Original source · versioned page text
2017-09-18 General Committee Agenda
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
AGENDA
General Committee
Meeting
Monday, 18 September 2017
commencing at 10am
Council Chambers, 9 Pelican Street, Tewantin
Committee: Crs Frank Wilkie (Chair), Jess Glasgow, Ingrid Jackson,
Joe Jurisevic, Frank Pardon, Brian Stockwell, Tony Wellington
“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 originalSearchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 35 sections
Section 2
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ITEM PAGE
ATTENDANCE & APOLOGIES -
PRESENTATIONS -
ITEMS REFERRED FROM PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE -
1 MCU17/0025 & OPW17/0095 – DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR MATERIAL
CHANGE OF USE FOR INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS TYPE 1 WAREHOUSE (SELF
STORAGE FACILITY), OPERATIONAL WORKS (ADVERTISING DEVICES) AT 62
AND 64-66 RENE STREET, NOOSAVILLE
(Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 12 September 2017, Item 1, Page 3)
Reason for referral – Planning & Environment Committee sought clarification on the
size of existing signage and the location of existing fencing
2 51994.1353.01 REQUEST TO CHANGE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR A
RESTAURANT AND OUTDOOR DINING AREA FOR 5/50 HASTINGS STREET,
NOOSA HEADS
(Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 12 September 2017, Item 4, Page 91)
Reason for referral – Significance of issue
3 OPW16/0016 - PLANNING &
ENVIRONMENT COURT APPEAL 281/2017 REFUSAL OF DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT FOR OPERATIONAL WORKS - PRESCRIBED TIDAL WORKS
SITUATED AT 2 PARKYN COURT, TEWANTIN
(Planning & Environment Committee Agenda, 12 September 2017, Item 11, Page 158)
Reason for referral – Significance of issue.
Item to be dealt with under confidential session.
ITEMS REFERRED FROM SERVICES & ORGANISATION COMMITTEE -
Nil.
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE 3
4 QUEENSLAND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICY CHANGES
CONSULTATION 3
5 ZERO EMISSIONS NOOSA ORGANISATIONAL STRATEGY 14
6 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - AUGUST 2017 20
7 1617T130 PEREGIAN BEACH DIGITAL HUB - TENDER ACCEPTANCE 29
CLOSED SESSION -
Refer to Item 3.
Page 2 of 36
Section 3
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
REPORTS DIRECT TO GENERAL COMMITTEE
4 QUEENSLAND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION POLICY CHANGES CONSULTATION
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Environment Officer, Cherie O’Sullivan
Environment and Sustainable Development Department
Index ECM/ Subject/ Environmental Protection Policy - Water
Attachments 1. Existing Water Types Map
2. Proposed Water Types Map
(Note: Attachments provided separately to this report)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The State of Queensland is seeking feedback on proposed changes to the Water Quality
Protection Policy, Water Quality Objectives and Environmental Values for different water types in
South East Queensland. The changes are based on technically derived water quality guidelines
and 10 year’s worth of monitoring of the existing water quality. For the Noosa River Catchment,
the proposed changes will ease the minimum standard of water quality in Moderately Disturbed
(i.e. developed or farmed) areas of the Cooroibah Catchment, Weyba Catchment and the
Southern Noosa Area draining freshwaters (i.e. flowing to Burgess Creek and all creeks that flow
to the Eastern Beaches). Although the proposal is to lower the level of protection compared to
the current water quality objectives, proposed changes will require the quality of the water to be
better than it has been for 50% of the time over the past 10 years. The proposed change is also
to remove Stock Watering as an environmental value requiring protection in Weyba Catchment.
The proposed feedback is that Noosa Council does not support the changes due to:
an inadequate understanding of the socio-economic impact of the changes; and
changes are proposed in areas that drain to environments already showing evidence of
nutrient stress. Agreeing to changes are considered to endorse existing environmental
stress, and remove future compliance and investment opportunities in the already impacted
areas.
There are alternative methods of determining water quality criteria that are considered more
appropriate.
Protecting environmental values for Stock Watering within Weyba Catchment has also been
requested for re-inclusion on Environmental Values mapping.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Environment Officer to the General Committee Meeting dated
18 September 2017 regarding proposed changes to the Queensland Environmental Protection
Policy and agree to make a submission to the Department of Environment and Heritage
Protection as outlined in Section 6 of this report.
REPORT
The purpose of this report is to provide Councillors with an overview of:
the proposed changes to the Water Quality Protection Policy Water Quality objectives for
Noosa River Catchment; and
seek endorsement of feedback proposed to be provided to the State Government prior to
30 September 2017 regarding the changes.
Page 3 of 36
Section 4
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
The following Sections 1-5 of this report provide a background of the States proposed changes to
water quality objectives and what they mean for Noosa Catchment waters. Section 6 is the
feedback proposed to be provided to the State in response to the proposed changes.
1. Regulatory Protection of Queensland Water Quality
The Queensland government regulates human impacts to waterway ecological processes via the
Queensland Environmental Protection Act (The Act). The objective of the Act, and its subordinate
Environmental Protection (Water) Policy (The Policy) is to:
Protect Queensland’s environment (including its waterways) while allowing for development that
improves the total quality of life, both now and in the future, in a way that maintains the ecological
processes on which life depends (ecologically sustainable development).
To achieve this objective, The Policy sets the water quality objectives criteria believed necessary
to maintain the ecological processes in different types of Queensland waters. The criteria are
unique to different water types. For example the black tea coloured waters within the Noosa
catchment, referred to as wallum waters, have different water quality objectives criteria because
they support different flora and fauna compared to the creeks in non wallum areas. The different
water types currently mapped throughout Noosa River Catchment are shown on Attachment 1.
The Existing Water Quality Objectives for each of the water types in the Noosa River Catchment
are contained in the document located at this link:
https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/pdf/documents/noosa-river-ev-2010.pdf
The water quality objectives criteria has legislative power, including, but not limited to:
Informing conditions of development and activity approvals issued under the Environmental
Protection Act (i.e. including, but not limited to releases from sewerage treatment plants,
landfills, quarries, dredging activities, poultry farms etc).
Informing investigations to determine whether environmental harm has occurred and who is
responsible for clean up.
Determining whether or not a proposed activity that will release water has potential to
cause Environmental Harm.
Identifying when upstream environmental offsets (i.e. management for improvement of
water quality) are necessary or will enable water quality objectives to be achieved at the
location of a point source input (i.e. sewerage treatment plant outfalls).
Enforcement and/or investments to manage declining water quality is not a legal obligation
unless the Water Quality Objective criteria are breached. Therefore, if the water quality objectives
criteria are too lenient for the ecological process, ecological stress could begin prior to
enforcement or investment investigations commence. Likewise, where the water quality
objectives are unnecessarily restrictive for the ecological needs of the environment, they become
recognised as unreasonable, where the environment is not visually affected. In these situations,
they tend to be not enforced. It is therefore important to ensure the water quality objectives are
representative of the environments needs, i.e. not too easy to meet, such that non-visual
environmental degradation occurs and is not required to be investigated prior to legal breach of
the criteria, or unreasonably restrictive such that the water quality objectives can never be met.
Water Quality Objectives that accurately reflect the ecological process needs of the environment
ensure that time and money is invested in the waters appropriately to prevent environmental
harm, and give an accurate trigger when the environment is under stress, rather than investing in
unnecessary ineffective bandaid or bells and whistles solutions for minimal benefit.
Page 4 of 36
Section 5
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
The Policy contains provision to allow water quality objectives criteria to be amended where they
are found to be inappropriate. To achieve protection of the Environmental Values, The Policy
allows for:
“lower level of protection of the environmental values if otherwise there would be unacceptable
economic or social impacts on the community and the water quality objectives are an
improvement on the existing water quality.”
The State of Queensland is therefore proposing to amend physical chemical (phys-chem) water
quality objectives that are deemed inappropriate to achieve protection of the Environmental
Values of Moderately Disturbed South East Queensland Waters.
The Policy is available at this link:
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/E/EnvProWateP09.pdf
2. Rational for Proposed Changes to the Environment Protection (Water) Policy Water
Quality Objectives
Phys-chem parameters affect how clean waterways look, algae growth, olfactory impacts and
fish health. The phys-chem characteristics of waters that are being reviewed, and their general
influence on water quality/receiving environment is detailed in the table below:
Phys Chem Parameter Generic Influence on Water Quality
Nutrients Algal growth, affects oxygen availability and therefore biota health and the
olfactory environment.
