associated depreciation, and also the delivery of the capital works program, timing of that. So that affects that sustainability ratio as well. So it is just something, there's quite a few indicators that feed into that ratio. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Thank you.

04:36:00 Okay. Does someone like to move to motion? I'm happy to move it. Councillor Wilkie, move, seconded. Speaker 2: Councillor Wegener, Councillor Wilkie, you have the floor. Mayor Wilkie: Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Zach and Margaret, for the report on the BR1. The monthly financial reports help keep us on track, keep a good oversight on finances. One of the main reasons why we've been financially sustainable for so long. And the BR budget reviews are the flexibility in the system that allow us to adjust to emergent expenses that crop up from time to time. And it's only been a few months since we all committed to the budget process. And it's only been a few months since we all committed to the budget process. And we did commit to a small surplus. And that's been the practice for several years. But we do have the practice of budgeting conservatively, as Director Margaret said, which tends to deliver

04:37:00 a bigger surplus than originally intended. But with the proposed changes to disaster funding arrangements at the federal level, which may come into effect in 2027, 2028 financial year, if the federal government does not respond to the campaign by 77 Queensland councils, state government, the Local Government Association of Queensland, the Australian Local Government Association, and our advocacy to Queensland senators and parliamentarians, we may have to, we will be. We will be. Having to find alternative funding arrangements. And we'll be relying more on the state. So there's a long way to go with that campaign. And the closing date for submissions was only yesterday. And already we've got ministers wanting to come up and meet with Queensland representatives

04:38:00 to talk about the anomaly that is Queensland. Because although I'm moving to a 50-50 disaster funding arrangement for all the states, there's It's not equitable because Queensland cops more disasters than any other state and has a greater impost to bear in terms of recovering from natural disasters. But thank you very much for the buzzer review. It's very good, very clear. Councillor Phillips: Okay. Speaker 2: Anyone else wish to talk to the motion? Councillor Phillips. Councillor Phillips: I will. I just realised my late mum was right, because you can't have your cake and eat it too. So basically, one of the pieces that I want to go out and probably talk to community more about is the fact that the surplus always looks negative. But then they want us to be prepared for things that come up. So I think there's a bit of work that we could or I could communicate more effectively there,

04:39:00 because we do want a council to be prepared for things to come. Be financially sustainable. Which requires some level of surplus. But the net downside to that is, does it look like we've got money in the bank when people are living week to week? So it is a tricky one. And I don't have the answers, but I'm going to think on it. I do also hope that maybe through service review and things that I've requested for the budget, that we may be able to get to somewhere that I feel more comfortable. Rather than asking questions, I might just ask questions. Just put these sort of things on notice around what I'd like to know or what I'd like to keep on top of. Councillor Finzel sort of mentioned asset renewal. I'd love to see maybe more some workshops, more around just updates. The waste team does that really well. I find being short, sharp workshops that keep us sort of on the same path.

04:40:00 So I'd like to see that done with the asset renewal. So we can stay on top of it, especially when I predict like the 2031 doesn't seem that far away. And that seems to look like it doesn't look great at the moment. But if we can stay on top of it, that would be really good. I'm looking forward to long term financial modelling. I think that's a really key piece as well. And I'd like a workshop on the waste solar disposal because it's interesting that that's increasing. And I think that could be a trend that I'd like to have more information on. And just lastly on the disaster space, because that is something I'm quite passionate about. I would have hoped that we are going to position ourselves. I don't know if being oppositional to the position was the only method that we could take. So I'd like to see if we are considering other options to propose to state.

04:41:00 Because we do have a lot of natural disasters here. And I think that will be something that sneaks up on the more broader community that maybe don't, you know, if you're not in the hinterland and saw the slips or the landslides, it probably isn't front of mind. So it'd be important to know that we have different positions on what we can control and what we can't control in that space. That's all. Thanks for the report. Councillor Lorentson: I'm going to be very brief. Something that we haven't sort of discussed and something that I think is really important is about, I don't know if this is the correct terminology, but intergenerational fairness. Understanding that, you know, if we do let maintenance slide or we take on a debt without a clear plan or disaster strikes.

04:42:00 And we haven't saved the money. We need to understand, you know, are we, in essence, in delaying payments, etc. Are we going to be passing a problem on to the next term of council or the council before? So I think we have a responsibility beyond this term of council. And that doesn't just apply in our finances. It applies in all our decision making. That we should be future thinking. And that carries with it a responsibility. So I commend and thank, again, the finance team for really stepping into this space. I'm really looking forward to the stress testing and the scenario modelling. But I'm feeling very confident that we are in safe hands. So thank you.

04:43:00 Speaker 2: Okay, Council Wilkie, would you like to close? Mayor Wilkie: Just to say that thank you again, Director Margaret and Zach. This is a very good example of the News of Council staff advice that we can trust and rely upon, so thank you. I'll put the motion. Those in favour? Yes. Councillor Finzel: Yes. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: That's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you, Director and Manager. We now have our next item is an in-committee item, so we will move the motion. If someone can move the motion to go into closed session or the confidential item on what's placed by agreement. Councillor Phillips: Happy to move. Councillor Lorentson: Seed your motion. Happy to second. Oh, excuse me. Councillor Phillips: That's right. No. That meeting be closed to public in accordance with section... Section 254D3 of the LG Regulation 2012. This is not publicly available as it contains information

04:44:00 that is confidential to the local government and pursuant to section 254J3G of the local government regulation for 2012 for the purpose of discussing item 13.1, waste supply agreement. Speaker 2: Okay, and it was seconded by Councillor Lorentson. There'll be no discussion. All those in favour? Yes.

05:13:00 Mayor Wilkie: Thank you. Deputy Mayor Stockwell: Yeah, just waiting. Council's on line for the recording. Very good. Okay, coming back out of the committee, I will be moving that Council A, note the report by the Waste Manager to the Ordinary Meeting Day

05:14:00 27 August 2026 regarding the Waste Supply Agreement and B, in accordance with section 235B of the local government regulation 2012, approve entering into a waste supply agreement with Wildflower Energy Bulwer Island Betrayal Limited. The service supplier. For the trial, delivery and processing of residual municipal solid waste and post resource recovery construction and demolition residuals at the Bulwer Island Energy Recovery Facility without first inviting people quotes or tenders on the basis that, one, the services proposed to be provided by the service supplier under the agreement are specialised in the waste industry. Two, the services proposed to be provided by the service supplier under the agreement are confidential to the service supplier. And three, councillors satisfied that because of the specialised and or confidential nature of the services it would be impractical and or disadvantageous for councillors to invite folks to attend or tenders. C, authorise the CEO to negotiate and finalise the waste supply agreement and the associated documents to give effect to the agreement for the contract being discussed in the closed session of this meeting.

05:15:00 For clarity, any general financial delegation do not limit the exercise of the CEO's role. The CEO's power under this paragraph. And D, request a future report to council regarding, one, operation outcomes of the trial arrangement. Two, waste diversion performance. Three, financial outcomes. And four, opportunities associated with any future energy recovery facility initiative. Seconded by Councillor Phillips. No need to talk to that. If the others don't wish to say anything, I put the motion. All those in favour? In favour, yes. And that's carried unanimously. So thank you, councillors. That brings us to the end of today's proceedings. The next ordinary meeting will be at the council chambers at 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin at 10am on Thursday the 17th of September.