Original source · versioned page text
2020-06-09 Services & Organisation Committee Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
Services & Organisation
Committee Meeting
Tuesday, 9 June 2020
commencing at 1.30pm
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Joe Jurisevic (Chair), Amelia Lorentson, Clare Stewart, Frank Wilkie
“Noosa Shire – different by nature”
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 25 sections
Section 2
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
DEPUTATIONS -
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE 3
1 1920T090 TREE MANAGEMENT & MAINTENANCE PREFERRED SUPPLIER
ARRANGEMENT (PSA) - TENDER ACCEPTANCE 3
2 REGIONAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT FUND - GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS -
2019-20 12
3 2020/21 BUDGET - PUBLIC CONSULTATION TRIAL 16
4 COUNCILLOR REMUNERATION FREEZE 24
CLOSED SESSION -
Page 2 of 26
Section 3
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
REPORTS FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE
1 1920T090 TREE MANAGEMENT & MAINTENANCE PREFERRED SUPPLIER
ARRANGEMENT (PSA) - TENDER ACCEPTANCE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Matt Hansen, Parks & Gardens Coordinator
Infrastructure Services Department
Index ECM / Project and Contact / 1920T090 Tree Management Maintenance /
Reports to Council
ECM / Project and Contract / 1920T090 Tree Management Maintenance /
Awarded Contract
ECM / Subject / Contracting / Parks and Reserves
Attachments 1. Evaluation Matrix – Category 1 to Category 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Tree management and maintenance is a major component of work managed predominantly by
the Parks & Gardens Branch. Contractors are used to perform the bulk of the workload
generated by both proactive and reactive tree works within the Noosa Shire. A number of
contractors are required for the various categories of tree work, which are:
Tree Planting and Establishment
Tree Services (i) Major and (ii) Minor
Specialised Tree Works (e.g. root barrier installation, plant health programs)
Tree Assessment and Consultancy
To accommodate the multitude of these works, a contractor panel (Preferred Supplier
Arrangement) is drawn upon and allocated work on an as needs basis. The approximate value of
tree work undertaken by contractors is around $1.2 million per annum. The panel is also
available to be used by other branches within Council.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Parks and Gardens Coordinator to the Services &
Organisation Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2020 and:
A. Approve the establishment of 1920T090 – Preferred Supplier Arrangement (PSA) for the
provision of Tree Management and Maintenance Services for an initial period of two (2)
years for the suppliers listed in Table 1 PSA Recommended Suppliers within the report;
and
B. Authorise the CEO to approve three (3) optional periods of up to one (1) year each.
Options to extend are solely at the discretion of Council and dependent upon contractor
performance and the ongoing need for the services by Council under the panel.
Page 3 of 26
Section 4
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
REPORT
The previous 1516T002 Register of Pre-Qualified Suppliers for Tree Goods and Services expired
on 28 May 2020 with no further options for annual extension and as such, a new arrangement for
tree management and maintenance is required to continue the required work. Due to the amount
of work that is available, it was found that the size (number of suppliers) of the previous panel
arrangement exceeded Council’s needs. As such, this new tender sought to establish a suitably
sized panel to be able to respond to the expected workload.
1. Tender Process
Council invited tenders for the establishment of a new PSA for Tree Maintenance and
Management Services on 21 February 2020, which was advertised in the Sunshine Coast Daily
on 22 February 2020 and the Noosa News on 25 February 2020.
Required services were grouped into the following four (4) categories with specifications for each:
Category 1 – Tree Planting and Establishment
Category 2 – Tree Services (i) Major and (ii) Minor
Category 3 – Specialised Tree Works
Category 4 – Tree Assessment and Consultancy
The specifications set standards including:
Outlining the type of work and relevant specifications for each category;
Qualifications and experience of staff undertaking the work, both supervisors and
operators;
Best practice techniques, methodologies and relevant Workplace Health & Safety
requirements (i.e. signage);
Types of plant, equipment and materials for supply.
An evaluation panel reviewed twenty-five (25) conforming submissions in accordance with the
following non-price evaluation criteria:
Capability & Resourcing
Contract Experience & Capacity
Methodology
Quality
Health & Safety
Environment & Sustainability
Contribution to Local Economy
As the tender sought a schedule of rates response, categories 1, 2 and 4 applied a scenario
based price evaluation; however, due to the varied nature of Specialised Tree Work, it was
considered that it would be impractical to consider price as a criteria fairly. As a result, the
pricing submitted for each supplier was given a $1 pricing value due to the varying types of work.
The tendered rates can be used to assess and determine pricing based upon the services being
offered when work is required. Any specialised services above $10,000 will be subject to an
Invitation to Quote process in accordance with the Panel Management Plan.
The number of suppliers required for each category has been based on the expected workload
for each category. Categories 2(i) and (ii) and Category 4 have resulted in (10) suppliers each;
and Categories 1 and 3 have resulted in three (3) suppliers each based upon a lower workload
for these types of work.
Page 4 of 26
Section 5
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
In accordance with the above specification and the outcome of the evaluation, it is proposed
that the following suppliers be included on panel arrangement 1920T090 – Preferred Supplier
Arrangement (PSA) for the provision of Tree Management and Maintenance Services.
Table 1: PSA Recommended Suppliers
Category Category Category Category Category
PSA Recommended Suppliers
1 2 (i) 2 (ii) 3 4
Active Tree Services Pty Ltd
Arbor Australis Consulting Pty Ltd - - - -
Arboriculture Contracting
- - -
Services Pty Ltd
Branch Creek Services Pty Ltd - - -
Bush and Beach Tree Services
- - -
Pty Ltd
Consult Arborist Pty Ltd - - - -
ETS Vegetation Management - -
Heritage Tree Services - - -
Pinnacle Arborpro Pty Ltd - - - -
Professional Tree Surgery* - - -
RST Systems Pty Ltd - -
Steve’s Tree Cutting - - -
Sunshine Tree Surgery Pty Ltd* - - - -
Tree Fix - - - -
Tree Solutions Australia Pty Ltd - -
Treesafe Australia Pty Ltd*
Total number of suppliers to
3 10 10 3 10
each category under the panel
*denotes suppliers based in the Noosa Shire
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance
The use of suppliers on this panel arrangement is funded mainly through the Arborist Services
Cost Centre within Parks & Gardens, which will be approved as part of the 2020/21 Council
budget. The pricing put forward by suppliers on the panel does not represent a large increase
compared to the previous panel arrangement pricing and should not impact on the quantity or
quality of works achieved within future budgets.
Risks & Opportunities
Establishment of the new panel (with proposed option periods) will allow Council to regularly
review the performance of each panel member and make informed decisions regarding future
panel member arrangements. Establishment of the new panel also allows staff to engage pre-
qualified suppliers to undertake work in a timely manner without the need for an extended
quotation process.
Page 5 of 26
Section 6
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
In accordance with the Conditions of Arrangement, Council reserves the right to refresh the
arrangement allowing for the on-boarding of additional suppliers in consideration of the ongoing
need for the services by Council under the panel.
Workplace Health & Safety
Prior to work being undertaken by suppliers under the panel arrangement, Council will confirm
relevant Workplace Health & Safety documentation is in compliance with Council requirements.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries X Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services X Environment & Sustainable Development X Infrastructure Services
Director Director X Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development X Civil Operations
People and Culture X Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 6 of 26
Section 7
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 7 of 26
NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL Weighted Attribute Evaluation Spreadsheet - Final Evaluation
PSA Tree Management & Maintenance Services ATTACHM ENT 1
NAME OF TENDERER PRICE *
(Conforming Tenders Only) (excl of GST)
a CATEGORY 1 - TREE PLANTING AND ESTABLISHMENT
2 |ETS Vegetation Management $101
3 [RST Systems Pty Ltd
4 |The Landscape Construction Company Pty Ltd $310 * NB. Price based on common work scenario applying Respondent's submitted schedule of rates.
5 $160 i.e. Planting 45Lt Stock (Range: 10+ Trees; per tree) + Planting Establishment (12 week period range (Range: 10+ Trees); per tree)
6 |Treesafe Australia Pty Ltd $196
NON-CONFORMING TENDERS
1 2 3 4 5 6
PART A- Non price elements ETS Vegetation RST Systems Pty Ltd The oe Treesafe Australia
Sa Pty Ltd Management Construction Pty Ltd
Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant
Evaluation Criteria Weighting (%) score x score x score x score x score x score x
weighting weighting weighting weighting weighting weighting
ew fo fe om fo fp f= fmf fof [|
comnasmmom ff» [=[=[=-=>=[=[=>=|=|=[~|
Normalised Technical Score (Tn)
PART B - Price element ETS Vegetation RST Systems Pty Ltd The panes Treesafe Australia
Pty Ltd Management Construction Pty Ltd
Total Fees (Pc) 15% $97 $101 $80 $310 $160 $196
Average Fees (Pav) S..ccssscsesssseseenenee $157
Weighted Price Score (Pw)
Total Score of price and non price elements
Contract Administrator & Assesment Panel Member 1 Parks and Gardens Coordinator
Assesment Panel Member 2 Arborist - Tree Assessment Officer
Assesment Panel Member 3 Technical Officer Parks & Gardens
Assesment Panel Member 4 Workplace Health and Safety Advisor
Page 7 of 26Section 8
Page 8 of 26
NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL _—_— Weighted Attribute Evaluation Spreadsheet - Final Evaluation
PSA Tree Management & Maintenance Serves
NAME OF TENDERER
(Conforming Tenders Only)
1 | active Tree Services Pry Ltd SP CATEGORY 2 - MAJOR TREE SERVICES
2 [Arboriculture Contractors Australia Pty Ltd [CSI
3 [Branch Creek Pty Ltd
4 [Bush & Beach Tree Srevices Pty Ltd [S65] * NB. Price based on common work scenario applying Respondent's submitted schedule of rates.