Total Suspended Solids Affects visual appearance of water and fish health
electrical conductivity Saltiness
chlorophyll-a Is an indicator of algal growth
dissolved oxygen Affects how well aquatic fauna can breathe.
pH. Affects water chemistry including bioavailability/toxicity of metals and cations
within the water and also breeding success of flora and fauna.
Moderately Disturbed waters are in areas that are developed with farms or urban areas. The
areas proposed for Moderately Disturbed waters include all areas on the map provided in
Attachment 2 that are not hatched (i.e. areas that are not High Ecological Value or Slightly
Disturbed waters).
The existing water quality objectives for “Moderately Disturbed” areas are based on the water
quality recorded in undisturbed areas. The existing criteria for Moderately Disturbed waters is for
them to always record a better quality than the worst 20% allowed to occur in waters in the
undisturbed catchment. (i.e. the maximum for moderately disturbed waters is the 80th%ile of the
undisturbed waters)
Given phys-chem parameters are influenced by land based inputs/land management, it is
expected that moderately disturbed catchments are associated with a worse quality of water
compared to undisturbed catchments. It is then unrealistic to never have a water quality reading
worse than what the undisturbed catchment experiences for 20% of the time.
Enforcement of current water quality objectives in Moderately Disturbed catchments is
considered unreasonable and changes are proposed to allow the water quality objectives to be
more defendable in a legal situation and to increase the likelihood of investments to protect the
Environmental Values in Moderately Disturbed catchments.
Page 5 of 36
Section 6
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
3. What are the Proposed Changes to the Environment Protection (Water) Policy
A full explanation of the proposed changes is included in the document titled: HAVE YOUR SAY
Consultation information South East Queensland draft water quality objectives for aquatic
ecosystem environmental values protection available at the below link:
https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/pdf/documents/seq-2017/consultation-draft-wqreport-03-
june-2017.pdf
In summary, to overcome the issue of the criteria in Moderately Disturbed areas being based on
water quality results in undisturbed areas, the State has collected and statistically analysed 10
years worth of all available water quality data collected in all water types in South East
Queensland. Where the monitoring over the past 10 years shows that the existing water quality
criteria are not met for 50% of the time in all water types, then the State is nominating for review
the criteria for those water types in Moderately Disturbed areas. The review is intended to make
the criteria in Moderately Disturbed areas easier to meet by reflecting the existing situation in the
catchment. The review is for the water quality criteria to be better than what the best 50% of
samples have measured over the past 10 years. For the sites nominated for change, this will
require investment in the catchment to improve the water quality for 50% of the time to meet the
new water quality objectives.
The proposal is to only change criteria in Moderately Disturbed areas (i.e. developed or
agricultural areas) that cannot meet the criteria for 50% of the time. The proposal does not
propose to review water quality in undeveloped areas, nor does it propose to review the criteria
where the existing water quality is always better than the water quality objectives.
4. What do the proposed changes mean for Noosa’s Waterways?
The proposed changes mean that:
In the Moderately Disturbed areas of Cooroibah Catchment (ie. Ringtail Creek) the
maximum concentration of Total Nitrogen will be allowed to increase by 20% from
500ug/L to 640ug/L and Ammonium N will be able to increase from 20ug/L to 25ug/L.
generally speaking these increases may contribute to algal growth where all other
conditions are suitable. Ringtail Creek has not been checked to determine whether there is
visual evidence of any nutrient stress showing in the creek. These limits will mean that the
existing situation will need to be improved for 50% of the time;
the clarity of waters flowing from Moderately Disturbed areas in Cooroibah Catchment
flowing to Lake Cooroibah, will be legally allowed to become slightly visually murkier than
the clarity Lake Cooroibah is supposed to achieve. The change in the quality of water
flowing to Lake Cooroibah will be from no worse than 8NTU to no worse than 12NTU. This
change in cloudiness is shown visually below. It is relevant to note that the proposed
criteria is actually an improvement of what has actually been measured in the Lake over
the past 10 years where Lake Cooroibah has been visually murkier than 12NTU for 50% of
the time, measuring up to 21NTU 20% of the time.
Page 6 of 36
Section 7
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
Existing range 50-80% of the time
Proposed Criteria
Existing Criteria
Phosphorous will significantly be allowed to increase in Stumers creek (up to 50%), 50% of
the time.
The entire suite of nutrients will be able to significantly increase in Burgess Creek by
between 40%-933% however this will also result in significant improvements by requiring
a halving the concentration of some nutrients from the existing situation for 50% of the
time. i.e. the proposal is to increase limits of Oxidised Nitrogen from its current limit of
60ug/L to 620ug/L. However the environment is currently experiencing up to 1280ug/L over
50 of the time.
In the Moderately Disturbed areas of Southern Noosa Draining Freshwaters (i.e. the
catchment that drains to Burgess Creek) the entire suite of nutrients will be able to
significantly increase by between 40%-933%, however this will also result in significant
improvements by requiring a halving the concentration of some nutrients from the existing
situation for 50% of the time. i.e. the proposal is to increase limits of Oxidised Nitrogen from
its current limit of 60ug/L to 620ug/L. However the environment is currently experiencing
more than 620ug/L over 50% of the time, actually measuring over 1280ug/L for 20% of the
time over the past 10 years. Burgess Creek already shows evidence on stress in the
environment from excess nutrients.
Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that reduction of nutrients flowing to
Burgess Creek for 50% of the time will be enough to prevent the observed transformation from
oligotrophic heathland vegetation to nutrient loving vegetation.
Burgess Creek (i.e. Southern Noosa Coastal Draining Freshwaters) is already displaying signs of
stress from increased nutrients. The below photo shows that vegetation that needs low nutrients
is already being overtaken by weedy vegetation that has a competitive advantage over the native
vegetation in nutrient rich environments. Whilst the proposed changes will require an
improvement to the current situation for 50% of the time, it is unclear whether this is sufficient to
discourage the advantage the weeds currently have. Changing the water quality objectives in
Burgess Creek to reflect the existing situation instead of the low nutrient ecological needs of the
environment will also endorse the current water quality situation that is believed to be one
stressor responsible for the transformation of heathland vegetation to rainforest species or
weeds.
Page 7 of 36
Section 8
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
Natural areas staff have also identified a decline in the visual quality of the coastal creeks, which
are also located in the Southern Noosa Coastal Draining Freshwaters.
Darker colour areas are the native
oligotrophic (low nutrient loving)
heathland vegetation.
Bright green areas are the
centreline of Burgess creek and
high nutrient loving rainforest or
weed vegetation
5. Environmental Values
In addition to changing the water quality objectives, the proposed changes have also reviewed
the values that belong to each water type. The values include the following:
Aquatic ecosystems;
Irrigation;
Farm Supply;
Stock Water;
Aquaculture;
Human Consumer;
Primary and Secondary Recreation
Visual Recreation;
Drinking Water;
Industrial Use;
Cultural and spiritual values.
The values that are given to each water type is shown on the plan at this location:
https://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/pdf/plans/seq-2017/wq1401-noosa-river-a1p-v02.pdf
The values affect what other water quality parameters must be met to ensure the values are
protected.
Page 8 of 36
Section 9
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
The map shows that:
Seagrass is no longer listed as having its own environmental value. This change is
acceptable as impacts to seagrass are encompassed in the water quality necessary for
aquatic ecosystem protection;
Stock Watering is not proposed for inclusion in Weyba Catchment. Whilst Stock is no
longer run on properties in Weyba Catchment, the area still has properties zoned as rural
and rural settlement. The planning scheme permits stock to be run on these properties. For
this reason it is prudent that the values for stock watering remain within Weyba catchment.
6. Consultation Questions
The State Government has asked the following questions in bold italic font. The proposed
response to each follows.
Do you have any comments on the aquatic ecosystem draft water quality objectives (ie
50th percentile) listed in tables (shown by basin, catchment, water type)?
The proposal to use the 50th%ile measured in the field over the past 10 years as the new
maximum criteria will lower the current legislated level of protection. However, it will also facilitate
improvement to the existing water quality for 50% of the time compared to what has actually
been occurring in the past 10 years. This principle complies with the section of the Act which
allows:
lower level of protection of the environmental values … (where) the water quality objectives are
an improvement on the existing water quality.”
The information provided does not demonstrate that all aspects of the above Section of the Act
are met. The Act only allows lowering the level of protection where there would be unacceptable
economic or social impacts on the community if the level of protection was not lowered. There is
insufficient information provided to determine whether the existing or proposed water quality
objectives in Moderately Disturbed waters are achievable, if land based management practices,
or point source inputs were improved, if they would impact receiving High Ecological Value
Waters and the socio – economic impacts of that.