5 i.e. Stump Grinding (per hour) + Maintenance/Removal (3-Person Crew) + Elevated Work Platform (18m; per hour)
6 [Farrugia Bros Vegetation management
7
8 [Professional Tree Surge $355
9 [RST Systems Pty Ltd $524
10 [Steve's Tree Cutting
11 |Top Cut Tree Solutions Pty Ltd
2
B
14
15 [Treesafe Australia Pty Ltd
NON-CONFORMING TENDERS
1 2 3 4 Ss 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
a Active Tree Services Arboriculture Bush & Beach Tree ETS Vegetation Farrugia Bros Professional Tree a z Top Cut Tree a — Tree Solutions Treesafe Australia
PART A - Non price elements __ | Branch Creek Pty Ltd . - Noosa Tree Man RST Syst Ltd | st Tree Cutting 7 Tree Fi Tree Logisti °
pty Ltd Contractors Australia meek Pty Srevices Pty Ltd Management Vegetation a“ Surge ystems Pty ue Solutions Pty Ltd “_ es Australia Pty Ltd pty Ltd
Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant Resultant
Evaluation Criteria Weighting (°%) = = = a ee a ——e = a =n = = a ee =
coasnanone fm fr [me |» | ae | [ao] [ae] @ [an] = [ae] ~ [om] [ao] © [ao | [am | © [am| [aw] ne fae] fae] [ae]
cmatooinwncm | mf = fr fe [as [ [| [lel m[=fmfs ff [ws [ele[e[ =| [ole [ = |m[ || os | an |
— se [ee Pe [ase Pas Pe Paes [ele [oe [ = [as[ = [asf = [asf = [owls [es[ = [es [» [me [e [om [= [me
omy tm | om | | om | os | om | mm | om] ow | om] | sm | | om | om | om | ow | om] ow | eo | om | ow | s | rm | m | rm] @ | om] @ | om |
ometssaomay Off = pf [| = [= pe pepe pepe p=le [=| = [=| =|=|~|@|»| =| =| [=> [we [o
Fete soe pom | wes | cts || some sess sein] | cass | cee | am | so |e |e co
Normalised Technical Score (Tn)
| amet ettd | contre autre | ROMACeCHPI Ue | OS ig | ‘Monegenent | vegtntn | NOO2Tee Mon | PUSSY [-asrsptemsmyted [sever ree cut | scttonsomrisa | TeeF | Meets | attoowuy | emits
PARTB - Price element ch Ti T 's Tr Tree Fi T
pty Ltd Contractors Austratia | B/mh reek PRY Ltd | crevices pty Ltd anagement Vegetatio Noosa Tree Surge RST Systems Pty Lid | Steve's Tree C Solutions Pty Ltd ce ree Logistics Australia Pty Ltd pty Ltd
Total Fees (Pc) 15% $579 $605 $495 $465 $444 $410 $355 $524 $420 $828 $447 $710 $440 $410
Average Fees (Pav) $.....ssssecsssssseeseeees $518
mes psf ee ee ee fe
ee poe ee ew i i
Weighted Price Score (Pw)
Total Score of price and non price elements
Contract Administrator & Assesment Panel Member 1 Parks and Gardens Coordinator
Assesment Panel Member 2 Arborist - Tree Assessment Officer
Assesment Panel Member 3 Technical Officer Parks & Gardens
Assesment Panel Member 4 Workplace Health and Safety AdvisorSection 9
Page 9 of 26
NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL Weighted Attribute Evaluation Spreadsheet - Final Evaluation
he] NAME OF TENDERER PRICE *
(Conforming Tenders Only) (excl of GST)
1 [asive Tee Sences Pye 7 CATEGORY 2 - MINOR TREE SERVICES
2 [Arboriculture Contractors Australia Pty Ltd ee)
3. [Branch Creek Pty Ltd [$305]
4 [Bush & Beach Tree Services Pty Ltd [335] '* NB. Price based on common work scenario applying Respondent's submitted schedule of rates.
5 i.e. Stump Grinding (per hour) + Maintenance/removal (2-Person Crew; per hour)
6
7 [NoosaTreeMan 8393]
8 [Professional TreeSurgery $280
9 [Reliable Tree Services $385
10 [RSTSystemsPtyltd 888
11 [Steve's Tree Cutting (Jatia Pty Ltd)
12
13 |Top Cut Tree Solutions Pty Ltd $585
14[Treefix 888]
15
16
17 |Treesafe Australia Pty Ltd
NON-CONFORMING TENDERS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 415 16 17
7 Acti ce bortcul Bush & Beacl TS atio Farrugia Bros Professional Reliabl teve’s Cutting Sunshi fop Cut _ ree Solutio a tralia Pt
[Pam Monaeetement itd | contacts strato | omenceek vied | Sra | Monogement | vegetation | NowroTree Man | TONS Mee | semis | RSTSmteme Pees nied | sugenretitd | sation oyid | ee
5 1 1 1 24 35 2859 846 56 55 57 |
5 1 1 1 24 36 2914 846 111 55 7 Mectoomtes
5 1 1 1 24 37 3028 846 38 55 75 |
5 1 1 1 24 38 3070 846 111 55 0 eet
5 1 1 1 24 39 3212 846 120 55 0 [vag
5 1 1 1 24 40 3381 846 20 55 58 |
4 1 1 1 25 0 664 856 2532 38 -1
5 1 1 1 25 1 664 876 2 3 69 p
5 1 1 1 25 2 770 862 89 32 96 Contractors
5 1 1 1 25 3 864 862 64 32 95 Australia
5 1 1 1 25 4 1038 856 61 37 30 aye
5 1 1 1 25 5 1202 876 2 3 50 p
5 1 1 1 25 6 1324 878 29 5 88 anag
5 1 1 1 25 7 1498 878 44 5 90 getatio
5 1 1 1 25 8 1654 864 8 9 45 a
5 1 1 1 25 9 1668 857 30 36 45 Tree
5 1 1 1 25 10 1828 878 31 9 41 Irgery
5 1 1 1 25 11 2091 861 28 12 43 ar
5 1 1 1 25 12 2171 856 33 38 89 Pty
5 1 1 1 25 13 2206 856 23 38 87 Ltd
5 1 1 1 25 14 2228 856 36 38 27 |
atia Pty Ltd) gery P Solutions Pty Ltd esc feet Australia Pty Ltd
Resultant: ‘Resultant ‘Resultant Resultant ‘Resultant
Evaluation Criteria sxorex ore x xorex scorex sorex
caine | om | of =| = [ale [ae[ fas] «[am| [ae] »[se| [an| ~]se| fan] = [ao| «| se| © [a=| 9 |os| > fas] [am | = | ae
chin ght in sighting eight ght ght eghting ght ght eghtin ght cghtin ight ghtin eight sighting
[omteomtcms fe p= pm pepe pele >efsle|=|s|»[s>»[elels|s|m|m|s=[=l»>elelele|=|»|=>e[ewl[s [=|
lwetidoosy | ts | | em | co | tse | m | ro | m | eo] @ [om | @ [oo | a [us| ss [as | m | om] » | wel» | vol wo [eo] & [us| « | os | m | om | oo [om | m | woe |
fomity me ce fom Ts fs Ts | cs | | sm | om | soo | so | sm | om | soo | | co | m | rm | [ co | wm | em | m | v0 | | om | ms | v0 | m [rm | © | em | om | om |
Heath & Safety pom fe tlw | floss | | om | [om] i [se | @ | sm] sw [om | @ | oe | sm | os | om [se |» | om | ow [ so | @ | sm | © [os |» [| om | @ | os | o | so |
Emirommentasetainaty | se |e | aso | m | sso | ow | as [| om | am | im | ao | oe | os | | sm | om | om | os | om | os | os [| m | om [om | sm | mw | ow | mw | om | om | om | om | om | om | om |
[oatawuacomn f= fs fase ll s[=fefelef=fefe|s => >wfas>ew[s>s[es[=[= [|= [|e |e [ = [= [as [om fo [om
ate Se
7 Active Tree Services ‘Arboriculture Bush & Beach Tree | _ E15 Vegetation Farrugia Bros Professional Tree Reliable Tree Steve's Tree Gutting | Sunshine Tree Top Gut Tree a Tree Solutions | Treesafe Australia Pty
| rantnstrcetement | ytd | concise | Orme creck ytd | Ss i | ‘management | vegetation | MoweaTecemon | OST seve | Ar Setemeryitd | Tersom itd)” | sugenetitd | soaton pound | MF | Teetonetis | arama it
Total Fees (Pc) $335 $275 $275 $393 $385 $341 $260 $380 $341 $560 $240
[Average Fees (Pav) Suinncnnentnee
Picts Pome
oman ice cre Pos Tm Tm Pe sm we ee
Weighted Price Score (Pw)
Total Score of price and non price elements
i
Parks and Gardens Coordinator
Assesment Panel Member 2
Technical Officer Parks & Gardens
‘Assesment Panel Member 4 Workplace Health and Safety AdvisorSection 10
Page 10 of 26
me g|s|s a i ©
IS |be8] 8 &\ele 8 8
3
gle 3 3. ele ©
x5 a Hs &
Sg an : 5
: ! 3
=
oBeae 8\e 8] 8 % 23 2
LE oS Oo] mn om 2a ele S
o
eS Be a4 4 a
re 2
es218|alelsle)sie °
eliba s olalr|a oa 3
o| 8 S| a
3 :
AE elele 8
B88 Sl) ulrin A ie
Eje"8 9 cz a
“| 8 g :
. a} olor he
w a ~ wo 5
Brel als giale :
$ a2] 5 5 N | oo | of 2
cE vo 5 .