The State has already invested in resources such as e-source modelling which is currently used
to predict the water quality within South East Queensland catchments to inform the Healthy
Waters report card scores. The e-source modelling can input different land management
scenarios into the model to crudely predict what the water quality may be at different points in the
catchment. The South East Queensland Healthy Land and Water Monitoring and Evaluation
Steering Committee is awaiting results of scenario runs within the e-Source modelling which will
inform the water quality expected within catchments under different land management scenarios.
The scenario for full investment for 100% best management practice will inform whether existing
or proposed water quality objectives are possible, and provide an understanding of the amount of
investment needed to achieve these. This information is necessary to determine whether
achieving the water quality objectives is possible and the socio economic impacts of being able
to do so.
The legislation states changes must protect and enhance water quality values of the
environment, for all Queensland waters. It is not clear why the proposed changes are not applied
to address where the current water quality criteria is too lenient. Where the long term monitoring
shows the 80th%ile is “cleaner” than the current 50th%ile, that could indicate the ecology has
adapted to “cleaner” waters. Where the criteria is too lenient, new pollution sources in the
catchment that can legally worsen the water quality may facilitate a gradual decline in water
quality that could go unnoticed. Justification is requested as to why the proposed amendment is
nominated for waters that cannot meet the existing criteria for more than half the time, and not to
waters that always perform a lot better than the existing criteria. This change to tighten criteria
based on 10 years of data, will have no social or economic impact on existing uses. It will prevent
gradual decline of waters.
Page 9 of 36
Section 10
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
From a practical perspective, maximum values are very useful to inform release criteria for point
source polluters. However, maximum values may not be useful for tracking the health of an
ecosystem where the chemical ecology has adapted to, and requires seasonal variations, i.e.
during winter where there is less sunlight, the processing of chemicals has different chemical
uptakes or outputs compared to longer summer days. Climatic cycles such as El Nino and La
Nina also have impacts of ecological processes. Seasonal or climatic variation is suggested to be
accommodated via provision of %ile based criteria, or seasonal or climatic criteria.
Now that long term data is available for Moderately Disturbed waters, it is unclear why the criteria
for moderately disturbed waters is not being proposed to be changed to 20th-50th-90th%ile
values as is the situation for High Ecological Value (HEV) waters.
In terms of using criteria to identify where harm is happening, for data sets that do not have
baseline data prior to human impact, the DSITI guidelines for preparing a Receiving Environment
Monitoring Program recommends to compare monitoring results to use standard deviations away
from the long term median value to identify whether any change from the general ambient
conditions is a shock or stress to the system. The standard deviation of water quality away from a
median value is generally used to trigger an alert to further investigate the cause of sudden
changes to water chemistry. Changes of 2 standard deviations can generally indicate a stress
shock to the system that may cause environmental harm (i.e. in a similar way humans living at
sea level get altitude sickness if they do not have time to adapt to changing oxygen
concentrations in the atmosphere).
In summary, a change to water quality objectives to accurately reflect the ecological needs of the
catchments is supported, but the proposed revision of the water quality criteria to the 50th%ile of
the past 10 years of data is not supported due to inadequate information. Setting a singular
maximum or minimum value that cannot be breached is not supported for natural environments
as it does not account for seasonal variation and facilitates for the system to operate under
maximum pressure. It is requested for DSITI to reissue consultation documentation to:
Articulate the rational of how the proposal to lower protection will protect and enhance
ecological process necessary to sustain life, as per the objective of the Act; or
Reconsider or explain why the 50th%ile values have been chosen to be used; or
Be consistent in the method for applying water quality criteria for all waters and include
tightening the criteria for waters that are more pristine than the existing criteria expects,
and long term data shows the criteria is always met.
Include the results of the e-source scenario modelling that has been commissioned by
Healthy Land and Water to confirm proposed water quality objectives are achievable, or
whether better water quality is achievable, and identify the expected type of socio-
economic investment necessary to achieve them; or
Consider using 20th, 50th, 80th percentile objectives for Moderately Disturbed waters, or
use 20th 50th 80th %ile data from e-source modelling under best land management practice
scenario, now long term data is available for Moderately Disturbed catchment; and
Demonstrate that the 10 years data set adequately incorporates the impact of EL Nino,La
Nina climate cycles.
Do you have any comments on the environmental values shown in EPP Water mapping
(e.g. locations of aquatic ecosystem, recreation, industry use, cultural and spiritual values
stock watering, recreation)?
Weyba catchment still contains rural and rural settlement zones properties with onsite farm
dams. Keeping stock on these properties is permitted under the Noosa planning scheme and as
such the Environmental Values for stock watering is requested to be returned to the mapping in
the Weyba Catchment.
Page 10 of 36
Section 11
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
Do you have any comments on data sources or methods used to develop the guidelines
Comments on the methods used to develop the guideline is provided to question 1.
The entire data set timeline, or annual 20, 50, 80th %iles are required to confirm that the water
quality within Moderately Disturbed catchments has not infact been declining over the past 10
years. It is recommended that a quality check be published on the dataset using statistical
analysis to confirm there is no declining trend in the water quality over the past 10 years that may
skew the results provided.
In relation to data sources, the proposal assumes that water quality over the past 10 years is not
causing stress to the receiving environment. No evidence has been provided in support to
confirm this. For Noosa, it is proposed to change the water quality in Southern Noosa Draining
Coastal Freshwaters (i.e. flowing to High Ecological Value Waters in Burgess Creek and creeks
flowing to Eastern Beaches). Aerial photography clearly demonstrates that the low nutrient
dependant vegetation that aligns Burgess Creek is suffering stress as a result of weed invasions
that have a competitive advantage in higher nutrient environments. For this reason, the proposed
changes to Southern Noosa Draining Burgess Creek water quality to limits that are still in excess
of the needs of the oligorophic receiving environment are not supported. The water quality criteria
for catchments should reflect the ecological needs of the entire catchment, not the water quality
that has caused environmental degradation over the past 10 years.
Over the past 10 years which the data has been collected, there has been many changes in Best
Management Practice for land use, including refinement of Water Sensitive Urban Design and
cropping practice. Data may have been collected from catchments that 100% incorporate best
practice and others that have none. Setting the criteria based on the condition of the waters
without ensuring the contributing catchment is incorporating best practice, means that although
the criteria will facilitate for water quality to not get worse than the existing situation, and facilitate
for investment for improvement 50% of the time, it does not provide an indication of the best
condition waters in a moderately disturbed catchment can be.
The State government has invested money in the development of e-source water models to
inform the effect of land use practices on the receiving water quality and guide the updated South
East Queensland Report Card Scores. The e-source model includes scenarios where it is
possible to coarsely estimate the water quality that would result throughout different parts of the
catchment under different land use practice/ investment scenarios. These scenarios include
investing unlimited funds to provide best land management practice to 100% of the catchments,
50% investment, only investing in urban areas vs rural areas etc. The scenarios can also be run
over different weather patterns experienced over longer than the past 10 years. The results are
coarse but will be useful to crosscheck whether the existing and proposed water quality values
for moderately disturbed catchments are achievable under differing land use practices or not, and
possible socio-economic impacts of compliance to ensure the water quality objectives are met.
The 10 year dataset was collected primarily during La Nina Climatic Conditions. These conditions
generate more rainfall than El Nino conditions. It is recommended DSITI scrutinise the data sets
collected in HEV areas to determine whether ambient water quality conditions have any
significant change relevant to the Southern Oscillation Index. Where significant changes are
observed, it is considered that the recent 10 year dataset is only applicable to La Nina conditions
and that water quality objectives use e-source or other data to set objectives for El Nino
conditions.
Do you hold water quality data of potential relevance to the project?
Noosa Council officers are yet to provide all available data. Noosa Council does not support
progressing to endorsement of the proposed changes until the water quality monitoring datasets
from Noosa and our community groups have been integrated and implications of any changes to
water quality criteria are considered and agreed to by Noosa Council.
Page 11 of 36
Section 12
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
Do you have any other comments?
This consultation process has highlighted knowledge gaps and the need for an overview of the
water quality objectives to more accurately reflect the needs of the receiving environment.
Articulation of the aspects of the environment that the guidelines are intending to protect in
Moderately Disturbed water are requested (i.e. to align with ANZECC terminology, are the
guidelines aiming to protect or enhance 50, 85 or 99% of species in the receiving waters.).