£8 caw
BS
5 1 1 1 28 2 1521 1188 50 35 41 Ba
4 1 1 1 29 0 1537 1303 18 22 -1
5 1 1 1 29 1 1537 1303 18 22 72 z
4 1 1 1 30 0 855 1303 704 71 -1
5 1 1 1 30 1 855 1303 154 43 4 Sled
5 1 1 1 30 2 1107 1322 246 43 0 aiale/s/e|sle
4 1 1 1 31 0 856 1340 699 50 -1
5 1 1 1 31 1 856 1340 21 34 69 =
5 1 1 1 31 2 930 1347 10 26 92 8
5 1 1 1 31 3 985 1343 24 32 14 Pa
5 1 1 1 31 4 1107 1353 74 12 31 alo]
5 1 1 1 31 5 1221 1354 17 11 31 a
5 1 1 1 31 6 1543 1379 12 11 3 c
4 1 1 1 32 0 860 1374 923 46 -1
5 1 1 1 32 1 860 1379 13 11 37 é
5 1 1 1 32 2 1394 1374 16 31 66 3
5 1 1 1 32 3 1543 1388 70 32 0 eja
5 1 1 1 32 4 1709 1382 74 36 0 |8|8
4 1 1 1 33 0 336 1383 1223 79 -1
5 1 1 1 33 1 336 1385 29 42 65 2
5 1 1 1 33 2 814 1383 30 57 73 “|
5 1 1 1 33 3 858 1390 14 38 36 5
5 1 1 1 33 4 1394 1405 16 25 51 g
5 1 1 1 33 5 1538 1420 21 42 58 i
4 1 1 1 34 0 336 1428 1219 75 -1
5 1 1 1 34 1 336 1428 28 23 30 S
5 1 1 1 34 2 856 1429 21 74 25 gy
5 1 1 1 34 3 992 1445 16 24 20 as
5 1 1 1 34 4 1221 1446 17 24 0 °
5 1 1 1 34 5 1538 1464 17 39 56 5
4 1 1 1 35 0 336 1453 29 29 -1
5 1 1 1 35 1 343 1447 12 46 50 Oo
4 1 1 1 36 0 336 1482 1235 92 -1
5 1 1 1 36 1 336 1482 29 40 69 =
5 1 1 1 36 2 955 1533 13 19 0 .
5 1 1 1 36 3 1107 1544 17 12 76 -
5 1 1 1 36 4 1280 1550 16 12 73 -
5 1 1 1 36 5 1553 1552 18 22 13 -
4 1 1 1 37 0 339 1516 1014 63 -1
5 1 1 1 37 1 339 1516 13 46 48 Ww
5 1 1 1 37 2 931 1544 193 30 0 sAely|s
5 1 1 1 37 3 1221 1550 17 24 30 2
5 1 1 1 37 4 1337 1550 16 29 43 3
4 1 1 1 38 0 332 1530 1239 87 -1
5 1 1 1 38 1 332 1548 32 63 56 oc
5 1 1 1 38 2 844 1534 124 79 10 eee
5 1 1 1 38 3 992 1530 74 87 0 els
5 1 1 1 38 4 1072 1530 281 87 0 /sjeleisls
5 1 1 1 38 5 1522 1562 49 43 17 Be
4 1 1 1 39 0 337 1569 1446 76 -1
5 1 1 1 39 1 337 1569 17 66 0 FE
5 1 1 1 39 2 822 1588 35 55 51 rs
5 1 1 1 39 3 874 1588 36 55 0 &|*
5 1 1 1 39 4 1394 1602 16 30 0 $
5 1 1 1 39 5 1527 1611 14 25 45 &
5 1 1 1 39 6 1563 1613 1 4 26 |
5 1 1 1 39 7 1591 1616 22 24 37 3
5 1 1 1 39 8 1766 1609 17 36 78 g
4 1 1 1 40 0 336 1618 1235 68 -1
5 1 1 1 40 1 336 1629 29 25 75 a
5 1 1 1 40 2 814 1618 44 52 45 ls
8 8 Es
2. :
a bbz) 8 wn lw B S
a Sees a) o) 5 a ae
a. Bees) el Ae
° “|e § es ”
1 2 8 -
< 6 :
i e Hid slelgtalsis/s|_|_ |i
Slex2 n 3
Ss ra &\3 a so =
8 < 3 8 | a 8/8
oO S o| 8 :
> & :
z i Ele |*|e[e/sfe]= &
c nF
iL 3 8 BREE:
1 = ;
3 eH i2 8/8 4 : /|3| =
: ety |- . He 5] 3/8] 2
5 ala 5 8] | 2/8
6 Es : sal
8 ’ -
£ BE alZ}e 2 § g) 34/5 /2
2 é - 8 ze S| 2
5 zrls
Clg Saletlel[Sslelealeleleiala 3 ae
2 8 re] 7] 9] 9] Cd |] 09 || - $ B22 2 2 8 8 r 3 : 3 i
3] 5 35m oO 5 | A Pry a 5 3/2
oO| © ae 5 a 5 HE
a| ¢ 5 eee zy W 3
‘gl E , 3 g ol a
Ol] = o alg 5 :
| 5 z 3 iS i
w| = x : rn] 2 2 ‘
s|s — 8
| &
-|e ;
ble .
=| 2 z 2 2° 2 x a 3
Be z Pa a1 8/8 5 | i no ; 5
Sele 3 £ ¢ Blalele
Bo 2) 8 3 z i ‘llel<
3 (2/5 3 | 2) 2
S| 2/2 ; i : a
5 2g . 2\=
i : Ell i i Aide
Ms :
z : € gz i : sl s\s
2 =| | ule z 3 § § z| 5 3 0 i = <|| :
s & . 3
9s es] |33 Z| |& < »| 3s 2/3} |4]|8 i é| |% 2
3 e/S q = c H =
cle le ieee 43 |S F 5|% el alelé ¢ § fis :
w]e) 8)/ 8 $ oletsle|{s|a | (4 Is J), / 5/3 Ae: 3 3 3 i
vo 5|5 | p 2 : 5 _¢&
alSlE EG aed Mel eel ive] (el ellg] || jeg. 2 aili
n FF 3) ols] S] 3/4] 3 Bs} eB IS ol) x! B 8} a] 2 ¥ 3
x uw 219) 5/8) %) 2) 2)e s/$/2 S e/Si/al| 3 3) 8/2 3
vn Oo € | 2/5]5) g)'o| 8] | | aS} 5 ’ £)/e/slel/2%lé 2/8 é
° w 3 £{5]$) 314] s)/2|519) 3 2 z Ae: e|3 5 ef :
2 SuEEBaEeEEEEL S Ele sl sisi el el
le] ell Slt] S| 2] 2 S w| 6 S| a|2 2 4
| g |pnmemonoogsSection 11
Page 11 of 26
NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL __ Weighted Attribute Evaluation Spreadsheet - Final Evaluation
he] NAME OF TENDERER PRICE *
(Conforming Tenders Only) (excl of GST)
1 CATEGORY 4 - TREE ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTANCY
2 [Arbor Australis Consulting Pty Ltd [245]
3 [Arboriculture Contractors Australia Pty Ltd
4 [Bush & Beach Tree Srevices Pty Ltd * NB. Price based on common work scenario applying Respondent's submitted schedule of rates.
5 i.e. Tree assessment and report preparation (per hour)
6
7 [Heritage TreeServicesPtyltd P25]
8 | Independent Arboricultural Services
9
10 $189
1a
12
13
14
15 | Tree Solutions Australia Pty Ltd
16
v7
NON-CONFORMING TENDERS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 14 15 16 v7
Active Tree Services bor Australis Bort Bush & Beach Tree | Co Bo getatio Heritage ree depend acle Arborpro Sunshine Tree | Tree Dimensions Pty Tree Sokutions 7 fralla
[ener tonaeetements | yd | conutinnryitd | contactor autvalo | sevtesoyud | ind” | Managment | senier?yuid | Abercdtul | pyund |r omemsrtved | See, [Wernimiem ry] eer | teetonitis | atrtmemted [and [on Foret concent |
a pty Ltd Consulting Pty Ltd_| Contractors Australia | Srevices Pty Ltd anag Services Pty Ltd Arboricultural p te gery Pty Ltd Itd “ ‘Australia Pty Ltd
‘Resultant
fev fm || as| [ae] |e] » fas] = [os] a [ae] © [ae] © [ae] |ee| > [os] » fas] [am] = [oe] = [ae] a [as] » |e] @ | oe]
xenncam ~ = [=|] =|s|=|=>=|@|=|=l=|s[=[=|=|=|=>=>=|=|>|=lele>=)=|=|=[@|=|= >=] =| |
st P= p= [=f feef= [=| paw] = [eo] sof [as[ = [as[ | oe| @ [aw] » fos] » [os] © [os] = ||» | oe | om |» | we |
lamin Tm Tm | om | wm | om | co | coo | co | coo | oo | om | mo | soo | m | soo | s | soo | m | ro | m | sm | m | rm | m | om [is | re [ m | rm | om | om | o | eo | so | sm |
teat Set Poa ef fe fm fe [lee] few] fe | se | fe | | ef ie | oe | | oe | | oe | mw | ow | | ow | mw [ew | ow | os | ow | om | mw | oe |
covionmentsstiaity [se | | ase | so | ase | mm | sso | om | am | | com | wm | aso | os | as | so | as | os | om | ss | os [om | os | @ | am | ow | oo | m | am | o | oo | @ | om | | om |
[omwmonacmom | = [sls [s>=>e>=|«|=|s|=|@|=|s|=ls|=[s|=[s|=|=|=|=|~[«l=|=|=las|m| spel e |
stressors Tem Tes cess oats | sass esas sars | esas esas | ens | saso [caso [sas | cos cuss sas
Normalised Technical Score (Tn)
T five Tree Service bor Australi boricul Bush & Beach Tree | Co ori getatio age Tree dependent Pinnacle Arborpro Sunshine Tree | Tree Dimensions Pty Tree Solutions | Treesafe Australia Pty
PART B - Price element = Urban Forest Concepts
Pty Ltd oP Contractors Australia | _Srevices Pty Ltd — Services Pty Ltd [efentadiedl p ee) gery Pty Ltd td Tree Logistics Australia Pty Ltd Ltd u
Total Fees (Pc) $145 $108
[Average Fees (Pav) Sennen
a po ee ee ee
Romande Sere pce | se Pc Tce Pe Ps see Ts
Weighted Price Score (Pw)
Total Score of price and non price elements
a
Contract Administrator & Assesment Panel Member 1 Parks and Gardens Coordinator
‘assesment Panel Member 2
‘Assesment Panel Member 3 Technical Officer Parks & Gardens
Assesment Panel Member 4 Workplace Health and Safety AdvisorSection 12
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
2 REGIONAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT FUND - GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS - 2019-20
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Community Development Manager, Alison Hamblin
Community Services Department
Index ECM/ Subject/RADF/2019-20
Attachments 1. RADF Recommendations for Funding
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Community Development Manager to the Services &
Organisation Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2020 and approve the Regional Arts
Development Fund recommendations for 2019-20 Round 2 funding as outlined in Attachment 1
to the report.
REPORT
The Regional Arts Development Fund (RADF) supports cultural activity through the professional
development and employment of arts and cultural workers in regional Queensland. RADF is a
partnership, jointly funded, between State Government, through Arts Queensland, and Noosa
Council.
The RADF Committee chair position was vacant at the time of assessment but the position will
be filled by Councillor Karen Finzel going forward. Noosa Council’s Arts and Culture Officer stood
in as chairperson for the assessment of this round. The RADF Committee comprises external
professional arts industry representatives with Council officers in supporting roles.
RADF Committee Members include:
Belinda Simonsen, Noosa Council Community Development Officer (Arts and Culture)
Michael Brennan, Noosa Council Gallery Director
Toni Wills, Community Representative
Alicia Sharples, Community Representative
Cal Webb, Community Representative (undertook assessment but not moderation)
Michael Donovan, Community Representative
Liz Ellison, Community Representative
Kathy Lynch, Community Representative
Noelle Nelson, Community Representative (undertook assessment but not moderation)
This report covers the second RADF grant round for 2019-20 which closed on 25 March 2020.
Page 12 of 26
Section 13
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
Promotion
Promotion of this RADF grant round included media releases to newspapers. Additional
information was also posted on Council’s website, circulated to Council’s arts database and
placed on social media (Facebook). An arts grants information session was also held in
February.
Support to applicants was provided by the Arts and Culture Development Officer, the Community
Development Officer and the Grants Officer. Staff attended face-to-face meetings with individual
applicants and responded to telephone enquiries and emails.
As per the Community Grants Policy all RADF applicants were required to speak to a grants
officer to discuss their project and get support through the application process.
Assessment
The RADF program supports the implementation of the Noosa Cultural Plan and prioritises
projects which align with the aims and focus areas within the Cultural Plan.
RADF applications were assessed against the following generic RADF assessment criteria:
Will the project develop the paid artist’s professional life?
Will the project benefit the community, both directly and indirectly?
Is the project well planned and achievable?
Will the project increase the sustainably of quality and diverse creative communities?
They were also assessed against the Noosa RADF Committee’s two priority areas for 2019-20
which are key focus areas from the Cultural Plan:
Arts, Environment and Sense of Place
Participation
All the recommended applications addressed one or both of these priority areas.
A total of 10 applications requesting $38,655 were received and assessed by the RADF
committee
In accordance with RADF Guidelines, committee members are required to declare any conflicts
of interest and once declared the committee member is then not involved in related deliberations.
In this round, one committee member declared a conflict of interest for one of the applications.
The RADF Committee has recommended 7 applications totalling $30,685 for funding. The
projects recommended for funding are rated excellent in quality and diversity, and will employ
quality artists and arts workers who will engage in valuable arts and cultural activities across the
region.
RADF funding notification
Upon Council endorsement of this report, successful applicants will be notified by email including
a letter of acceptance for signature by the applicant.
Unsuccessful applicants who do not meet the grant criteria or who are not funded due to lack of
available funds will be advised in writing. Feedback is provided by the assessment panel on
areas of the project or application that may be modified or improved.
Page 13 of 26
Section 14
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
Previous Council Consideration
Since 2014, Noosa Council has had a partnership with Arts Queensland to deliver the RADF
program. As part of this partnership, Noosa Council is able to offer grants to artists and arts
organisations within the Noosa Shire. These are assessed by the RADF committee and
approved by Council twice each year.
Finance
RADF is a partnership between State Government, through Arts Queensland and Noosa Council.
Council has a funding agreement which runs from October 2019 to September 2020 with Arts
Queensland. Noosa Council’s RADF program is equally funded by Noosa Council and Arts
Queensland.
Risks & Opportunities
There are no risk implications.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
The RADF Committee members
Partnership Officer, Arts Queensland
Internal Consultation
Director Community Services
Libraries and Galleries Manager
Gallery Director
Community Development Officer – Arts and Culture
Grants Officer, Community Development
Management Accountant
Community Development Manager
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer x Community Services x Corporate Services
Executive Officer x Director Director
Executive Support x Community Development x Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
x Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 14 of 26
Section 15
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
Page 15 of 26
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
Attachment 1 REGIONAL ARTS DEVELOPMENT - GRANT RECOMMENDATIONS 2019-20
Applicant Project Description Special Conditions / Comments Recommended
PP 4 P P Funding
Press Gang Printmakers Recommend the artist work with Noosa Council's Arts
(auspiced by Noosa Arts ‘True Grit' - Two day printmaking workshop with master printmaker Bronwyn Rees. — Jand Culture Development Officer to resubmit in the next $0.00
and Crafts Assoc. Inc.) RADF Grants round for reassessment.
Ms Lisa Smith ‘Body, Breath, Voice and Song Workshops’ - Experienced international performer and $3,000.00
health professional to deliver a suite of singing workshops for the community.
Ms Alison Burnley ‘The Lullaby Ensemble’ will nurture the creativity of new mums through rehearsing $4,900.00
and performing traditional folk lullabies from across the globe.
State
5 1 1 1 12 2 811 1007 32 27 96 of
5 1 1 1 12 3 854 1007 178 34 56 Emergency’
5 1 1 1 12 4 1044 1022 9 3 91 -
5 1 1 1 12 5 1065 1007 58 27 96 Like
5 1 1 1 12 6 1134 1008 76 33 96 Song
5 1 1 1 12 7 1221 1008 84 32 96 Lines,
5 1 1 1 12 8 1318 1008 55 26 96 Fire
5 1 1 1 12 9 1385 1007 101 27 96 United
5 1 1 1 12 10 1497 1007 134 27 96 Australia
5 1 1 1 12 11 1643 1008 47 26 96 Art
5 1 1 1 12 12 1701 1007 151 27 96 exhibition
5 1 1 1 12 13 1863 1011 31 23 96 to
4 1 1 1 13 0 264 1055 2978 37 -1
5 1 1 1 13 1 264 1059 45 26 96 Ms
5 1 1 1 13 2 321 1058 122 27 92 Barbora
5 1 1 1 13 3 454 1058 153 27 90 Tomikova
5 1 1 1 13 4 713 1058 160 27 96 document
5 1 1 1 13 5 884 1059 95 26 95 Noosa
5 1 1 1 13 6 993 1058 139 27 95 bushfires
5 1 1 1 13 7 1143 1058 55 27 96 and
5 1 1 1 13 8 1211 1058 144 27 95 resilience
5 1 1 1 13 9 1365 1058 123 34 96 through
5 1 1 1 13 10 1501 1058 200 34 96 photography
5 1 1 1 13 11 1711 1058 56 27 96 and
5 1 1 1 13 12 1780 1058 131 33 96 personal
5 1 1 1 13 13 1922 1059 103 26 95 stories
5 1 1 1 13 14 3085 1055 157 35 96 $5,000.00
4 1 1 1 14 0 714 1108 848 34 -1
5 1 1 1 14 1 714 1110 24 25 96 in
5 1 1 1 14 2 750 1110 189 32 96 cooperation
5 1 1 1 14 3 950 1108 66 27 93 with
5 1 1 1 14 4 1028 1110 114 32 91 Cooroy
5 1 1 1 14 5 1154 1110 96 25 96 Butter
5 1 1 1 14 6 1261 1110 116 32 96 Factory
5 1 1 1 14 7 1386 1110 62 25 96 Arts
5 1 1 1 14 8 1459 1110 103 25 96 Centre
4 1 1 1 15 0 714 1167 1264 34 -1
5 1 1 1 15 1 714 1167 37 27 91 ‘Je
5 1 1 1 15 2 761 1169 60 25 96 Suis
5 1 1 1 15 3 830 1167 54 27 40 Toi’
5 1 1 1 15 4 897 1167 17 34 51 (|
5 1 1 1 15 5 926 1176 46 18 94 am
5 1 1 1 15 6 984 1167 69 34 89 You)
5 1 1 1 15 7 1065 1183 10 3 89 -
5 1 1 1 15 8 1083 1167 57 27 96 The
5 1 1 1 15 9 1151 1167 207 34 96 development
5 1 1 1 15 10 1367 1167 69 27 96 then
5 1 1 1 15 11 1449 1167 90 34 96 public
5 1 1 1 15 12 1551 1167 202 34 95 performance
5 1 1 1 15 13 1763 1167 33 27 95 of
5 1 1 1 15 14 1805 1176 14 18 96 a
5 1 1 1 15 15 1831 1167 147 27 96 theatrical
4 1 1 1 16 0 262 1215 2980 37 -1
5 1 1 1 16 1 262 1218 138 27 96 Sunshine
5 1 1 1 16 2 410 1219 111 33 96 Troupe
5 1 1 1 16 3 534 1219 51 26 96 Inc.