It is suggested that an overhaul of the water quality objectives is needed. It is requested that
criteria include commentary of how it protects the needs of the environment and is socially and
economically viable. One method to achieve this may be to establish e-Source modelling for all
catchments, apply economically viable best management practice to all existing land uses, then
calculate the 20th, 50th 80th %iles. Triggers for stress can then be identified with sufficient time to
correct the situation before the water quality causes toxicity or irreversible stress to the system.
Long term water quality data can then be used to calibrate the models. It is requested that the
water quality objectives detailed within legislation are within 1 standard deviation of the modelled
median. The method using standard deviation away from the median is sourced from the DSITI
Receiving Environment Monitoring Guidelines to trigger an investigation of the source of the
stress/ shock to the water quality before ecological processes are damaged.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance & Risk
Supporting the proposed changes will mean that future investment is necessary to improve water
quality for 50% of the time in Lake Cooroibah, Weyba and Eastern Beaches catchments.
Not supporting the change will also mean that future investment is necessary to improve water
quality for more than 50% of the time in Lake Cooroibah, Weyba and Eastern Beaches
catchments.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Dr Michael Newham of DSITI met with Noosa Council’s Environment Officer to personally explain
the dataset being used to inform the proposed changed to Noosa River Catchment waters.
The proposal was introduced to Noosa Council Environment Officer at the Healthy Land and
Water Monitoring and Evaluation Steering Committee on 19 July 2017.
Internal Consultation
The following Noosa Council Staff were consulted for input and opinions
Waste and Environment Health Manager;
Waste Coordinator,
Principal Strategic Planner;
Principal Environment Officer;
Environment Officer,
Environment Officer (Rivers and Coast),
Technical Officer - Natural Areas.
Page 12 of 36
Section 13
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer x Community Services Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
x Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services x Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture x Environmental Services Disaster Management
x Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 13 of 36
Section 14
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
5 ZERO EMISSIONS NOOSA ORGANISATIONAL STRATEGY
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Carbon Reduction Project Officer, Anne Nolan
Executive Services Department
(to be transitioned to Environment and Sustainable Development Department)
Index ECM/ Subject / Carbon Emission Reduction – Council Organisation
Attachments Nil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The following report summarises the activities undertaken in accordance with Council’s Zero
Emissions Noosa Organisational Strategy and outlines proposed future actions.
The organisation’s carbon footprint for 2015/16 as determined by Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE)
in its initial assessment has been recalculated in accordance with recognised methodology and
has been reviewed by a registered auditor. The recalculated footprint provides a revised
baseline and identifies that the emissions from the Noosa Landfill are significantly higher than
initially estimated. The robust methodology used to calculate landfill emissions requires historical
data which was not available for the initial baseline calculation. Further work is underway to
identify opportunities to improve the landfill gas capture rates and to reduce the organic material
ending up in the landfill.
The same methodology was used to calculate the 2016/17 carbon footprint which demonstrated
a 6% reduction in emissions compared to 2015/16. Council will use this methodology to calculate
its carbon footprint on an annual basis.
A Level 2 Energy Audit of nine (9) of Council buildings and facilities with the highest energy
consumption has been undertaken by independent consultants to identify energy efficiency and
renewable energy opportunities. The process also involved the development of a Marginal
Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) tool to assess the cost-benefits of actions to ensure funds are
invested where the greatest impact can be achieved.
It is important to get an accurate baseline before significant CO2.e. reduction initiatives are
introduced so that Council’s reduction over time can be readily determined.
Capital Projects to be undertaken in the 2017/18 year have been identified and are currently in
the procurement process.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Carbon Reduction Project Officer to the General Committee
Meeting dated 18 September 2017 providing a summary of the activities undertaken in
accordance with Council’s Zero Emissions Noosa Organisational Strategy.
Page 14 of 36
Section 15
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
1 BACKGROUND
In May 2016 Council adopted a Emission Reduction Policy and as a first step commissioned
BZE, a not for profit think tank, to calculate the organisation’s baseline carbon footprint.
The initial estimate for the 2015/16 financial year indicated that Council’s total emissions for
2015/16 were 10713 CO2.e. The report from BZE noted there were some gaps in data and
recommended that the baseline be treated as an evolving document to be refined over time to
take account of additional or improved data. This was mainly due to the waste tender being out
to contract and some data was considered “commercial in confidence”. In addition, there was a
lack of available historical landfill data to enable comprehensive calculations of landfill emissions
in accordance with the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme (NGERS) solid
waste calculator. Scope 3 emissions were also not fully canvassed as part of that audit.
In October 2016, Council adopted the Zero Emissions Noosa Organisational Strategy 2016-2026.
This Strategy sets the target of net zero emissions for the organisation by 2026. The Strategy
outlines 8 Key Actions to achieve net zero emissions by 2026. The Strategy notes that a detailed
action plan is required to implement the Strategy.
Since the adoption of the strategy efforts have been directed towards:
development of a cost-benefit assessment tool (MACC) for energy reduction proposals;
identifying required actions to inform future capital works programs for key buildings and
facilities;
embedding energy saving criteria into capital works project assessments;
regular meetings of an internal operational working group to help bring forward ideas and
educate employees on the zero emissions target; and
recruitment of a project officer resource.
2 REPORT
2.1 National Carbon Offset Standard
The National Carbon Offset Standard (NCOS) is Australia’s only government supported voluntary
carbon neutral scheme. To comply with the requirements of NCOS, the following is required:
Annual calculation of emissions (carbon footprint) in accordance with Greenhouse Gas
Protocol, AS ISO 14064 and ISO 14040;
Reduce emissions through avoidance of emissions, implementing energy efficiencies and
fuel switching;
Offsetting residual emissions; and
Provide annual reporting and biannual 3rd party verification.
Council will need to demonstrate compliance with an accepted standard to validate its net zero
claims in the future. The NCOS provides robust methodology to guide Council to achieving its
goal of net zero emissions by 2026. There are considerable costs with formal certification to
NCOS including biannual third party audits (approximately $12,000) and licence fees ($18,000).
At this stage it is not intended that Council become formally certified, rather that the NCOS
methodology be applied to develop an appropriate offset strategy in the future.
The decision to actually certify to the NCOS can be made at a later date based on the
cost/benefits of certification. However, it is recommended that Council follow NCOS
methodology in its quest to become net zero emissions by 2026.
The BZE carbon footprint was reviewed in accordance with the NCOS and the 2015/16 footprint
was recalculated.
Page 15 of 36
Section 16
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
2.2 Noosa Council Carbon Footprint
The methodology used to calculate Council’s annual carbon footprint is in accordance with the
NCOS (Version 3.0) and relevant national legislation and international standards including:
National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (Measurement) Determination 2008,
Compilation No. 7, Registered 1 July 2015
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Protocol Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, 2004
GHG Protocol Corporate Value Chain (Scope 3) Accounting and Reporting Standard, 2011
This approach was used to recalculate the 2015/16 baseline and to calculate the 2016/17 carbon
footprint. The results are shown in Table 1
Table 1 – Noosa Council Carbon footprint 2015/16 (recalculated) and 2016/17
Emission Source 2015/16 2016/17 Variance
Emissions Emissions
Tonnes Tonnes
CO2e CO2e
Scope 1
Fuel for transport & stationary purposes (diesel, petrol, LPG) 1121 1055 6%
Fugitive emissions – refrigerants1 TBA TBA TBA
Fugitive emissions - landfill 34697 31534 9%
Scope 2
Electricity - large & small sites, rate 3 2957 2882 3%
Scope 3 13365 13420 0.4%
TOTAL 52140 48891 6%
As can be seen from the above table, there is a considerable difference between the footprint
initially reported for 2015/16 (10713 tonnes CO2e) and the recalculated footprint for 2015/16
(52140 tonnes CO2e). The recalculated footprint is significantly higher than the initial footprint as
it includes:
Historical data which was not available for the initial calculation;
Commercial in confidence data related to the waste contract that was not available for the
initial baseline calculation; and
Scope 3 emissions which were specifically excluded from the initial calculation.
The above figures have been reviewed by a registered NGERS Auditor.
Table 1 above compares the Council’s footprint for 2 consecutive years using the same
calculation methodology. A 6% reduction has been achieved comparing 2016/17 to the baseline
year of 2015/16. This has been achieved through fuel reductions in stationary and transport
fuels, the use of rechargeable battery plant and equipment, and utilising Council fleet effectively.
Emissions from the landfill reduced by 9% due to improved capping and increased bores,
resulting in more gas captured and flared.
Having now determined our footprint, it is expected that new carbon reduction initiatives will
result in more significant reductions over the next few years.
1 Data is currently being collected from Council’s air conditioning and refrigeration for these calculations
Page 16 of 36
Section 17
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
2.3 Landfill Emissions
Carbon emissions from landfill gas comprise 67% of the Council’s total emissions. Carbon
emissions result from the decomposition of organic matter in the anaerobic (without oxygen)
conditions of the landfill. Methane is a potent greenhouse gas - 25 times CO2. Landfill gas is
currently flared whereby the methane is converted to CO2. At present approximately 30% of the
landfill gas is captured.
The Council has a long term contract with LMS to provide the infrastructure to extract and flare
the gas. LMS obtains revenue from the generation and sale of Australian Carbon Credit Units
(ACCUs) under the Federal Government’s Carbon Reduction Scheme.
Council is currently working with LMS to identify opportunities to increase gas extraction to
enable the installation of an electricity generator in the future.
The introduction of the mandatory green waste bins will remove some of the organic material
from the landfill although it will take time to realise the benefits. The opportunity to move to a full
Food Organic and Green Organics (FOGO) system is currently being investigated within Council.
This will reduce emissions from the landfill over time.
2.4 Electricity Consumption
Whilst consumption of electricity by Council‘s buildings and facilities comprises only 6% of
Council’s total footprint, there is opportunity to reduce emissions and total spend on electricity
through energy efficiencies and the installation of renewable energy.
Council commissioned ERM Energy to conduct a Level 2 energy audit of Council’s nine highest
electricity consuming buildings and facilities. The Level 2 audit comprised site visits, review of
energy consumption and identification of potential energy efficiency and renewable energy
initiatives. ERM Energy developed a Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC). A MACC
prioritises carbon abatement projects on a cost benefit analysis in relation to the emissions
reduction and the cost of the project
The 2017/18 capital works program allocates $250,000 for major ZEN projects and $50,000 for
minor projects. The ZEN Project Control Group reviewed the ERM Energy recommendations
from the MACC and determined the projects to be undertaken in the 2017/18 financial year in
accordance with the following criteria:
Emissions reduction per $ spend;
Building works status of each facility;
Capital cost; and
Total emission reduction achieved.
The following projects have been identified to implement in the 2017/18 financial year and are
currently in the procurement process:
Solar system at the NAC;
Solar system for the Noosaville depot;
Solar system for The J;
Solar system for the Noosaville library;
LED lighting retrofit for the Noosaville Depot; and
Implementation of Energy Management Systems at key sites.
Page 17 of 36
Section 18
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
A number of other projects financed through other capital works budgets or maintenance
activities have been implemented and will also reduce Council’s emissions from the consumption
of electricity. These projects include:
Installation of a new efficient air conditioning system at the Noosaville depot;
Changes to the Building Management System at the Cooroy Library;
Lighting upgrades to LED at the Leisure Centre;
Improvements to Building Management Systems at the NAC;
Lighting upgrades to LED at the Cooroy Library;
Purchase of 3 x Prius C vehicles as part of the Council fleet; and
Purchase of electric powered equipment, to replace fuel operated, for the outdoor
maintenance staff.
2.5 Future Capital Works
The ERM Energy recommendations from the MACC will be utilised to inform the forward capital
works program. The criteria outlined above will be utilised to prioritise the capital work for the
future.
2.6 ZEN Action Plan
A draft action plan has been developed and is a working document for the purposes of project
management. This is an iterative plan that will change as further information is obtained relating
to opportunities for emission reduction. Technology is rapidly changing in relation to emission
reduction and the plan needs to be flexible enough to consider new opportunities.
All capital works will go through the MACC assessment and capital works planning process and
present to Council as per the budget planning process.
2.7 Carbon Offsets
The focus in the short to medium term is to reduce Council’s emissions through energy
efficiencies and renewable emissions, and to reduce landfill gas emissions. In the longer term,
Council will need to consider options for offsetting its residual emissions that are not technically
or financially feasible to reduce further. There are a number of offset options that are could be
considered such as generating our own offsets or purchasing accredited offsets.
Council has an extensive bush regeneration programme which sequesters carbon.
Investigations are currently underway to identify appropriate methodologies to calculate the
emission reduction as a result of Council’s vegetation activities.
An appropriate offset strategy will be developed for Council in the future.
Page 18 of 36
Section 19
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
Previous Council Consideration
Ordinary Meeting, 20 October 2016, Item 1, Page 10
That Council note the report by the Executive Manager to the Planning & Environment
Committee Meeting dated 11 October 2016 on the outcomes of the organisation’s baseline
greenhouse emissions assessment and
A. Adopt the Zero Emissions Noosa™ Organisational Strategy 2016-2026 provided at
Attachment 1 to the Report with the following changes:
1. Page 2, paragraph 3, of the Strategy to read:
It is in the Council’s and community’s interest to contribute to global mitigation of
those impacts by reducing Council’s GHG emissions; and
2. Page 6, the last sentence of Item 6.1 of the Strategy, to read:
It is in the Council’s and community’s interest to contribute to global mitigation of
those impacts by reducing Council’s GHG emissions.
B. Note that work is proceeding on the development of a detailed Action Plan to implement
the Strategy.
Finance & Risk
Ongoing capital allocation will be required to continue to implement the energy efficiencies and
renewable energy which will reduce emissions and reduce the cost of Council’s electricity.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
The ZEN Project has a robust governance structure within Council.
The ZEN Project Control Group (PCG) comprises members of Council’s Leadership Team
and the Carbon Reduction Project Officer. The PCG provides a coordinated approach to
the implementation of the Zero Emissions Noosa Organisation and Action Plan
The ZEN Operational Team comprises Council Managers and staff to develop and monitor
the development and implementation of the Zero Emissions Action Plan.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer Community Services Corporate Services
X Executive Officer Community Development Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
X Executive Services Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
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 19 of 36
Section 20
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
6 FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE REPORT - AUGUST 2017
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Manager Financial Services, Trent Grauf
Corporate Services Department
Index ECM / Subject / 22.09 – Monthly Financial Performance Report
Attachments 1. Statement of Comprehensive Income
2. Statement of Financial Position
3. Statement of Cash Flows
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Overall year to date financial performance to August 2017 aligns with budget at this stage of the
financial year. The current budget now includes the recent budget review adjustments.
YTD Financial Performance Summary to August 2017
Budget Actual Variance Variance Status
$m $m $m %
Recurrent Revenue $36.6 $37.1 $0.5 1.3% On Track
Recurrent Expense $16.7 $16.2 $0.5 3.0% On Track
Operating Position $19.9 $20.9 $1.0 5.0%
Capital Revenue $0.5 $0.4 ($0.1) (5.0%) On Track
Capital Expenditure $1.5 $2.3 ($0.8) (51.8%) On Track
Financial statements including Statement of Comprehensive Income (profit & loss), Statement of
Financial Position (balance sheet), and Statement of Cash Flows are included as attachments for
information of Council.
Figure 1: Interim Performance Compared to 2017/18 Budget
$40
$35
$30
$25
$20
$15
$10
$5
$-
YTD Budget ($m) YTD Actual ($m)
Operating Revenue Operating Expenditure
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Manager Financial Services to the General Committee
Meeting dated 18 September 2017 providing results of August 2017 financial performance
against budget.
Page 20 of 36
Section 21
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
REPORT
Operating Revenue (YTD Benchmark 16.7%)
Council has received 40% ($36.6 million) of its operating revenue budget ($92.2 million).
Commentary on each revenue category is provided below:
Rates and Levies – $32.0 million (50.1%) of the annual budget of $63.8m has been earned.
General rates and waste charges slightly above budget but partially offset by Tourism and
Economic Levy being slightly below budget.
Fees and Charges –$1.4 million (30.0%) of the $5.1 million annual budget has been
earned. Search fees, change of ownership, development applications as well as building
and pool compliance fees are all slightly above YTD budget. This is partially offset by
plumbing fees being slightly below budget.
Sale of Goods and Services - $1.4 million (16.8%) of the $8.3 million budget has been
received and is in line with YTD forecasts.
Interest Received – $0.3 million (7.3%) of the $4.4 million annual budget has been earned
and is slightly ahead of YTD budget.
Dividend and Tax – Unitywater distributions are in line with budget.
Other Revenue – Revenue for Building and Plumbing, The J, Local Laws and Fleet ahead
of budget. However, Community Properties and Waste Management charges are slightly
below budget.
Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions – Operational grants of $1.1 million are
tracking slightly above YTD budget. Co-funding and grants for the Regional Sports
Facilities Plan of $56k (not budgeted), Library grant for $25k (make a space Cooroy not
budgeted), Local Laws trainee subsidy of $14k (not budgeted) and Noosa Community
Support funding also $13k ahead of budget.
Figure 2: Operating Revenue Position by Type (Excluding Rates)
$2.0
$1.8
$1.6
YTD Budget ($m)
$1.4
YTD Actual ($m)
$1.2
$1.0
$0.8
$0.6
$0.4
$0.2
$0.0
Other
Fees
Grants
Dividend
Tax
Interest
Page 21 of 36
Section 22
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
Operating Expenditure (YTD Benchmark 16.7%)
Actual operating expenditure is currently 17.6% ($16.7 million) of full year budget ($92.2 million).
Detailed commentary for each expenditure category is provided below:
Employee Costs – $4.5 million (14.7%) of the annual budget of $30.3 million has been spent
which is generally in line with YTD employee budget phasing.
Materials and Services – $8.2m (20.2%) of the $40.7 million annual budget has been spent.
Contract services are below YTD budget ($385k) across a range of areas including Civil
Operations, Executive Services, Libraries and other Community Facilities, Waste
Management, Community Development, ICT, Properties and Facilities as well as
Infrastructure Planning and Design.
Finance Costs – actuals comparable to YTD budget.
Depreciation Expense – actuals comparable to YTD budget.
Other Expenses – actuals $17k ahead of YTD budget (emergency management levy on
Council properties not budgeted for and Local Laws agency fees paid in advance).
Figure 3: Operating Expenditure Position by Type
$10
YTD Budget ($m)
$9
YTD Actual ($m)
$8
$7
$6
$5
$4
$3
$2
$1
$0
Finance Costs
Materials
Depreciation
Employees
Other
Capital Revenue
YTD capital revenue of $448k received comprises cash contributions from developers ($213k)
and capital grants ($235k). Note that the timing of capital grant receipts are generally dependent
on the timing of associated capital expenditure, and that the timing of the receipt of developer
contributions (both cash and contributed) is unpredictable.
Page 22 of 36
Section 23
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
Figure 4: Capital Revenue by Type
$0.4
YTD Budget ($m)
$0.3
YTD Actual ($m)
$0.3
$0.2
$0.2
$0.1
$0.1
$0.0
Contributed assets
Cash contributions
Grants / subsidies
Capital Program
Actual capital expenditure (excluding commitments) is $2.3 million compared to the $1.5m YTD
budget. Detailed discussion of progress in the delivery of the capital works program is provided
through a separate report by the Infrastructure Planning & Design Manager.
Figure 5: Capital Program Delivery Performance
$2.5
$2.0
$1.5
$1.0
$0.5
$0.0
YTD Budget ($m) YTD Actual / Committed ($m)
Capital works Other capital
Cash Management and Investment Performance
Total cash on hand at the end of June was $83 million. Included in this balance are funds held in
trust and for restricted purposes (unexpended levy and grant funds). The significant increase in
cash held during August is the result of payments made by ratepayers for the July levy.
Page 23 of 36
Section 24
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
Council reinvested $4 million of term deposits with Bendigo Bank during August 2017 for a
further 12-month period. During September Council is reviewing options to invest surplus funds in
accordance with the Investment Policy and in consideration of the principles of ethical
investment, preservation of capital, return on investment and counterparty thresholds. Until such
time as these funds are reinvested, they are held temporarily within Council’s general and
savings accounts with the Commonwealth Bank.
The following figures present the mix of cash held by agency (graph on the left) and by credit risk
rating (graph on the right).
Bendigo
5% A2
Suncorp A1
5%
2% 2%
QTC A1 +
41% (QTC)
41%
A1 +
CBA (Other)
52% 52%
Actual interest revenue for August was $126k with a weighted average yield of 1.79% against the
industry benchmark (Bloomberg AusBond Bank Bill Index) of 1.70%.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance & Risk
Finance – as above.
Risk – Council’s risk register includes a number of risks that could impact on ongoing financial
sustainability. Effective budget management and reporting is an important risk mitigation tool.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Nil.
Internal Consultation
All areas of Council are consulted as part of the regular monitoring of budget performance.
Page 24 of 36
Section 25
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
Departments/Sections Consulted:
X Chief Executive Officer X Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development X Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
X Executive Services X Environment & Sustainable Development X Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 25 of 36
Section 26
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 26 of 36
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
ATTACHMENT 1
Noosa Council
Statement of Comprehensive Income
For the Year Ended 30 June 2018
As at 31 August 2017
Current Current
Budget Budget Actual Annual
2018 YTD YTD Budget
($'000) ($'000) ($'000) %
Revenue
Recurrent Revenue
Rates, levies and charges 63,848 31,924 32,004 50%
Fees and charges 5,080 1,461 1,525 30%
Dividend income 1,860 - - 0%
Interest received 4,390 282 323 T%
Tax equivalents 1,200 200 200 17%
Sale of goods and major services 8,312 1,256 1,395 17%
Sale of contract and recoverable works 16 - 1 6%
Rental and lease Income 1,322 257 260 20%
Other income 1,110 187 224 20%
Grants, subsidies, contributions and donations 5,063 1,018 1,126 22%
92,201 36,585 37,057 40%
Expenses
Recurrent Expenses
Employee benefits 30,338 4,549 4,457 15%
Materials and services 40,696 8,643 8,208 20%
Finance costs 2,464 409 381 15%
Depreciation and amortisation 18,577 3,096 3,096 17%
Other expenses 112 28 46 41%
92,187 16,726 16,188 18%
Operating Result 15 19,859 20,869
Capital Revenue
Capital contributions and donations 1,867 311 213 11%
Grants, subsidies, contributions and donations 4,009 160 235 6%
Other capital revenue - - -
Total Capital Revenue 5,876 471 448
Page 26 of 36Section 27
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 27 of 36
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
ATTACHMENT 2
Noosa Council
Statement of Financial Position
For the Year Ended 30 June 2018
As at 31 August 2017
Consolidated
2018 2018
Forecast YTD 2017
($'000) ($'000) ($'000)
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents 48,418 79,623 65,463
Trade and other receivables 8,381 10,656 7,101
Inventories 156 331 330
Other current assets 468 1,576 2,796
57,424 92,187 75,690
Non current assets held for sale - - -
Total Current Assets 57,424 92,187 75,690
Non Current Assets
Trade and other receivables 49,218 49,218 49,218
Other non current assets - - -
Investments 69,141 60,978 60,978
Investment property 4,150 4,405 4,405
Property, plant and equipment 935,214 915,179 913,152
Intangible assets 3,837 3,783 3,497
Total Non Current Assets 1,061,560 1,033,563 1,031,249
Total Assets 1,118,984 1,125,750 1,106,939
Current Liabilities
Trade and other payables 4,501 13,338 11,819
Borrowings 3,040 1,538 3,745
Provisions 4,394 2,306 4,076
Other 548 597 645
Total Current Liabilities 12,483 17,778 20,285
Non Current Liabilities
Trade and other payables - - -
Borrowings 35,005 34,291 34,291
Provisions 9,305 9,843 9,843
Total Non Current Liabilities 44,310 44,133 44,133
Total Liabilities 56,793 61,912 64,418
Net Community Assets 1,062,191 1,063,838 1,042,521
Community Equity
Asset revaluation surplus 46,961 26,892 26,892
Retained surplus / (defeciency) - - -
Shire capital 1,015,230 999 223 999 223
Current year net earnings - 37,723 16,406
Total Community Equity 1,062,191 1,063,838 1,042,521
Page 27 of 36Section 28
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 28 of 36
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
ATTACHMENT 3
Noosa Council
Statement of Cash Flows
For the Year Ended 30 June 2018
As at 31 August 2017 Actual Actual
YTD Full Year
2018 2017
($'000) ($'000)
Cash flows from operating activities
Cash Flows from Operating Activities
Receipts from customers 35,927 79,270
Payments to suppliers and employees (16,147) (66,156)
19,780 13,114
Receipts:
Investment and interest revenue received 323 4,908
Rental income 260 1,227
Non capital grants and contributions 1,126 5,206
Income tax equivalent received 200 1,144
Income from equity investments - 1,864
Payments:
Borrowing costs - -
Interest expense (18) (734)
Net Cash Inflow/(Outflow) from Operating Activities 21,670 26,729
Cash Flows from Investing Activities
Receipts:
Proceeds of sale of property, plant and equipment - 259
Grants, subsidies, contributions and donations 448 11,552
Payments:
Payments of property, plant and equipment (5,044) (23,313)
Payments for intangible assets (365) (1,176)
Net Cash Inflow/(Outflow) from Investing Activities (4,961) (12,678)
Cash Flows from Financing Activities
Receipts:
Proceeds from borrowings - 2,697
Payments:
Repayment of borrowings (2,569) (2,270)
Net Cash Inflow/(Outflow) from Financing Activities (2,569) 427
Net Increase/(Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents held 14,139 14,477
Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the financial year 67,064 52,586
Cash and Cash Equivalents at the end of the financial year 81,203 67,064
Page 28 of 36Section 29
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
7 1617T130 PEREGIAN BEACH DIGITAL HUB - TENDER ACCEPTANCE
DOCUMENT INFORM AT ION
Author Economic Development Manager, Anthony Dow
Executive Services Department
(to be transitioned to Environment and Sustainable Development Department)
Index ECM/ Subject/ Economic Development & Project/ Digital Hub
Attachments 1. 1617T130 –Tender evaluation matrix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council note the report by the Economic Development Manager to the General Committee
Meeting dated 18 September 2017 and award tender 1617T130 for the provision of Management
Services – Peregian Beach Digital Hub to Digital Precinct Pty Ltd subject to the finalisation of a
detailed Management Agreement negotiated and signed by the CEO.