5 1 1 1 16 4 714 1218 179 34 96 production,
5 1 1 1 16 5 905 1226 37 19 95 on
5 1 1 1 16 6 953 1218 50 27 95 the
5 1 1 1 16 7 1013 1218 116 27 95 themes
5 1 1 1 16 8 1139 1218 33 27 95 of
5 1 1 1 16 9 1181 1218 130 27 96 isolation
5 1 1 1 16 10 1323 1218 55 27 96 and
5 1 1 1 16 11 1390 1219 182 31 96 connection,
5 1 1 1 16 12 1583 1218 163 34 96 combining
5 1 1 1 16 13 1756 1218 103 32 96 words,
5 1 1 1 16 14 1872 1222 170 23 95 movement
5 1 1 1 16 15 3086 1215 156 35 86 $5,000.00
4 1 1 1 17 0 713 1269 703 34 -1
5 1 1 1 17 1 713 1269 56 27 96 and
5 1 1 1 17 2 782 1270 88 26 96 music
5 1 1 1 17 3 881 1269 116 27 96 created
5 1 1 1 17 4 1010 1269 35 34 96 by
5 1 1 1 17 5 1057 1269 103 34 96 people
5 1 1 1 17 6 1170 1269 66 27 96 with
5 1 1 1 17 7 1248 1269 168 27 96 disabilities.
4 1 1 1 18 0 714 1328 1345 34 -1
5 1 1 1 18 1 714 1328 63 27 77 'The
5 1 1 1 18 2 788 1329 86 26 93 Great
5 1 1 1 18 3 886 1328 160 34 92 Up-cycling
5 1 1 1 18 4 1056 1328 151 34 96 Challenge
5 1 1 1 18 5 1217 1328 56 27 96 and
5 1 1 1 18 6 1286 1328 158 27 64 Exhibition’
5 1 1 1 18 7 1456 1328 188 34 91 -Workshops
5 1 1 1 18 8 1654 1328 56 27 96 and
5 1 1 1 18 9 1722 1328 151 27 94 exhibition
5 1 1 1 18 10 1883 1332 32 23 96 to
5 1 1 1 18 11 1928 1328 131 34 96 highlight
4 1 1 1 19 0 264 1376 2978 36 -1
5 1 1 1 19 1 264 1378 161 27 96 Hinterland
5 1 1 1 19 2 435 1380 48 25 96 Art
5 1 1 1 19 3 493 1380 97 32 93 Group
5 1 1 1 19 4 602 1380 51 25 20 Inc.
5 1 1 1 19 5 714 1378 155 34 62 |up-cycling
5 1 1 1 19 6 879 1378 56 27 96 and
5 1 1 1 19 7 948 1378 136 34 96 recycling
5 1 1 1 19 8 1095 1380 58 25 96 into
5 1 1 1 19 9 1165 1377 67 34 93 art
5 1 1 1 19 10 1209 1373 23 43 91 /
5 1 1 1 19 11 1243 1378 89 27 96 useful
5 1 1 1 19 12 1344 1380 84 25 96 items
5 1 1 1 19 13 1439 1380 24 25 96 in
5 1 1 1 19 14 1476 1378 178 34 95 partnership
5 1 1 1 19 15 1664 1378 65 27 95 with
5 1 1 1 19 16 1743 1380 127 25 96 Pomona
5 1 1 1 19 17 3085 1376 157 35 96 $3,095.00
4 1 1 1 20 0 713 1430 298 33 -1
5 1 1 1 20 1 713 1430 182 33 96 Community
5 1 1 1 20 2 907 1430 104 26 96 House.
4 1 1 1 21 0 264 1509 2978 65 -1
5 1 1 1 21 1 264 1540 45 26 94 Ms
5 1 1 1 21 2 319 1539 57 27 93 Gail
5 1 1 1 21 3 389 1540 120 26 91 Hewton
5 1 1 1 21 4 714 1509 99 65 92 ‘Dance
5 1 1 1 21 5 828 1509 45 65 96 for
5 1 1 1 21 6 878 1509 104 65 84 Seniors
5 1 1 1 21 7 1015 1522 35 18 92 -a
5 1 1 1 21 8 1042 1509 108 65 96 series
5 1 1 1 21 9 1161 1513 32 27 96 of
5 1 1 1 21 10 1201 1513 66 27 95 four
5 1 1 1 21 11 1276 1513 81 27 96 short
5 1 1 1 21 12 1366 1509 85 65 93 videos
5 1 1 1 21 13 1459 1518 48 52 96 to
5 1 1 1 21 14 1520 1509 135 42 96 promote
5 1 1 1 21 15 1666 1509 89 65 96 dance
5 1 1 1 21 16 1768 1513 46 27 96 for
5 1 1 1 21 17 1824 1513 80 27 96 older
5 1 1 1 21 18 1916 1513 103 34 96 people
5 1 1 1 21 19 3086 1536 156 35 79 $4,690.00
4 1 1 1 22 0 712 1564 1334 34 -1
5 1 1 1 22 1 712 1564 90 27 96 which
5 1 1 1 22 2 814 1564 49 27 96 will
5 1 1 1 22 3 877 1564 109 27 96 include
5 1 1 1 22 4 998 1564 186 34 95 professional
5 1 1 1 22 5 1196 1564 207 34 96 development
5 1 1 1 22 6 1414 1572 24 19 96 in
5 1 1 1 22 7 1449 1564 84 27 96 video
5 1 1 1 22 8 1546 1564 169 34 96 production
5 1 1 1 22 9 1726 1564 122 34 95 through
5 1 1 1 22 10 1860 1564 49 27 95 the
5 1 1 1 22 11 1922 1572 124 26 96 process.
4 1 1 1 23 0 2078 1644 811 43 -1
5 1 1 1 23 1 2078 1650 17 25 92 R
5 1 1 1 23 2 2253 1648 14 27 92 d
5 1 1 1 23 3 2266 1648 44 27 95 the
5 1 1 1 23 4 2360 1650 59 25 96 artist
5 1 1 1 23 5 2491 1648 15 27 93 k
5 1 1 1 23 6 2544 1648 36 27 93 with
5 1 1 1 23 7 2594 1650 19 25 93 N
5 1 1 1 23 8 2698 1644 12 43 49 Cc
5 1 1 1 23 9 2795 1648 21 27 73 il's
5 1 1 1 23 10 2842 1650 47 25 90 Art
4 1 1 1 24 0 382 1653 2521 61 -1
5 1 1 1 24 1 382 1700 4 5 51 .
5 1 1 1 24 2 714 1674 63 27 47 ‘The
5 1 1 1 24 3 790 1675 95 26 93 Noosa
5 1 1 1 24 4 897 1674 89 34 89 Story'
5 1 1 1 24 5 997 1689 10 3 91 -
5 1 1 1 24 6 1017 1675 22 26 96 A
5 1 1 1 24 7 1049 1675 124 33 96 painting
5 1 1 1 24 8 1183 1674 151 27 96 exhibition
5 1 1 1 24 9 1345 1674 63 27 96 that
5 1 1 1 24 10 1418 1674 50 27 96 will
5 1 1 1 24 11 1481 1682 54 26 96 pay
5 1 1 1 24 12 1546 1678 113 30 96 respect
5 1 1 1 24 13 1668 1678 32 23 97 to
5 1 1 1 24 14 1710 1674 50 27 96 the
5 1 1 1 24 15 1773 1675 132 26 96 Pioneers
5 1 1 1 24 16 1915 1674 33 27 96 of
5 1 1 1 24 17 1958 1675 95 26 96 Noosa
5 1 1 1 24 18 2098 1657 151 18 28 ecommenae
5 1 1 1 24 19 2314 1657 16 18 34 sie
5 1 1 1 24 20 2341 1657 65 18 22 anise
5 1 1 1 24 21 2428 1657 60 18 62 wor
5 1 1 1 24 22 2515 1657 33 48 31 wl
5 1 1 1 24 23 2617 1653 52 61 0 eos
5 1 1 1 24 24 2719 1657 41 48 0 oun
5 1 1 1 24 25 2820 1657 83 18 41 sans
4 1 1 1 25 0 264 1696 2978 37 -1
5 1 1 1 25 1 264 1700 45 26 96 Ms
5 1 1 1 25 2 318 1700 102 26 93 Jessica
5 1 1 1 25 3 433 1699 118 27 92 Scurrah
5 1 1 1 25 4 1381 1695 11 42 0 i.