REPORT
The development of the Peregian Beach Digital Hub (the Digital Hub) as a location for innovation,
entrepreneurial activity and IT business development is one of the major components of Stage 1
of the Rufous Street Masterplan.
Construction of the Hub, which is being jointly funded by Council and the State Government, is
now well underway with an estimated completion date of the end of November.
This management services tendering process marks the beginning of the operational stage for
the facility with Council seeking submissions from business operators (both not for profit and for
profit business) for the provision of management and curation services for the Digital Hub.
Council wishes to develop a strong and collaborative partnership with a proven operator who can
balance the need to achieve their own commercial outcomes with the delivery of Council’s return
on investment requirements and contribution to delivering on the vision, actions and outcomes of
the Local Economic Plan.
1. Noosa Local Economic Plan
The vision statement for the Local Economic Plan is: “A dynamic and resilient economy for
generations to come”. To achieve this vision, the Plan identifies a number of focus areas relevant
to the successful delivery of services from the Peregian Beach Digital Hub:
encouraging business growth in industry sectors that have low environmental impact and
high economic value;
leveraging and enhancing Noosa’s brand;
recognising education as a key feature of knowledge economies;
encouraging a spirit of entrepreneurship and innovation within the Noosa community; and
supporting specific strategies focused on developing priority industry sectors including;
digital economy & creative industries.
Page 29 of 36
Section 30
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
The Local Economic Action Plan was adopted in October 2016 and the provider of management
services for the Digital Hub will be required to contribute to the delivery of the following relevant
actions:
Digital Sector
In collaboration with business, industry and support agencies, facilitate the establishment of
projects that strengthen the local start-up community/eco system – for example the Digital
Entrepreneurs Network.
Creative Sector (Tech Focus)
Support cluster development in the creative industries sector to support increased
connections and collaborations; and
Work with business and industry to identify opportunities to support increased economic
activity and generate employment in this sector, for example co-operative business models,
social enterprise, start up and entrepreneurship programs.
Enterprise support
Support the development of strong businesses and stable employment opportunities with a
focus on those in key industry sectors that export outside the shire;
Establish a business development program that supports business success, innovation and
entrepreneurship;
Establish a competitive business development fund that supports collaboration and
clustering in key sectors and encourages innovation and entrepreneurship;
Establish an innovation program that enables local work hubs to deliver curated content;
and
Support the development of industry networks and clustering initiatives.
Skilled and connected businesses
Establish a connected business community where knowledge is openly shared and a
culture of learning and skill development exists; and
Identify potential education and training opportunities that support the development of
innovation and entrepreneurship within high value low impact sectors.
2. Market Research
Economic Development staff have researched co-work and business accelerator models
including visits to existing operations; Fish Burners, Little Tokyo Two, Spark Bureau, Sunshine
Coast Innovation Centre and The Hive.
In August 2016, the potential demand for tenancy of the Digital Hub was assessed with
Expressions of Interest received from 15 businesses representing 100 staff.
Page 30 of 36
Section 31
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
3. Vision and Goals
The Digital Hub will be a curated space primarily focussing on established and emerging
technology enterprises with an emphasis on accelerating business and employment growth.
The Digital Hub will be:
A major Noosa Council investment in infrastructure to accelerate economic and
employment growth in the technology sector;
A location where technology enterprises can benefit from a curated and collaborative
environment;
An entry point for technology enterprises with a plan to grow and successfully transition into
larger commercial premises locally e.g. Shire Business Centre, Noosa Junction;
A host location for innovation and entrepreneurial education, attracting funded programs to
advance the business innovation capacity throughout the Shire;
Part of the co-work and shared-office network in the Shire and wider Sunshine Coast
region, operating collaboratively with existing co-work spaces; and
A digital link into the global environment.
4. Digital Hub Description
The Digital Hub is the major economic initiative identified within the Rufous Street Masterplan.
Specifically, the main building of the Digital Hub will provide:
750m2 of commercial space;
Co-working areas;
A range of office spaces;
Presentation, training and education rooms;
A café and public amenities;
High speed data connection;
Over 40 car parking spaces adjacent to the building; and
Supportive infrastructure and location – on site car parking.
5. Tender Process
Due to the potential value of this contract, a public tender process was initiated for the provision
of management services in accordance with Council’s procurement policy.
An open invitation to tender was released via LG Tender Box on Saturday 3 June 2017, with
advertising in the Sunshine Coast Daily on 3 June and in the Noosa News on Tuesday 6 June
2017. Council’s Procurement branch sent a notification of the tender opening to a list of known
operators and interested parties.
An industry briefing was held on 8 June 2017 and tenders closed at 2pm on Tuesday 4 July. Six
(6) tenders were received and assessed. One (1) tender did not provide financial information and
was assessed on non-financial criteria only.
Page 31 of 36
Section 32
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
6. Tender Assessment
All tenders were assessed by a tender evaluation panel. The panel consisted of:
Economic Development Manager;
Director Community Services;
Director Corporate Services; and
Colin Graham, Causeway Innovation Pty Ltd, in the role of an independent technical
expert. Colin has local and international experience associated with the area of innovation,
co-work space management and business development.
Tender submissions were received from the following respondents:
1. Boardrooms Australia Pty Ltd.
2. Digital Precinct Pty Ltd.
3. Little Tokyo Two.
4. Elevate Media.
5. Future Reality Services Pty Ltd.
6. Lyn Allen Consulting.
The tenders were evaluated using the following criteria:
Financial Structure & Council Return on Investment;
Economic Diversification & Employment Growth;
Capacity & Innovation; and
Local Content & Employer.
The quality of all six (6) tenders was high. To varying degrees, all applicants demonstrated a
commitment and interest in supporting growth and innovation within the Noosa business
community. The evaluation panel agreed that it will be important for Council to engage with all
tenderers following finalisation of the tender decision, to discuss how we can support their local
interests and continue to add to the success of our local economy.
The Evaluation Panel held two (2) initial assessment meetings where agreement was reached on
the top 3 tenders, based on their demonstrated capability and capacity to deliver co-work
services. These Tenderers, Boardrooms Australia Pty Ltd, Digital Precincts Pty Ltd and Little
Tokyo Two were invited to present to the Evaluation Panel on 10 August. The same set of
questions was provided to each Tenderer in advance. The face-to-face presentations were of a
very high quality and the Evaluation Panel agreed that each potential provider had significant
strengths.
Arguably the biggest challenge associated with this tender was being able to interpret the
proposed financial information received in such a way as to enable an ‘apples with apples’
comparison for scoring purposes. In order to do this further financial modelling was undertaken
by Financial Services to allow for an effective comparative net present value analysis of the
submissions received.
Based on the attached ‘Weighted Attribute Evaluation Spreadsheet’ the Evaluation Panel has
rated Digital Precinct Pty Ltd ahead of Little Tokyo Two as the preferred supplier of Management
& Curation Services at the Digital Hub.
Digital Precinct Pty Ltd was favoured primarily because of their demonstrated local technology
networks, track record of achieving & supporting business growth, and reach into the existing co-
work & accelerator networks (via River City Labs).