5 1 1 1 25 5 1516 1726 5 4 67 .
5 1 1 1 25 6 2076 1699 56 27 95 and
5 1 1 1 25 7 2143 1699 111 27 95 Culture
5 1 1 1 25 8 2266 1699 207 34 96 Development
5 1 1 1 25 9 2483 1699 103 27 96 Officer
5 1 1 1 25 10 2595 1703 32 23 96 to
5 1 1 1 25 11 2638 1699 136 27 96 resubmit
5 1 1 1 25 12 2785 1707 24 19 96 in
5 1 1 1 25 13 2819 1699 51 27 96 the
5 1 1 1 25 14 2882 1703 65 23 96 next
5 1 1 1 25 15 3155 1696 87 34 85 $0.00
4 1 1 1 26 0 712 1724 956 34 -1
5 1 1 1 26 1 712 1724 66 27 96 who
5 1 1 1 26 2 791 1724 72 27 96 have
5 1 1 1 26 3 874 1724 116 27 96 worked
5 1 1 1 26 4 1003 1724 68 27 96 hard
5 1 1 1 26 5 1082 1729 31 22 96 to
5 1 1 1 26 6 1126 1733 133 25 95 preserve
5 1 1 1 26 7 1270 1733 53 18 96 our
5 1 1 1 26 8 1334 1729 114 29 96 pristine
5 1 1 1 26 9 1458 1729 210 22 96 environment.
4 1 1 1 27 0 2078 1750 565 27 -1
5 1 1 1 27 1 2078 1751 80 26 92 RADF
5 1 1 1 27 2 2169 1751 101 26 96 Grants
5 1 1 1 27 3 2281 1750 89 27 96 round
5 1 1 1 27 4 2381 1750 44 27 95 for
5 1 1 1 27 5 2436 1754 207 23 95 reassessment
4 1 1 1 28 0 264 1829 2978 64 -1
5 1 1 1 28 1 264 1859 68 26 94 Miss
5 1 1 1 28 2 342 1858 128 27 96 Amanda
5 1 1 1 28 3 484 1859 135 26 96 Bennetts
5 1 1 1 28 4 714 1833 43 27 49 ‘40
5 1 1 1 28 5 771 1829 92 64 96 Under
5 1 1 1 28 6 874 1834 37 26 96 40
5 1 1 1 28 7 924 1833 156 27 40 Exhibition’
5 1 1 1 28 8 1091 1834 22 26 95 A
5 1 1 1 28 9 1122 1833 84 27 96 visual
5 1 1 1 28 10 1218 1837 57 23 96 arts
5 1 1 1 28 11 1285 1829 150 64 96 exhibition
5 1 1 1 28 12 1446 1837 31 23 96 to
5 1 1 1 28 13 1490 1833 35 27 95 be
5 1 1 1 28 14 1537 1833 63 27 95 held
5 1 1 1 28 15 1613 1834 24 26 93 in
5 1 1 1 28 16 1649 1834 109 33 91 Cooroy
5 1 1 1 28 17 1769 1834 25 26 96 in
5 1 1 1 28 18 1804 1834 119 33 96 January
5 1 1 1 28 19 1934 1834 82 31 96 2021,
5 1 1 1 28 20 3086 1855 156 35 81 $5,000.00
4 1 1 1 29 0 713 1883 1053 34 -1
5 1 1 1 29 1 713 1888 151 29 96 consisting
5 1 1 1 29 2 874 1883 32 27 96 of
5 1 1 1 29 3 914 1885 37 25 96 40
5 1 1 1 29 4 962 1888 42 22 96 art
5 1 1 1 29 5 1014 1883 91 27 96 works
5 1 1 1 29 6 1116 1883 35 34 96 by
5 1 1 1 29 7 1163 1883 66 27 96 local
5 1 1 1 29 8 1241 1888 92 22 96 artists
5 1 1 1 29 9 1343 1883 72 34 96 aged
5 1 1 1 29 10 1428 1883 90 27 96 under
5 1 1 1 29 11 1527 1885 37 25 96 40
5 1 1 1 29 12 1574 1892 81 25 96 years
5 1 1 1 29 13 1665 1883 32 27 96 of
5 1 1 1 29 14 1705 1892 61 25 95 age.
4 1 1 1 30 0 2078 1964 811 43 -1
5 1 1 1 30 1 2078 1969 17 26 92 R
5 1 1 1 30 2 2253 1968 14 27 92 d
5 1 1 1 30 3 2266 1968 44 27 93 the
5 1 1 1 30 4 2360 1969 59 26 95 artist
5 1 1 1 30 5 2491 1968 14 27 93 k
5 1 1 1 30 6 2544 1968 36 27 92 with
5 1 1 1 30 7 2594 1969 19 26 92 N
5 1 1 1 30 8 2698 1964 12 43 46 Cc
5 1 1 1 30 9 2795 1968 21 27 74 il's
5 1 1 1 30 10 2842 1969 47 26 87 Art
4 1 1 1 31 0 441 1972 2462 60 -1
5 1 1 1 31 1 441 2020 5 4 51 .
5 1 1 1 31 2 531 2020 5 4 67 .
5 1 1 1 31 3 714 1993 104 34 60 ‘Young
5 1 1 1 31 4 829 1993 161 27 96 Performer
5 1 1 1 31 5 999 1993 183 34 0 Workshops
5 1 1 1 31 6 1165 1989 8 43 0 '
5 1 1 1 31 7 1194 2008 10 4 92 -
5 1 1 1 31 8 1216 1993 82 33 96 Flute,
5 1 1 1 31 9 1310 1993 121 27 96 Clarinet
5 1 1 1 31 10 1441 1993 56 27 96 and
5 1 1 1 31 11 1509 1994 164 26 96 Percussion
5 1 1 1 31 12 1686 1993 215 27 96 masterclasses
5 1 1 1 31 13 1910 1993 46 27 96 for
5 1 1 1 31 14 1967 1993 70 27 96 local
5 1 1 1 31 15 2098 1976 151 19 65 ecommenc
5 1 1 1 31 16 2314 1976 16 19 86 me
5 1 1 1 31 17 2341 1976 65 19 24 anise
5 1 1 1 31 18 2428 1976 61 19 81 wor
5 1 1 1 31 19 2515 1976 33 48 40 wl
5 1 1 1 31 20 2617 1972 66 60 34 oose
5 1 1 1 31 21 2719 1972 81 60 41 oune!
5 1 1 1 31 22 2820 1976 13 19 12 S's
4 1 1 1 32 0 264 2016 2978 36 -1
5 1 1 1 32 1 264 2020 95 25 96 Noosa
5 1 1 1 32 2 374 2020 89 25 96 Music
5 1 1 1 32 3 474 2020 112 32 96 Society
5 1 1 1 32 4 598 2020 51 25 96 Inc.
5 1 1 1 32 5 815 2045 5 4 0 .
5 1 1 1 32 6 936 2045 30 5 0 ..
5 1 1 1 32 7 1109 2045 5 4 0 -
5 1 1 1 32 8 1169 2045 59 4 20 oo,
5 1 1 1 32 9 1356 2045 5 4 36 .
5 1 1 1 32 10 2076 2018 56 27 95 and
5 1 1 1 32 11 2143 2018 111 27 95 Culture
5 1 1 1 32 12 2266 2018 207 34 96 Development
5 1 1 1 32 13 2483 2018 103 27 96 Officer
5 1 1 1 32 14 2595 2023 32 22 96 to
5 1 1 1 32 15 2638 2018 136 27 96 resubmit
5 1 1 1 32 16 2785 2027 24 18 96 in
5 1 1 1 32 17 2819 2018 51 27 96 the
5 1 1 1 32 18 2882 2023 65 22 96 next
5 1 1 1 32 19 3155 2016 87 33 95 $0.00
4 1 1 1 33 0 714 2044 886 34 -1
5 1 1 1 33 1 714 2052 145 26 95 emerging
5 1 1 1 33 2 870 2052 151 19 96 musicians
5 1 1 1 33 3 1031 2044 181 34 96 culminating
5 1 1 1 33 4 1224 2052 23 19 96 in
5 1 1 1 33 5 1259 2052 15 19 96 a
5 1 1 1 33 6 1288 2044 90 34 96 public
5 1 1 1 33 7 1390 2044 210 34 96 performance.
4 1 1 1 34 0 2078 2069 565 27 -1
5 1 1 1 34 1 2078 2070 80 26 92 RADF
5 1 1 1 34 2 2169 2070 101 26 96 Grants
5 1 1 1 34 3 2281 2069 89 27 96 round
5 1 1 1 34 4 2381 2069 44 27 96 for
5 1 1 1 34 5 2436 2073 207 23 96 reassessment
4 1 1 1 35 0 2981 2288 289 44 -1
5 1 1 1 35 1 2981 2288 105 44 96 Page
5 1 1 1 35 2 3104 2289 46 34 95 15
5 1 1 1 35 3 3167 2288 40 35 96 of
5 1 1 1 35 4 3222 2289 48 34 96 26Section 16
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
3 2020/21 BUDGET - PUBLIC CONSULTATION TRIAL
Author Director Corporate Services, Michael Shave
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM/ 7.26 - 2020 – 2021 Budget
Attachments 1. Mayoral Minute, Ordinary Meeting, 21 November 2019
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Director Corporate Services to the Services & Organisation
Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2020 and agree to defer the commencement of the public
consultation trial of Council’s budget to the 2021/22 financial year budget process.
REPORT
1 Background
At Council’s Ordinary Meeting on 21 November 2019 a Mayoral Minute was tabled relating to a
proposal to commence a trial public consultation process for the 2020/21 budget. The proposal
outlined the need for increased public sector transparency and that one way to engender both
trust and awareness of the cost of Council’s many services and activities is to allow community
members to scrutinise and make comment upon the budget during the deliberation period.
The proposal also outlined that community input into the budget process will help deliver a
greater understanding about budgetary trade-offs and decisions, performance challenges, new
rates or levies, and financial sustainability requirements, with Council being able to take into
consideration well-informed recommendations from its community who it represents.
It was proposed that as part of the trial, a model that included a 2 part public consultation process
be implemented, whereby:
1. Community Groups and Incorporated Associations based in Noosa Shire be invited to
provide an individual member to represent their organisation on a new body to be called
the Community Representative Budget Reference Group; and
2. All relevant documents associated with the budget deliberations be made available through
the Your Say Noosa portal on Council’s website.
Following consideration of the proposal, Council passed the following resolution:
“That Council:
A. Agree to undertake a trial public consultation process during the development of the 2020-
21 budget as set out in this Mayoral Minute;
B. Note that any actual budget decisions can only be made as a resolution of Council as part
of the budget adoption process under the Local Government Act but that community input
into this process will be valuable for Councillors and the organisation;
Page 16 of 26
Section 17
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
C. Agree that the cost of this public consultation process will be referred to Budget Review 3;
and
D. Note this proposal is for the 2020-21 budget process only, and may be refined or
reconsidered by any future Council for any future Noosa Council budgets.”
2 Progress in Implementing Recommendations and COVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Following the resolution, work commenced in late 2019 – early 2020 to identify the full list of
community groups and incorporated associations to be contacted and invited to participate in the
reference group. Some initial work had also commenced in considering the format and content of
information that would be made available online through the Your Say Noosa portal to ensure
that the information provided was relatively simple to understand to ensure maximum community
input.
Unfortunately the momentum of the project was halted due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
redirection of staff focus and resources to deal with the immediate impacts of the crisis on
Council and the community, including local businesses. It was also considered impractical to
continue with the creation of a Community Representative Budget Reference Group given:
Community and business stakeholder groups were also individually dealing with the crisis
which has been changing on a weekly basis; and
The ability to hold any reference group meetings due to social distancing measures and
likely challenges implementing a technology solution in the required timeframe.
Following the initial crisis management response by Council, further urgent analysis has also
been required to understand the financial sustainability implications on Council from the
pandemic, for the remainder of the 2019/20 financial year and the 2020/21 budget and forward
estimates contained in the 10 year financial plan. This work has been essential in developing a
financial recovery plan and to ‘reset’ normal business as usual decision making processes
regarding the development of the annual budget, which normally includes targeting an operating
surplus position and meeting the other ratio targets contained in Council’s Financial Sustainability
Policy.
Unfortunately this additional work has meant that it is now impractical to proceed with the trial as
per the November Council resolution. It is proposed however that as business as usual returns to
the organisation, businesses, and the general community over the coming months, the trial can
recommence for the 2021/22 budget process.
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting Minutes, 21 November 2019, Item 1, Page 3
That Council:
A. Agree to undertake a trial public consultation process during the development of the 2020-
21 budget as set out in this Mayoral Minute;
B. Note that any actual budget decisions can only be made as a resolution of Council as part
of the budget adoption process under the Local Government Act but that community input
into this process will be valuable for Councillors and the organisation;
C. Agree that the cost of this public consultation process will be referred to Budget Review 3;
and
D. Note this proposal is for the 2020-21 budget process only, and may be refined or
reconsidered by any future Council for any future Noosa Council budgets.
Page 17 of 26
Section 18
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
Finance
The background information to the Mayoral Minute outlined that costs associated with meeting
facilitation and other staff resourcing would need to be considered in a future budget review. This
would also apply should the trial be considered for the 2021/22 financial year through a future
2020/21 budget review.
Risks & Opportunities
Risks
1. Failure to recommence the trial for the 2021/22 budget process may result in reputational
risk for Council being realised particularly regarding transparency and accountability to the
community.
2. Currently governments are still challenged regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in particular
risks regarding second waves of infections in the community. These challenges will need to
be considered in the context of the ability to commence the pilot project for the 2021/22
budget process, and communicated accordingly if they are realised.
Opportunities
1. The budget consultation process provides an opportunity for Council to further engage with
its community to ensure that decisions made regarding levels of service and the allocation
of resources aligns with the expectations of the community it represents.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
Chief Executive Officer
Departments/Sections Consulted:
x Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 18 of 26
Section 19
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 19 of 26
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 21 NOVEMBER 2019
3 MAYORAL MINUTES
MAYORAL MINUTE
| hereby give notice of my intention to move the following motion at the Ordinary Meeting on
Thursday, 21 November 2019:
1 TRIAL PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE 2020-21 BUDGET
That Council:
A. Agree to undertake a trial public consultation process during the development of the
2020-21 budget as set out in this Mayoral Minute;
B. Note that any actual budget decisions can only be made as a resolution of Council as
part of the budget adoption process under the Local Government Act but that community
input into this process will be valuable for Councillors and the organisation;
C. Agree that the cost of this public consultation process will be referred to Budget Review
3; and
D. Note this proposal is for the 2020-21 budget process only, and may be refined or
reconsidered by any future Council for any future Noosa Council budgets.
BACKGROUND
One of the considerations of the State Government's local government reforms could see councils
“consult with the community in the preparation of the budget” (Local Government Regulatory
Reforms, Key amendments currently under consideration, April 2019).
On 28 June 2019, at the adoption of the 2019/20 budget, | announced that we would be commencing
public consultation on future Council budget processes.
Public trust in government has been eroded in recent years with polling showing a worrying decline
in support for democracy. Although Local Government enjoys higher trust rating than State or
Federal Government, in Queensland, events at Ipswich and Logan Councils, CCC investigations at
Gold Coast and Moreton Bay, and the State’s recent drive to implement Belcarra recommendations
all play into a growing attitudinal shift.
In this climate, demands for increased public sector transparency are inevitable.
Noosa Council needs to be on the front foot, including building community trust through better public
understanding of the Council's budget decision-making. One way to engender both trust and
awareness of Council’s many services and activities is to allow community members to scrutinise
and make comment upon the budget during the deliberation period.
This will help deliver understanding about budgetary trade-offs and decisions, performance
challenges, new rates or levies, and financial sustainability requirements. Furthermore, Council can
take into consideration well-informed recommendations from its community who it represents.
It must be acknowledged that only the elected Councillors can formally approve and thus adopt a
budget. All budget decisions are made by Councillors, and this responsibility cannot be delegated.
However, a community consultation process can better inform that decision-making by Councillors.
Page 19 of 26Section 20
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
Page 20 of 26
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 21 NOVEMBER 2019
Since de-amalgamation, Noosa Council’s budget process has been rigorous, pioneering a zero-
based or build-from-base budget approach. This method of developing a budget has been applauded
by the Queensland Audit Office. It has also been successful, ensuring an appropriate balance of
ratepayer affordability and service delivery, with minimal rate increases.
Since 2014, Noosa has gone from having the highest rates amongst similar sized councils, to a mid-
range position amongst those councils.
What has not been so successful is Council’s ability to explain the complexities of the budget
process, nor to improve the community’s understanding of the many factors involved in formulating
a Council budget.
The upcoming 2020/21 budget introduces further complexity as the local government elections will
be held in March. This will result in a somewhat unique schedule for budget development.
The proposed model
This model for Community Consultation on the Budget is designed and proposed for the 2020-21
budget process only. It may be assessed, refined and/or altered for future Council budget
deliberations. The model should thus be treated as a trial process.
It is proposed that all internal Councillor budget workshops be open to the public. This has not
happened previously.
The actual public consultation is proposed to occur in two parts:
1. Community Representative Intensive Consultation.
Community Groups and Incorporated Associations based in Noosa Shire will be invited to provide
an individual member to represent their organisation on a new body to be called the Community
Representative Budget Reference Group. The criteria for inclusion will be that the organisation has
a membership of at least 50 or more current members. Thus sporting, business representatives,
environment, community representative and other groups may all choose to participate.
The individuals chosen by the organisations to represent them will form the Community
Representative Budget Reference Group. Each representative must be available to attend two full
days of budget information sessions.
These two days will be separated by a week or so and facilitated by an independent professional
facilitator.
The first session will provide the groundwork for budget decision-making. Community
representatives will receive all the material that Councillors normally review during early budget
workshops:
e budget overview;
e benchmarking against other similar councils;
e corporate plan priorities;
e financial sustainability policy overview;
e service level catalogue;
e 10 year capital program; and
e relevant current budget-related Council policies.