Page 32 of 36
Section 33
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
7. Next Steps
1. Pending Council approval, the Economic Development Manager lead engagement with the
successful Tenderer, working in collaboration with the Council’s Property branch to finalise
a detailed Management Agreement, signed by the CEO.
2. Develop a detailed set of agreed key performance indicators to be included in the
Management Agreement, that clearly demonstrates the need to deliver on Councils return
on its retail investment and incremental economic growth in the Technology sector.
3. Economic Development Manager meets one-on-one with each Tenderer to review their
submissions and discuss the potential for future alignment and collaboration.
4. Budget implications are assessed including 2017/18 outside of budget funding request to
be submitted to the Leadership Team for consideration in addition to 2018/19 budget
requirements.
Previous Council Consideration
Nil.
Finance & Risk
Finance
Financial modelling has been previously undertaken resulting in the decision to proceed with the
construction of the Digital Hub. The original modelling outcomes were based on a lease
management approach and the assumption that the operation was self-funding (with no
contribution required from the general ratepayer) and that Council would achieve the required
4.5% on its investment in the building over a 20-year period.
The submissions received for the provision of management services for the Digital Hub
highlighted that there is a net cost in outsourcing the management services to achieve Council’s
Local Economic Plan diversification objectives relating to the digital sector. The additional costs
include staff and management costs, fit out and equipment costs, start-up costs, utility charges,
finance costs and sales, promotion and marketing costs.
The net calculated cash position for each submission was compared to the ‘base case’ in
Council’s financial model whereby an average annual cash return of approximately $160k was
achievable. Further cash flow modelling was based on the lease revenue and cost assumptions
submitted and included adjustments where required to allow for sensibility and to ensure
comparability between tenderers
The table below highlights the estimated investment gap for each tender received and the
required increase in the Tourism and Economic Levy to fund the cost of operating and managing
the Digital Hub (should the shortfall be deemed appropriate to be funded from the levy).
Page 33 of 36
Section 34
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
The table highlights that with Digital Precinct providing management and curation services for the
Digital Hub the estimate annual net cost to Council will be approximately $185k per annum for
the first 5 years. This equates to a one off increase in the Tourism and Economic levy of 12.3%
(or say a price path approach over say 2 to 3 years).
As mentioned in the next steps section above the budget implications will need to be assessed
for current budget requirements in addition to how the Digital Hub will be funded in future
financial years.
Risks
Financial
New investment model – Council has not recently entered into a delivery model such as this with
Council potentially exposed financially due to the fixed costs associated with operating the Digital
Hub. The Management Agreement will be a critical mitigation tool to ensure financial
expectations are delivered. A regular and robust reporting framework will be included to ensure
the early detection of potential underperformance and assessment of financial risk likelihood and
consequence.
Fit out and equipment costs – Final fit out and equipment costs are currently unknown (estimates
at $375k) and were not included in the original financial modelling (or current capital works
budget). The fit-out cost responsibility between Council, Management Services Provider and
tenant requires further clarification and will be addressed in the Management Agreement and
funding implications identified.
Fraud / Misappropriation – The Management Services provider will have responsibility for
financial management of the Digital Hub including cash handling responsibilities. Appropriate
financial management processes will be required to be implemented and compliance policies and
procedures developed and agreed. The resourcing implications of this will need to be
determined.
Grants Revenue – A number of business support initiatives for the Digital Hub relies on
successful Australian and Queensland Government grant funding. Mitigation measures will be
required from Council to minimise the risk of the grants being unsuccessful in the form of actively
supporting applications and including the activity in the established reporting framework.
Resourcing
Management Services Provider – Key individuals have been identified by the tenderer in their
submission who are integral to the potential success of the Digital Hub, as they carry a ‘personal
brand’ and network that Council has placed value on. Key personnel commitment will be included
as a requirement in the Management Agreement
Council Contract and Building Management – Internal Council management of the contract and
physical building has not yet been considered nor budgeted. The incremental impact of this
Council asset is an unknown. Internal discussions need to scope and agree on the impact and
appropriate resource management requirements.
Safety
Workplace Health and Safety – the Management Agreement needs to include clear responsibility
for WHS requirements, auditing and reporting.
Page 34 of 36
Section 35
GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA 18 SEPTEMBER 2017
Reputational
Local Competition – Council is providing a service (co-work/office space) that the private sector
also provides within the Shire. Council process and decision making has taken account of this
and Council’s investment and ongoing operation of the Peregian Beach Digital Hub facility is
focused on accelerating the growth and impact of the technology sector in the Shire. This
intervention is also in line with Council’s adopted direction to diversify the economy with a
renewed focus on high yielding employment.
Delivery on Economic Plan Outcomes
Non / under delivery of economic KPIs – The Management Agreement negotiated with the
service provider will include detailed targets linked to actions and outcomes listed in the Local
Economic Plan. These will include capacity building, business acceleration and job creation
targets. There is a risk that these targets are not achieved. This risk will be mitigated by the
inclusion of the requirement for the service provider to adopt a clear plan of action and report on
at least a quarterly basis. Open and regular communication will be a key risk mitigation
requirement.
Consultation
External Consultation - Community & Stakeholder
Extensive community consultation has been undertaken for this project and site in general. The
Peregian ‘Your Say’ site has a specific page dedicated to informing the community of progress
and updates to the project.
An informal Expression of Interest process was undertaken in August 2016 to assess the
demand for office and co-work space at the Digital Hub. Council received interest from 15
businesses representing 100 staff.
Internal Consultation
A Councillor workshop was held on 11 May 2017 to discuss the Digital Hub and the process of
tendering and tenanting.
Departments/Sections Consulted:
Chief Executive Officer X Community Services X Corporate Services
Executive Officer Community Development x Financial Services
Executive Support Community Facilities ICT
Libraries & Galleries Procurement & Fleet
Local Laws Property
Waste & Environmental Health Revenue Services
Executive Services X Environment & Sustainable Development Infrastructure Services
Community Engagement Building & Plumbing Services Asset Management
Customer Service Development Assessment Buildings and Facilities
Governance X Economic Development Civil Operations
People and Culture Environmental Services Disaster Management
Strategic Land Use Planning Infrastructure Planning,
Design and Delivery
Page 35 of 36
Section 36
ATTACHMENT 1
Page 36 of 36
NOOSA SHIRE COUNCIL Weighted Attribute Evaluation Spreadsheet - Final Evaluation ATTACHMENT 14
Contract Title: Management Services - Peregian Beach Digital Hub
NAME OF TENDERER PRICE
(Conforming Tenders Only) (excl of GST)
1 |Boardrooms Australia Pty Ltd $3,747,385 Note: price based on 5 year NPV outcomes (net cost to Council)
2 [Digital Precinct Pty Ltd $3,851,943
3 Elevate Media $3,307,927
4 |Future Reality Services Pty Ltd $3,774,339
5 |Little Tokyo Two $3,110,650
Se a SSS
NON-CONFORMING TENDERS
Lyn Allen Consulting Pp
a
1 2 3 4 5 6
PART A - Non price elements Digital Precinct Pty Ltd Elevate Media Future Reality Little Tokyo Two Lyn Allen Consulting
Pty Ltd Services Pty Ltd
Routt eror Resultant ROnaanteeor Resultant Resultant Resultant
Evaluation Criteria Weighting (%) Score eae score x Score esultant score! score score x score x score x
x weighting ae x weighting oe ae Aare
weighting weighting weighting weighting
Capability and Innovation PF % | sv | 1438 18.75 1375 1.88 | 80 | 20.00
Economic Diversification and Employment Growth 13.50 16.25 12.50 18.25 10.00
Total Technical Score Pp 5% | 48.88 34.88 P3038 42.75 | 30.00
Normalised Technical Score (Tn)
. Boardrooms Australia |_. . . . Future Reality . .
PART B - Price element Digital Precinct Pty Ltd Elevate Media Services Pty Ltd Little Tokyo Two Lyn Allen Consulting
Financial Structure & Council ROI 35% $3,747,385 $3,851,943 $3,307,927 $3,774,339 $3,110,650 so
Average Fees (Pav) $.......sccssscssseeseees $3,558,449
Price Score 95 92 107 94 113 0
Normalised Price Score (Pn) 84 81 95 83 100 0
Weighted Price Score (Pw)
Total Score of price and non price elements
Contract Administrator & Assesment Panel Member 1 Economic Development Manager
Assesment Panel Member 2 Director Community Services
Assesment Panel Member 3 Director Corporate Services
Assesment Panel Member 4 External Subject Matter Expert
| The Contract Administrator confirms the above scores and weightings of this evaluation | |
Page 36 of 36