The second session will offer an opportunity to test various ideas and approaches. The community
representatives will be provided with the 2020/21 Council new initiatives, proposed service level
changes and any other recommended budget changes from the previous year that are being
Page 20 of 26Section 21
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
Page 21 of 26
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 21 NOVEMBER 2019
proposed for consideration. It will thus allow community representatives to see how initiatives and/or
changes to service levels and/or capital projects influence the outcome of the budget.
Participants will be able to make suggestions and see the impacts of such suggestions on Council's
operating position and potential general rate increase. Under consideration at this session will be:
e new initiatives being raised (both staff and councillor initiatives);
e proposed 10 year capital program;
e draft revenue position;
e draft expenditure position;
e any recommended changes in staffing numbers;
e levy increase or decrease options;
e general rate increase options; and
e CPI and LGAQ Cost Index figures.
It is recommended that all Councillors attend both of the Community Group Representative sessions
as observers. Appropriate staff will also be on hand to provide information and advice. Being
observers, Councillors will not be able to debate with the community representatives, however, like
staff, they may be called on to provide explanations to specific questions.
At the end of the second day, Councillors and staff will have a better understanding of the priorities
and viewpoints of the participating community representatives.
Following these sessions, the community representatives may choose to consult with their
organisations on any of the issues raised during the sessions. In doing so, they should have a
reasonable understanding of the budget process and its complexities. Those organisations may in
turn choose to make representation to Council in support of specific budget-related issues.
2. On-line Consultation Via Your Say Noosa
All relevant documents associated with the budget deliberations will be made available through the
Your Say Noosa portal on Council's website. This will include not only the detailed spreadsheets and
presentations, but also helpful fact sheets and summary documents. Feedback will be sought from
any interested resident who wishes to make comment. Those responses will be collated and
provided to Councillors.
This broader approach to garnering submissions and input replicates the processes that Council
already undertakes for other matters such as planning scheme, local laws and proposed strategies.
It ensures that any member of the community has the ability to consider the budget documents and
make their own submission. For those who are not members of local organisations, or who would
like to make individual requests, they can do so via Your Say Noosa.
Conclusion
Whilst the Community Representative Budget Reference Group process may provide the more
informed response to budget issues, the on-line process will allow all residents to also have their
say, particularly with regard to individual projects and priorities. Through the website everyone can
not only view Council’s budget and budget-related documents, but also get access to quick facts.
The unknown in a general process that is simply on-line (i.e. with no face-to-face information
sessions) is that it is potentially exposed to the possibility of single-issue interest groups focusing on
individual budget items or initiatives.
Of course, this is no different to Council being lobbied via email or petition generally. However, single-
issue lobbying is often engaged in without full understanding of the broader issues and impacts on
the overall budget or, more pointedly, on rate increases. Nevertheless, it is important that all
Page 21 of 26Section 22
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
Page 22 of 26
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 21 NOVEMBER 2019
residents have the opportunity to make suggestions on matters related to the annual budget, and
that they have access to the budget documents to help them understand the budget process.
Meanwhile, the facilitated sessions with community group representatives should provide a good
overview of community opinions, with no specific representative group or community sector
dominating the discussion.
Plainly all of this will require resourcing. There will be additional work for staff. Attending resident
representative workshops, preparing presentations and on-line material, collating responses, and
responding to requests for information will all add to staff workload during the budget process.
Apart from the paid facilitator for the consultation sessions, there will likely also be a need for
additional staff support to coordinate the whole consultation process. Funding for this will have to be
considered during Budget Review Three.
This proposed budget consultation method should be considered as a trial. Plainly we are heading
into somewhat uncharted territory, and the process will need to be refined in coming years.
Moving forward, staff will also undertake an assessment of available on-line tools that allow residents
to input budget ideas and see for themselves the impacts those ideas have on rates, services etc.
Such software is already available, but needs to be properly researched to determine its usefulness.
Schedule-wise, initial preparation of the budget and associated documents can occur internally prior
to the March elections. Plainly, any actual budget deliberations will be left to the new Council
following the election. Arguably, it is best that the public consultation process also occur after the
election — if for no other reason than to avoid the community participants finding themselves
politicised during the election campaign. A proposed schedule for the whole budget process forms
Attachment 1 to this Mayoral Minute.
Overall, this proposed process seeks to find a workable and efficient means of garnering community
input into our budget deliberations. Efforts to do so by other councils have been considered, ranging
from Community Juries to making all budget workshops open to the public. There appears to be no
perfect solution. | have spoken with Mayor Curran about Gympie Council’s efforts to engage their
community in budget processes.
The two-pronged approach being proposed here seeks to allow all residents opportunity for input,
whilst structuring an opportunity for resident representatives to participate in a more detailed review
of Council’s budget. | am not aware of any other local government that has attempted this sort of
approach. But then Noosa Council is “different by nature”.
lb it — 15 November 2019
Page 22 of 26Section 23
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
Page 23 of 26
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
ORDINARY MEETING AGENDA 21 NOVEMBER 2019
ATTACHMENT 1
7 a . .
ae , —— i le
mien eer
Ey ENG le COLUMN ao Coe
4 m 7 ¥ a s lle ~
% > sian ;
ze aren 2020 | Noosacounetelecton
April — May 2020 Councillor Workshop #1
e Scene setting
¢ Base budget position
¢ Councillor priorities
¢ Capital program
Councillor Workshop #2
¢ New initiatives
e Service Level Catalogue review (by exception only)
e Agree overall general rate rise % targets
Councillor Budget Workshop #3
e Fees and Charges
e Levies presentations (where required)
« General rates modelling
e Draft Budget Policies
May 2020 Consultation — Your Say Noosa
Suite of budget documents including draft rate rise
May 2020 Consultation — Reference Group Session # 1
e Scene setting
e Understanding the budget process
¢ Provision of information package for session 2
May 2020 Consultation — Reference Group Session # 2
e Discussion and feedback session on rate setting, new initiatives, service
levels and capital program
June 2020 Councillor Budget Workshop #4
* Outcomes of public consultation
e Consider final budget position
Late June 2020 Special Budget Meeting — Adoption of Budget and Operational Plan
Page 23 of 26Section 24
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
4 COUNCILLOR REMUNERATION FREEZE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Chief Executive Officer, Brett de Chastel
CEO’s Office
Index ECM/ Subject/ Councillors Employment
Attachments Nil.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Chief Executive Officer to the Services & Organisation
Committee Meeting dated 9 June 2020 regarding Councillor remuneration and:
A. Note that the Local Government Remuneration Commission has recommended a 2%
increase for Councillor remuneration from 1 July 2020; and
B. Agree not to accept the recommended increase and instead, adopt a “Councillor
Remuneration Freeze” for the 2020/21 financial year.
REPORT
Local Government Remuneration Commission
As Councillors are aware, remuneration for local government elected representatives is set by
the Local Government Remuneration Commission. This is an independent State body that
determines the annual remuneration for Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors for all councils
across Queensland. The Commission is currently chaired by former Noosa Mayor Mr Bob Abbot
with Mr Reimen Hii and Ms Andrea Ranson as Commission members.
Under the Local Government Act, the functions of the Commission are:
to establish the categories of local governments
to decide the category to which each local government belongs
to decide the maximum amount of remuneration payable to the councillors in each of the
categories; and
any other function related to the remuneration of councillors directed, in writing, by the
Minister.
The Council categories are reviewed every four years, while the remuneration levels are
reviewed annually. The latest annual report from the Commission can be found here -
https://www.dlgrma.qld.gov.au/resources/report/local-government/local-government-
remuneration-commission-report-2019.pdf
Councils across Queensland have been allocated into one of 8 categories based on their size,
scale etc. Noosa Council is a category 3 Council. Other category 3 councils are:
Cassowary Coast Regional Council
Central Highlands Regional Council
Page 24 of 26
Section 25
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
Gympie Regional Council
Isaac Regional Council
Livingstone Shire Council
Lockyer Valley Regional Council
Maranoa Regional Council
Scenic Rim Regional Council
South Burnett Regional Council
Southern Downs Regional Council
Tablelands Regional Council
Western Downs Regional Council
Whitsunday Regional Council
These are the other Councils that we typically use as benchmarks when looking at local
government issues.
Councillor Remuneration
For the 2019/20 financial year, the (former) Remuneration Tribunal set the following
remuneration for category 3 councils:
Position Remuneration
Mayor $130,584
Deputy Mayor $81,615
Councillor $69,372
See page 14 - https://www.dlgrma.qld.gov.au/resources/report/local-government/remuneration-
discipline-tribunal-report-2018.pdf
The remuneration of Councillors is due to increase from 1 July 2020 by 2% as per the
determination by the Local Government Remuneration Commission.
The purpose of this report is to propose that due to the extraordinary circumstances arising from
the coronavirus pandemic, it would be appropriate for Councillors to agree to a “wage freeze” and
not accept the scheduled 2% remuneration increase from 1 July 2020. A Council can elect to do
so by resolution and this report proposes the appropriate resolution to achieve that outcome. The
economic impacts of the virus have been very significant for our community and it is appropriate
for the Council to not accept any increase in Councillor remuneration at this time.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance
Not accepting the recommended 2% remuneration increase from 1 July 2020 will save Council
$11,180.
Risks & Opportunities
This is an opportunity for the Council to demonstrate community leadership at this time of
economic hardship caused by the impact of the coronavirus pandemic.
Page 25 of 26
Section 26
SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 9 JUNE 2020
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
Mayor and Councillors.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
X Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Director Director
Executive Support Community Development Financial Services
Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Director Director Director
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 26 of 26